family-law Yevamot

MISHNA: 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.

MISHNA: In a case of four brothers married to four women and some of the brothers died childless, their wives thereby become yevamot. If the eldest of the brothers who survived wished to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot, he has permission to do so. In the case of one who was married to two women and died childless, the intercourse or ḥalitza of either one of the wives with the yavam releases her rival wife from the levirate bond, and the rival wife need not enter into levirate marriage or perform ḥalitza.

Rava said: This is what the baraita is saying: The first child is even fit to become a High Priest. And if she has a second child, he is treated as though he is definitely a mamzer due to the uncertainty concerning his status, and therefore he is permitted to marry a mamzeret, i.e., this tanna holds that even one whose status as a mamzer is uncertain is permitted to marry one who is definitely a mamzeret. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: He is not treated as though he is definitely a mamzer due to an uncertainty concerning his status; rather, his status as a mamzer is uncertain and he is treated accordingly, and therefore he is both prohibited from marrying an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage since he might be a mamzer, and he is also prohibited from marrying a mamzeret since he might not be a mamzer. The Gemara explains: And Abaye and Rava disagree with regard to whether the halakha is decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 74a): With regard to the prohibition against marrying people with certain types of flawed lineage, Rabbi Elazar said: The marriage of those people whose flawed lineage status is certain to those whose status is certain is permitted, but the marriage of those whose status is certain to those whose status is uncertain, and the marriage of those whose status is uncertain to those whose status is certain, and even the marriage of those whose status is uncertain to those whose status is uncertain, is prohibited. The mishna concludes: And these are those who are considered to have an uncertain status: A child of unknown paternity [shetuki], although his mother’s identity is known; and a foundling who was found abandoned in the streets; and a Samaritan [Kuti], who is possibly a mamzer since the Samaritans do not accept and abide by the halakhot of marriage. And with regard to this mishna Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. But when I said this halakha of Rav’s in the presence of Shmuel, he said to me: Hillel taught in a baraita that ten categories of lineage came up from Babylon to Eretz Yisrael: Priests; Levites; and Israelites; priests disqualified due to flawed lineage [ḥalallim]; converts; freed slaves; mamzerim; Gibeonites; shetukei; and foundlings. And it is permitted for all men and women in these categories to marry one another, i.e., the list is arranged such that the marriage between people in any two categories that are adjacent to one another is permitted. This is possible only if one assumes that it is permitted for one whose flawed lineage status is uncertain to marry one whose flawed lineage status is certain. After citing the baraita taught by Hillel, which assumes that it is permitted for one whose flawed lineage status is uncertain to marry one whose flawed lineage status is certain, Shmuel concluded: The halakha is certainly decided in accordance with the opinion of Hillel, and yet you, Rabbi Yehuda, said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, which states that a marriage between two people whose flawed lineage status is uncertain is prohibited; your ruling is incorrect. The Gemara proceeds to explain the dispute between Abaye and Rava: Abaye holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said that the halakha is decided in accordance with the opinion of Hillel that it is permitted for one whose flawed lineage status is uncertain to marry one whose flawed lineage status is certain. Therefore, Abaye establishes that opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov to be in accordance with this halakha, in order that there should not be a contradiction between one halakha, i.e., that the halakha is always decided in accordance with the opinion of Hillel, and another halakha, i.e., that the halakha is always decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Rava, however, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said: The halakha is decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that the marriage of those whose status is certain to those whose status is uncertain is prohibited. Therefore, Rava establishes that opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov to be in accordance with this halakha, so that there should not be a contradiction between

MISHNA: 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.

GEMARA: The mishna considers two cases in which there is no possibility of consummating levirate marriage with a yevama. In the first case the reason is that she is the sister of one’s ḥalutza, and in the second it is that she is the sister of one’s divorcée. The mishna appears to compare the two cases by introducing the second case with: And similarly. The Gemara questions this: What is the meaning of: And similarly? The two cases are not similar; in the first case the yevama must perform ḥalitza, and in the second she is entirely exempt from the need to do anything. The Gemara answers: Emend the mishna and say: However, one who divorces. The Gemara explains the reason for the difference between the two cases: Reish Lakish said: Here, through this mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught that a sister of one’s divorcée is forbidden to him by Torah law, and that is why she is entirely exempt, whereas a sister of a ḥalutza is forbidden to him only by rabbinic law, and therefore, since there is still a levirate bond between her and the yavam, she requires ḥalitza to release her from it.

