וְרַב זְבִיד אָמַר אֵין בָּנִים בְּלֹא סִימָנִים וְנִבְדּוֹק חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא נָשְׁרוּ הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חוֹשְׁשִׁין § And Rav Zevid said: There are no children without signs of puberty. In other words, if a girl gives birth, she definitely possesses the signs of puberty. The Gemara asks: But if so, let us examine to see whether these physical signs are present, so that there is no need to depend on a presumption. The Gemara answers: We are concerned lest the hairs that constitute the sign have fallen off. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who said that in general we are concerned lest signs fall off, i.e., that there are cases in which she is in fact mature but the hairs have come off.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם צַעַר לֵידָה חָיְישִׁינַן However, according to the one who said that if there are in fact hairs they will certainly be found, and we are not concerned that they may have fallen out, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who said that in ordinary circumstances we are not concerned that the hairs may have fallen out, in this case, due to the pain of childbirth we are concerned that they might have fallen out, and therefore it is impossible to examine the matter conclusively.
כֵּיצַד פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְכוּ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר קְרָא לִצְרוֹר הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְּתָה צָרוֹת הַרְבֵּה § The Gemara returns to the mishna: How do they exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives? The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that not only is a rival wife exempt but the rival wife of a rival wife is exempt as well, derived? Rav Yehuda said that this is as the verse states: “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival [litzror] to her” (Leviticus 18:18). The term litzror is written, with the letter reish appearing twice, rather than latzor, with a single reish, which means that the Torah amplified and included many rival wives. In other words, this verse includes not only the rival wife of a forbidden relative, but also the rival wife of a rival wife.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר סְבָרָא הִיא צָרָה מַאי טַעְמָא אֲסִירָא דְּבִמְקוֹם עֶרְוָה קָיְימָא צָרַת צָרָה נָמֵי בִּמְקוֹם עֶרְוָה קַיְימָא Rav Ashi said: It is a logical inference, which does not require a source from the Torah. What is the reason that a rival wife of a forbidden relative is prohibited? The reason is that she stands in place of a forbidden relative. Since the forbidden relative caused her exemption from levirate marriage, she too is considered a forbidden relative who remains categorized as a brother’s wife. Therefore, the rival wife of a rival wife also stands in place of a forbidden relative, as she is like the rival wife of a forbidden relative and is therefore forbidden herself.
כֵּיצַד אִם מֵתוּ הֵן כּוּ׳ וַאֲפִילּוּ כָּנַס וּלְבַסּוֹף גֵּירַשׁ § The mishna taught: How so? If the forbidden relative died, performed refusal, or was divorced, from that moment onward their rival wives are no longer considered the rival wives of a forbidden relative and are permitted. The Gemara remarks: This legal ruling with regard to a divorce is presented as a general principle and is therefore correct even if at the time that the deceased brother married the rival wife he was married to the forbidden relative, and ultimately divorced the relative, which means that for a period of time the women were rival wives. Even under these circumstances the prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relative does not apply, and she is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.
וּרְמִינְהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִים שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִים שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְאֶחָד נָשׂוּי נׇכְרִית גֵּירַשׁ אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי אֲחָיוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמֵת הַנָּשׂוּי נׇכְרִית וּכְנָסָהּ הַמְגָרֵשׁ וָמֵת זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁאִם מֵתוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (30a), which discusses three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters and one is married to an unrelated woman. One of the husbands of the sisters subsequently divorced his wife, and the one who was married to the unrelated woman died, and the one who divorced his wife married the yevama by levirate marriage and afterward died as well, which means that this yevama once again came for levirate marriage before the remaining brother, who was married to one of the sisters. It is with regard to this case that they said that if they died or were divorced their rival wives are permitted. This concludes the mishna.
טַעְמָא דְּגֵירַשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּנַס אֲבָל כָּנַס וְאַחַר כָּךְ גֵּירַשׁ לָא The Gemara infers from this mishna: The reason she is permitted is that the yavam first divorced the sister and only afterward married the unrelated woman. In this case, the unrelated woman was never actually the rival wife of a sister, despite the fact that they were, at different times, married to the same man. However, if the yavam first married the unrelated woman and afterward divorced the sister, she would not be permitted to enter into levirate marriage because for a period of time she had been the rival wife of a forbidden relative.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה תַּבְרָא מִי שֶׁשָּׁנָה זוֹ לֹא שָׁנָה זוֹ הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר מִיתָה מַפֶּלֶת These two mishnayot apparently contradict each other. Rabbi Yirmeya said: This mishna is disjointed, i.e., the mishnayot are truly incompatible, and the tanna who taught this halakha did not teach that halakha. The reason for the difference in opinions is that this tanna, of the mishna here, maintains that death causes her to come before him for levirate marriage. In other words, the decisive moment that determines the obligation in or exemption from levirate marriage is the moment of the childless brother’s death. Since in the case of the mishna here she was not the rival wife of a forbidden relative at the time of his death, the prohibition does not apply to her.
וְהַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר נִשּׂוּאִין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מַפִּילִים And that tanna of the mishna dealing with three brothers maintains that the first marriage causes her to come before him for levirate marriage. In other words, the levirate bond is established at the time of the marriage, and since the second wife was the rival wife of a forbidden relative for at least a brief period, her exemption from levirate marriage was determined then.
רָבָא אָמַר לְעוֹלָם חַד תַּנָּא הוּא וְזוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר זוֹ קָתָנֵי Rava said: Actually, both mishnayot represent the opinion of a single tanna, but he teaches the mishna employing the style: This and it is unnecessary to say that. In other words, the mishna here is referring to a case where he first married and later divorced, while the mishna that deals with three brothers is speaking of a simpler, more obvious case, in which he first divorced and later married the second wife. In that case she is certainly permitted. Accordingly, there is no real contradiction here between the mishnayot, as they utilize different styles of teaching.
וְכֹל שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וּתְמָאֵן הַשְׁתָּא וְתִתְיַיבֵּם לֵימָא מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא § The mishna taught: And if any of these forbidden relatives was a minor who could refuse her husband, then even if she did not refuse him, her rival wife performs ḥalitza and does not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: And let the minor perform refusal now, thereby annulling the marriage retroactively after the death of her husband, and let her rival wife enter into levirate marriage. Since this option is not accepted, let us say that it supports the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא מְמָאֶנֶת לְמַאֲמָרוֹ וְאֵינָהּ מְמָאֶנֶת לְזִיקָּתוֹ As Rabbi Oshaya said: A yevama who is a minor can refuse the levirate betrothal of the yavam. In other words, if he betrothed her she is free to say that she does not desire to marry him, a declaration that severs any connection between them. But she cannot refuse his bond. Provided that he has not performed a levirate betrothal, this minor yevama cannot annul the ties between them by a refusal, as theirs is not a bond of marriage, and the institution of refusal was established only with regard to marriage. According to this opinion, it is evident that a minor yevama who is a forbidden relative cannot perform refusal so as to enable her rival wife to enter levirate marriage.
לָא צָרַת עֶרְוָה שָׁאנֵי דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל מֵיאֲנָה בַּבַּעַל מוּתֶּרֶת לְאָבִיו מֵיאֲנָה בְּיָבָם אֲסוּרָה לְאָבִיו The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is possible that a minor yevama can indeed refuse a levirate bond, but the rival wife of a forbidden relative is different, as she is not permitted in levirate marriage even if the forbidden relative herself can perform refusal. Why? As Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught in a baraita: If she refused the husband, thereby annulling the marriage, she is permitted to his father, as the marriage bond was entirely nullified retroactively and she is not considered his daughter-in-law at all. If, however, she refused only the yavam, she is forbidden to his father.
אַלְמָא מִשְּׁעַת נְפִילָה נִרְאֵית כְּכַלָּתוֹ הָכָא נָמֵי מִשְּׁעַת נְפִילָה נִרְאֵית כְּצָרַת בִּתּוֹ Apparently, the reason is that at the moment of her coming before him for levirate marriage she had the appearance of his daughter-in-law. Since people will think she is his daughter-in-law, she is forbidden to the father. Here, too, at the moment of her coming before him for levirate marriage she had the appearance of his daughter’s rival wife. Consequently, the Sages did not permit her to enter into levirate marriage even if the other wife refuses the husband.
מַתְנִי׳ שֵׁשׁ עֲרָיוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת מֵאֵלּוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנְּשׂוּאוֹת לַאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת MISHNA: Six women with whom relations are forbidden who were not enumerated in the first mishna are forbidden by prohibitions that are more severe than those listed in that mishna because they may be married only to others and may never be married to any of the brothers, due to the closeness of their relationship. However, this stringency entails a corresponding leniency: Since the halakha of levirate marriage is entirely inapplicable in these cases, their rival wives are permitted. The rival wife of a forbidden relative is forbidden herself only if the mitzva of levirate marriage is applicable, but where it is not in effect she is permitted.
אִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו The six women with whom relations are forbidden are as follows: His mother, and his father’s wife, and his father’s sister, and his paternal half sister, and the wife of his father’s brother, and the wife of his paternal half brother. Each of these women with whom relations are forbidden is forbidden equally to all of the brothers, and the mitzva of levirate marriage is inapplicable. Therefore, her rival wife is permitted.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַתִּירִין הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִים וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִים § Up to this point, the discussions were based on the assumption that not only may a forbidden relative not enter into levirate marriage, but her rival wife is also exempt. However, this issue is subject to a long-standing dispute. Beit Shammai permit the rival wives to the brothers, as they did not accept the interpretation of the verses that indicates that rival wives are prohibited. And Beit Hillel forbid them. The previous mishnayot are in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.