מַתְנִי׳ בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ אָחִיו שֶׁהוּא בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד פּוֹסַל עַל יָדוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּסַל בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עַל צָרָתָהּ פָּסַל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּסַל MISHNA: 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. 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.
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לַחֲכָמִים אִם בִּיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה בִּיאָה בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּיה אֵינָהּ בִּיאָה וְאִם בִּיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינָהּ בִּיאָה בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּיה נָמֵי אֵינָהּ בִּיאָה GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: If the first sexual act of a nine-year-old is considered a proper act of sexual relations, then the second act is not an act of consequence, just as the intercourse of one adult yavam after that of another adult yavam is of no effect. And if you say that the first sexual act is not considered a sexual act, the second act of himself or his brother is also not a sexual act. However, the Rabbis maintain that as the intercourse of a nine-year-old is like a levirate betrothal, one sexual act can take effect after another.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּבֶן עַזַּאי דְּתַנְיָא בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ מַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין וִיבָמָה אַחַת The Gemara comments that according to this explanation, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of ben Azzai. As it is taught in a baraita that ben Azzai says: There is levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal in a case of two yevamin and one yevama. In other words, if they both performed levirate betrothal with her, their actions are effective and she is forbidden to them both. The reason is that she has ties to each of the two men, which means that each levirate betrothal is effective in forbidding the other man.
וְאֵין מַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר בִּשְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת וְיָבָם אֶחָד But there is no levirate betrothal after a levirate betrothal in a case of two yevamot and one yavam, as the yavam did not have a full-fledged levirate bond with both of them. Therefore, if he performs a levirate betrothal with one of them, he has completed the bond. In contrast, the conclusion of the mishna is that the sexual relations of a nine-year-old with two yevamot is effective, and as the intercourse of a boy of this age is considered like a levirate betrothal the tanna of the mishna evidently maintains that there is levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal even in a case of one yavam.
מַתְנִי׳ בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ וּמֵת חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וָמֵת הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּטוּרָה בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ וּמִשֶּׁהִגְדִּיל נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת וָמֵת אִם לֹא יָדַע אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מִשֶּׁהִגְדִּיל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת וְהַשְּׁנִיָּיה אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת MISHNA: 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. 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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מְיַיבֵּם לְאֵי זוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְחוֹלֵץ לַשְּׁנִיָּיה אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שֶׁהוּא בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת 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.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא הָא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן זִיקַּת שְׁנֵי יְבָמִין מִיחְלָץ חָלְצָה יַבּוֹמֵי לָא מִיַּבְּמָה לָא תֵּימָא הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא צָרָה דְּאִיכָּא לְמִגְזַר מִשּׁוּם צָרָה GEMARA: If a brother performed levirate betrothal with a yevama and died, she has a levirate bond in relation to the remaining brothers from two deceased brothers. Rava said: With regard to that which the Rabbis said, that when the bond of two yevamin exists, she performs ḥalitza and she does not enter into levirate marriage, you should not say that this applies only when there is a rival wife, as there is reason to decree due to a rival wife. The suggestion is that as the rival wife can enter into levirate marriage by Torah law, if the woman who performed levirate betrothal with the second brother was also permitted to enter into levirate marriage, people might mistakenly permit levirate marriage to two rival wives from the same family.
דְּהָא הָכָא לֵיכָּא צָרָה מִיחְלָץ חָלְצָה יַבּוֹמֵי לָא מִיַּבְּמָה The proof that this is not the case is that here, in the first clause of the mishna, there is no rival wife, as it is referring to one woman, which means that this yevama who had relations with the nine-year-old is tied by the bonds of both her first husband and the underage yavam, whose intercourse is like levirate betrothal, and even so she performs ḥalitza but she does not enter into levirate marriage.
נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וּמֵת כּוּ׳ תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ וּמֵתוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם § The mishna teaches that if a nine-year-old boy married a woman and died, she is exempt from levirate marriage and ḥalitza. The Gemara comments: We already learned this, as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecile and a minor who married women and died, their wives are exempt from ḥalitza and from levirate marriage, as the marriage of a minor or an imbecile is of no account.
בֶּן תֵּשַׁע וְכוּ׳ מִשֶּׁהִגְדִּיל וְכוּ׳ וְיַעֲשׂוּ בִּיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע כְּמַאֲמָר בַּגָּדוֹל וְתִדָּחֶה צָרָה מִיִּבּוּם אָמַר רַב לֹא עָשׂוּ בִּיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע כְּמַאֲמָר בַּגָּדוֹל וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר עָשׂוּ וְעָשׂוּ וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן עָשׂוּ וְעָשׂוּ § The mishna further teaches the case of a nine-year-old boy who had relations with his yevama and after he matured married another woman. The Gemara asks: And let the Sages at least establish the sexual relations of a nine-year-old to be like the levirate betrothal of an adult, and it would therefore override the requirement of the rival wife to enter into levirate marriage, in accordance with the halakha of the rival wife of a woman who has the bond of two yevamin. Rav said: They did not establish the intercourse of a nine-year-old to be like the levirate betrothal of an adult in all regards, and Shmuel said: They certainly did. And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They certainly did.