The Sages taught in a baraita: If the priest who was married to an Israelite woman and died left children, both the slaves of usufruct property and the slaves of guaranteed investment may partake of teruma. The slaves of guaranteed investment are owned by the children, who are priests, and the slaves of usufruct property are owned by the woman, who partakes of teruma due to her children. If he left his wife pregnant and did not leave children, both these slaves and those slaves may not partake of teruma. If he left children and left her pregnant, the slaves of usufruct property who belong to her partake of teruma just as she partakes due to her children. However, the slaves of guaranteed investment, who are inherited by the children, may not partake, due to the fetus’s share, as it too inherits them, as a fetus can disqualify one from partaking of teruma but it cannot not enable one to partake. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: If the priest left behind a daughter, she enables the slaves to partake of teruma; however, a son does not enable them to partake. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: If among the priest’s children there are males, the slaves partake of teruma. But if they are all females, they do not partake, lest the fetus be found to be a male, and daughters do not receive any of the inheritance where there is a son. The male fetus would be the sole inheritor, and it does not enable slaves to partake of teruma.

MISHNA: 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. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to the statement that a brother of any kind causes his yevama to be required to perform levirate marriage, what additional case does this come to add? Rav Yehuda said: This adds the case of a mamzer, who, notwithstanding his status, is considered a brother. The Gemara wonders: But isn’t that obvious? He is his brother. The Gemara explains: This is necessary lest you say: Let us derive a verbal analogy between the word “brother” stated in the verse with regard to levirate marriage and “brother” stated with regard to the children of Jacob. Just as there, Jacob’s children are of unflawed lineage and not of flawed lineage and are not mamzerim, so too here, one might think that only brothers of unflawed lineage and not brothers of flawed lineage, i.e., mamzerim, obligate the yevama in levirate marriage. Therefore, this teaches us that a mamzer is considered a brother for the purposes of levirate marriage.

Where was Rabbi Meir’s opinion expressed? As it is taught in a baraita: A man may not marry a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man, nor a woman who is nursing the child of another man. And if he transgressed and married her, he is penalized for violating the prohibition, and he must divorce her with a bill of divorce, and he may never take her back; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He must send her out, and when the time comes in which it is permitted to marry her, i.e., after the child is weaned, he may then marry her again. Abaye said to him: From where do you deduce that they are of one opinion? Perhaps that is not so, as it is possible that Rabbi Eliezer states his ruling only here, in the case of a yavam who consummated a levirate marriage with his yevama while she was still pregnant, due to the fact that by doing so he risks the possibility that the offspring will be viable, in which case he encounters the Torah prohibition against engaging in relations with one’s brother’s wife. However, there, in the case where one married a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man, which is a rabbinic prohibition, it is possible that he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who argue with Rabbi Meir. Alternatively, it is also possible that Rabbi Meir states his ruling only there, in the case where one married a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man, due to the fact that doing so is a violation of a rabbinic prohibition, and therefore it is possible that this is one of the cases in which the Sages reinforced their pronouncements with greater severity than prohibitions of Torah law so that people would not treat them lightly. However, here, in the case of a yavam who consummated a levirate marriage with his yevama while she was still pregnant, where there was a risk of transgressing a prohibition written in the Torah, since people are generally careful to distance themselves from a Torah prohibition, there is no need to further penalize someone who nevertheless transgressed. Rava said: According to the statement of the Rabbis who dispute Rabbi Meir and require one who married a pregnant woman to send her out, the intention is that he must send her out with a bill of divorce and not merely separate from her. Mar Zutra said: The language the Rabbis used is also precise, as they teach: He must send her out, and they do not teach: He must separate himself from her. Conclude from here that Rava’s claim is correct.

The Gemara objects to this: But didn’t Rav Amram say: Rav Sheshet said this matter to us, and he lit our eyes by showing us that this ruling is indicated from what was stated in the mishna (Yevamot 53b). He said: The wife of an Israelite who was raped, even though she is permitted to return to her husband, she is nevertheless disqualified from the priesthood. If her husband later dies, she may not marry a priest, for although she is permitted to her husband the rape disqualified her for matters of priesthood.

As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that honoring one’s father and mother overrides Shabbat; therefore, the verse states: “You shall fear every man his mother and his father and you shall keep My Shabbatot, I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:3). The baraita explains the derivation from the verse: All of you, both parent and child, are obligated in My honor, and therefore honoring one’s parents does not override the honor of God, Who commanded the Jewish people to observe Shabbat.

§ The Sages taught: How is levirate betrothal performed? He gives her money or the equivalent value of money and declares: You are hereby betrothed to me. The Gemara asks: And with a document, how does he betroth her? The Gemara is puzzled by this question: With a document, how does he betroth her? It is as we have said by the halakhot of a regular document of betrothal: If he wrote to her on paper or on earthenware, even though it is not worth a peruta, the words: You are hereby betrothed to me, it is effective. As a document is not effective as a means of betrothal due to its monetary value but rather due to the words it contains, there is no requirement that it be of a minimum value. However, because the halakhot of betrothal by a document were already taught, the Gemara is puzzled as to the nature of this question. Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: With regard to the document of a marriage contract for levirate marriage, how is it written? Abaye understands that the question did not refer to the document of betrothal but rather to the marriage contract of a levirate marriage.

The Gemara asks: Is that so; is there really such a prohibition? But didn’t Rav, when he happened to come to Dardeshir, make a public announcement saying: Which woman will be my wife for the day, i.e., for the duration of his visit? Since his wife did not accompany him to Dardeshir, he wished to be married to another woman while he was there, in order to avoid a situation that could lead him to having forbidden thoughts. And also Rav Naḥman, when he happened to come to Shakhnetziv, made a public announcement saying: Which woman will be my wife for the day? It would appear, from the fact that both Sages married wives in two different places, that there is no prohibition in doing so.

§ The Gemara cites another discussion concerning women who are forbidden in levirate marriage. Rav Lili bar Memel said that Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: The rival wife of a girl who performed refusal is forbidden. If the deceased brother had two wives, one of whom was a minor who refused the brother who sought to be her yavam, not only is she forbidden in levirate marriage, but so too is her rival wife. The Gemara asks: To whom is she forbidden? If we say that she is forbidden to the other brothers, this cannot be the case, as now that she herself, the girl who actually performed refusal, is permitted to them, as Shmuel said: A minor yevama who refused this brother is permitted to that other brother of the deceased husband, is it necessary to state that her rival wife is likewise permitted? Rather, it means that she is forbidden to him, i.e., as she refused a specific brother, both she and her rival wife are forbidden to him. The Gemara clarifies: And in what way is this halakha of the rival wife different from that of one who performed refusal, who is permitted to the other brothers? If the reason is that she did not perform any act of refusal with them that might nullify the obligation of levirate marriage, her rival wife did not perform any act with them either, and therefore she should be permitted to all of the brothers. The Gemara answers: This is a rabbinic decree imposed due to the case of a rival wife of one’s daughter who performed refusal. If the girl who refused was his daughter or any other forbidden relative, her rival wife would be forbidden as the rival wife of one’s daughter. Therefore, the Sages rendered forbidden the rival wives of other women who performed refusal, not only his daughter. The Gemara asks: And is the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal actually forbidden? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And with regard to all of these women, if they died or performed refusal with their husbands, their rival wives are permitted. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Whom did this girl refuse? If we say that she refused the husband, i.e., the deceased brother before he passed away, this is exactly the same as the case of a divorcée, and the mishna explicitly states that if one’s relative who had been married to his deceased brother died, or refused her husband, or was divorced, no prohibition applies to her rival wife. What is the difference between refusal and divorce? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she refused the yavam? If she refuses the yavam, her levirate bond is broken and her rival wife is no longer considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative. Consequently, the rival wife is fit for levirate marriage. This shows that no prohibition applies to the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal. The Gemara answers: No; actually, it means that she refused the husband, and two types of divorce are listed in the mishna: Divorce by Torah law and refusal, which is a form of divorce that applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: And what is different between the two cases? Since refusal is not actually divorce but is a form of annulment that nullifies the matrimonial bond retroactively, when she refuses her husband it must be said that she uproots the marriage, and therefore the rival wife is rendered permitted. If so, when she refuses the yavam, one should also say that she uproots the first marriage. The reasoning is that she cannot actually refuse the yavam, as she was never married to him. Rather, it must be that she annuls her first marriage, and the bond with the yavam is canceled automatically. Consequently, it is as though she were not married at all, and there was never a rival wife. The Gemara explains that Shmuel’s reasoning is due to the statement that Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught in a baraita as Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught: If a minor refused her husband, she is permitted in marriage even to his father, as refusal completely nullifies the marriage, and it is as though there had never been any earlier marriage with the son. However, if she refused the yavam, not her husband, she is forbidden to his father.