וְיַעֲשׂוּ תַּנָּאֵי הִיא הָךְ תַּנָּא דְּאַרְבָּעָה אַחִין גָּזַר מִשּׁוּם צָרָה If so, the question remains: And let them establish the sexual relations of a nine-year-old to be considered like levirate betrothal. Why is he able to perform levirate marriage with her rival wife? The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im. This tanna who discusses the case of four brothers, one of whom died, followed by the brother who performed levirate betrothal with the yevama (31b), he maintains that the yevama and her rival wife may not perform levirate marriage with one of the surviving brothers. The reason is that he maintains that the Sages decreed that a woman who has the bond of two deceased brothers may not perform levirate marriage due to a rival wife. They must both perform ḥalitza so that people will not say that two yevamot from one family can perform levirate marriage.
וְאַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּגָדוֹל וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּקָטָן וְהַאי דְּאָמַר גָּדוֹל מִשּׁוּם דִּבְגָדוֹל קָאֵי And that tanna taught us this halakha with regard to an adult brother who performed levirate marriage, and the same is true of a minor who had relations with her. And the reason that he stated the case of an adult in particular is because he was referring to an adult.
וְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּהָכָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ עָשׂוּ וְלָא גָּזַר מִשּׁוּם צָרָה וְאַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּקָטָן וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּגָדוֹל וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר בְּקָטָן דִּבְקָטָן קָאֵי And conversely, this tanna, of the mishna here, holds that they established the sexual relations of a minor entirely like the levirate betrothal of an adult, and he maintains that the Sages did not decree that a woman who has the bond of two deceased brothers may not perform levirate marriage due to the case of a rival wife. And he taught us this halakha with regard to a minor, and the same is true of an adult. And the reason that he stated the case of a minor in particular is because he was referring to a minor.
אֲזַל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֲמַר לִשְׁמַעְתָּא בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא וְלָא אַמְרַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שְׁמַע רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִיקְּפַד עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁל טְבֶרְיָא בְּנֶגֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ גְּלוֹסְטְרָא § Rabbi Elazar went and said this halakha in the study hall, but he did not state it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Instead, he issued the halakha without attribution. Rabbi Yoḥanan heard that Rabbi Elazar omitted mention of his name and became angry with him. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi visited Rabbi Yoḥanan, to placate him so that he would not be annoyed with his beloved disciple. They said to him: Wasn’t there an incident in the synagogue of Tiberias involving a bolt that secures a door in place and that has a thick knob [gelustera] at its end? The question was whether it may be moved on Shabbat as a vessel, or whether it is considered muktze as raw material.
שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בּוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי עַד שֶׁקָּרְעוּ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בַּחֲמָתָן קָרְעוּ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אֶלָּא אֵימָא שֶׁנִּקְרַע סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בַּחֲמָתָן וְהָיָה שָׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן קִיסְמָא אָמַר תָּמֵיהַּ אֲנִי אִם לֹא יִהְיֶה בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְכֵן הֲוָה And it was stated that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei argued over this case until they became so upset with each other that they tore a Torah scroll in their anger. The Gemara interrupts this account to clarify exactly what happened: Tore? Can it enter your mind that such great Sages would intentionally tear a Torah scroll? Rather, you must say that a Torah scroll was torn through their anger. In the heat of their debate they pulled the scroll from one side to another until it tore. And Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma, who was there at the time, said: I would be surprised if this synagogue does not become a place of idolatrous worship. This unfortunate event is a sign that this place is unsuitable for a synagogue. And indeed this eventually occurred.
הֲדַר אִיקְּפַד טְפֵי אֲמַר חַבְרוּתָא נָמֵי Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi cited this baraita to hint to Rabbi Yoḥanan how careful one must be to avoid anger. However, Rabbi Yoḥanan grew even angrier, saying: You are even making us colleagues now? Those two Sages were peers, whereas Rabbi Elazar is merely my student.
עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ כֵּן צִוָּה מֹשֶׁה אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכֵן עָשָׂה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֹא הֵסִיר דָּבָר מִכׇּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְכִי עַל כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאָמַר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָיָה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם כָּךְ אָמַר לִי מֹשֶׁה אֶלָּא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ סְתָם וְהַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין שֶׁתּוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה הִיא אַף רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר תַּלְמִידְךָ יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ סְתָם וְהַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין כִּי שֶׁלְּךָ הִיא Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi visited Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: The verse states: “As God commanded His servant Moses, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua, he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses” (Joshua 11:15). Now did Joshua, with regard to every matter that he said, say to the Jews: Thus Moses said to me? Rather, Joshua would sit and teach Torah without attributing his statements, and everyone would know that it was from the Torah of Moses. So too, your disciple Rabbi Elazar sits and teaches without attribution, and everyone knows that his teaching is from your instruction. Hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥanan was appeased.
אָמַר לָהֶם מִפְּנֵי מָה אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לְפַיֵּיס כְּבֶן אִידִי חֲבֵרֵינוּ וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי טַעְמָא קָפֵיד כּוּלֵּי הַאי דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב מַאי דִּכְתִיב אָגוּרָה בְּאׇהׇלְךָ עוֹלָמִים וְכִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְאָדָם לָגוּר בִּשְׁנֵי עוֹלָמִים אֶלָּא אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם יְהִי רָצוֹן Later, after calming down, he said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Why don’t you know how to appease me like our colleague ben Idi? The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason that he was so angry about this matter? The Gemara answers that this is as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I will dwell in Your tent in worlds” (Psalms 61:5), literally, forever? And is it possible for a person to live in two worlds simultaneously? Rather, David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let it be Your will