MISHNA: One may testify that a man died only if he can testify about seeing the countenance [partzuf ] of the face with the nose, as this allows one to identify the individual with certainty. Although there are distinguishing marks [simanim] on his body and his personal belongings, which appear to indicate his identity, one may not rely on these as identification. Furthermore, one may not testify that a person died until his soul actually departs. And even if one saw him cut open and severely wounded, or crucified, or with a wild animal eating parts of him, he may not testify that he died. Additionally, one may testify to someone’s death only when the body was witnessed up to three days following death and not after that, since the appearance may change due to decomposition. Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: One cannot establish general guidelines for this matter because not every person, nor every place, nor every hour is identical. Decomposition is not uniform. It occurs at different rates in different situations. GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If the witnesses saw his forehead but not the countenance of the face, or if they saw the countenance of the face but not his forehead, they may not testify that it is he, until they see both of them with the nose. Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Kahana who said: What is the verse from which it is derived that one may testify that a man died only if one sees his face? The verse is: “The show of their face does witness against them” (Isaiah 3:9), which indicates that one clearly recognizes another only upon seeing his face. The Gemara relates that Abba bar Marta, who is also known as Abba bar Minyumi, had been loaned money by members of the Exilarch’s house. Since he did not want to be seen by these violent people, he brought wax [kira], stuck it to a strip of worn-out fabric, and stuck all of that to his forehead in order to alter his appearance. He passed before them and they did not recognize him [beshakru]. This shows how much a person’s face changes when the appearance of his forehead is altered.

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires about Rabbi Eliezer’s suggestion to instruct the minor to refuse: Is it permitted to instruct her to refuse? Doesn’t bar Kappara teach: A person should always cling to three things and distance himself from three things. He should cling to three things: To ḥalitza rather than levirate marriage, to bringing about peace, and to the nullification of vows. And he should distance himself from three things: From refusal; and from accepting deposits, as he is then responsible for them; and from serving as a guarantor. The Gemara answers: A refusal for a mitzva is different, as this refusal is performed to allow the mitzva of levirate marriage to be fulfilled with the other sister.

Returning to the question above: How could a woman who converted for the sake of a man be considered a true convert? The Gemara answers: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that baraita that Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that they are all converts. The Gemara asks: If so, why is one suspected of relations with such a woman not permitted to enter into marriage with her ab initio as well? The Gemara answers: The reason for the prohibition is due to the following statement of Rav Asi. As Rav Asi said with regard to such cases: “Put away from yourself a twisted mouth, and perverse lips put far from you” (Proverbs 4:24). If they were to marry, they would give substance to the prior suspicions. The Sages taught: Converts are not accepted in the days of the Messiah. Similarly, they did not accept converts in the days of King David or in the days of King Solomon. Rabbi Eliezer said: What is the verse that hints at this halakha? “Behold, they may gather together [gor yagur], but without Me; whosoever shall gather together [gar] with you shall fall on yours” (Isaiah 54:15). The word gor implies that only a convert [ger] who becomes part of the Jewish people when the Jews are living in exile, at a time when God is not clearly revealed, i.e., “without Me,” are considered part of the Jewish people. But another who wishes to convert in a time when God is clearly revealed shall not be accepted.

If a woman vows during her husband’s lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform ḥalitza with her as it is forbidden for her to engage in sexual intercourse with him to consummate the levirate marriage. If she vowed after the death of her husband to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court asks him to perform ḥalitza with her. And if she intended to do so, i.e., she had an ulterior motive of avoiding levirate marriage when she vowed, even if she made the vow during her husband’s lifetime, the court merely asks him to perform ḥalitza with her.

MISHNA: In the case of one who performs ḥalitza with his yevama, by rabbinic decree it is as though she had been married to him and then he divorced her. Consequently, he is forbidden to engage in relations with her relatives and she is forbidden to engage in relations with his relatives.

The Sages taught: If a woman was married to her first husband and she did not have children, and then she was married to her second husband and she did not have children, she may not get married to a third husband unless it is to one who already has children and has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, as it is presumed that she is unable to have children. If she got married to one who does not have children and he had been unaware of her presumptive status, she is divorced without receiving payment for her marriage contract, as he married her erroneously.

Rav Yehuda continued his recounting: When I said this halakha, that there is a concern about the betrothal of gentiles nowadays, before Shmuel, he said to me: One need not worry about this, as your son from a Jewish woman is called your son, i.e., he inherits his lineage from you, and your son from a gentile woman is not called your son, but rather her son. Consequently, all children born to Jews from gentile women are not considered Jews, as their lineage is determined by their gentile mothers.

Rather, the case in the first mishna cited above is that he was jealous of her and warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and she secluded herself with that man, and her husband causes her to drink when she is already married. However, in that case do the waters examine her? Isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity” (Numbers 5:31), that when the man is clear of iniquity the waters examine his wife, but if the man is not clear of iniquity the waters do not examine his wife? By secluding herself with the other man when she was betrothed, the woman rendered herself forbidden to her husband. If he then married her, he cannot be described as clear of iniquity, and therefore the sota waters are ineffective. Rather, it must be that he was jealous of her when she was betrothed, and she secluded herself with the other man anyway, and she had entered the wedding canopy but did not yet have intercourse with her husband when he brought her to the priest. Consequently, she is made to drink the sota waters as a married woman, and her husband has not committed a transgression, as he has not had intercourse with her. Learn from this that there is significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest, as demonstrated by the fact that the sota waters will examine her in these circumstances. Rava said: Do you hold that this baraita is sufficiently accurate to rely upon? But when Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina came from the South, he came with this baraita in hand: The verse states with regard to the oath of the sota: “And some man has lain with you besides your husband” (Numbers 5:20), which indicates that it applies only when the cohabitation of the husband preceded that of the adulterer, but not when the cohabitation of the adulterer preceded that of the husband. Consequently, in the case under discussion, drinking the sota waters would not be effective. Rami bar Ḥama said: You find it in a case such as where her betrothed had intercourse with her licentiously when she was a betrothed woman in her father’s house. Since the act of intercourse was committed licentiously rather than for the purpose of consummating the marriage, the woman is still considered betrothed. Subsequently, her betrothed warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man, and she disobeyed. Then, they entered the wedding canopy together, despite the fact that they are forbidden to one another. Once they entered the wedding canopy, the woman can be made to drink the bitter waters. This proves that there is significance to entering the wedding canopy with a woman that is unfit for one to marry. The Gemara asks: If so, in the corresponding case with regard to a widow waiting for her yavam, in which the yavam had licentious intercourse with her in her father-in-law’s house,

MISHNA: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard two rulings from my teachers. One ruling is that a eunuch performs ḥalitza with his yevama, and his brothers perform ḥalitza with his wife, and the other ruling is that a eunuch does not perform ḥalitza with his yevama, and his brothers do not perform ḥalitza with his wife. And I cannot explain these two rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies. Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain. A eunuch caused by man, i.e., one who became emasculated after birth, performs ḥalitza with his yevama and his brothers perform ḥalitza with his wife, because he had an hour of fitness, a time when he was fertile. On the other hand, a eunuch by natural causes, i.e., who was entirely lacking in sexual capacity from birth, does not perform ḥalitza with his yevama and his brothers do not perform ḥalitza with his wife, because he did not have an hour of fitness, as he never had the potential to father children. Rabbi Eliezer says: No; rather, the opposite is the case: A eunuch by natural causes performs ḥalitza with his yevama and his brothers perform ḥalitza with his wife because he can be cured, whereas a eunuch caused by man does not perform ḥalitza with his yevama and his brothers do not perform ḥalitza with his wife because he cannot be cured. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified about a man named ben Megusat, who lived in Jerusalem and was a eunuch caused by man, that his brothers nevertheless entered into levirate marriage with his wife, in order to fulfill and confirm the statement of Rabbi Akiva. A sexually underdeveloped man does not perform ḥalitza or enter into levirate marriage with his yevama. And similarly, a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, does not perform ḥalitza or enter into levirate marriage with her yavam. If a sexually underdeveloped man performed ḥalitza with his yevama, he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as his ḥalitza is invalid. However, if he had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her. This is because it is considered licentious sexual intercourse, since such intercourse does not fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage and is therefore categorized as forbidden relations with one’s sister-in-law. And similarly, with regard to a sexually underdeveloped woman, if one of the brothers performed ḥalitza with her he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. However, if he had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her because the intercourse is considered licentious sexual intercourse. GEMARA: Now, we learned that Rabbi Akiva said: Those liable for violating a prohibition are like those liable to receive karet with regard to the validity of their marriage and all its ramifications, and those liable to receive karet are not eligible to perform ḥalitza or levirate marriage. A eunuch caused by man has the status of a man with crushed testicles, and is therefore prohibited by a standard negative mitzva from marrying a Jewish woman. If he violated the prohibition and married her, his marriage is invalid according to Rabbi Akiva, just as if he had married a woman who is forbidden to him by a prohibition punishable by karet. Why, then, should his ḥalitza be valid? Rabbi Ami said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the eunuch’s brother had married a convert, and Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation of the Lord. Consequently, it is permitted even for those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation, e.g., a eunuch, to marry converts. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the eunuch should also be able to perform levirate marriage with the convert. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, but since Rabbi Yehoshua said that a eunuch performs ḥalitza with his yevama, Rabbi Akiva as well said that he performs ḥalitza with her, while in fact he may enter into levirate marriage with her if he so chooses. The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise in this regard, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified about a man named ben Megusat, who lived in Jerusalem and was a eunuch caused by man, that his brothers entered into levirate marriage with his wife, to fulfill the statement of Rabbi Akiva. This indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, not only ḥalitza but even levirate marriage is permitted. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that this is the correct understanding of the mishna. Rabba raised an objection from the following baraita: A man with crushed testicles, and one whose penis has been severed, and a eunuch caused by man, and an elderly man who is no longer capable of fathering children, may either perform ḥalitza or enter into levirate marriage. The baraita clarifies the matter: How so? If these men died and they had wives and they also had brothers, and the brothers proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed ḥalitza with them, what they did is done, i.e., it is a valid act. And if the brothers had intercourse with the wives, they acquired them in levirate marriage, like any other yevama.

Abaye said: From where do I say my reasoning that there might be another man with the same name? As a certain bill of divorce was found in the city of Neharde’a, and this passage was written on it: On the colonial [kelonya] side of the city, I, Androlinai of Neharde’a, excused, sent away, and divorced my wife so-and-so. Androlinai’s wife requested permission to remarry based on this bill of divorce, but they did not know if he was the man who gave the divorce or if it was given by another man of the same name. And the father of Shmuel sent this question before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia in Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent a message to him: All of Neharde’a must be examined, to see whether there is another man by that name. This shows that one must be concerned that there might be two people with the same name.

Although there is no explicit proof for the matter that one must take another wife if he has not had children after ten years of marriage, there is an allusion to the matter, as the verse states: “And Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar…after Abram had dwelled ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife” (Genesis 16:3). Incidentally, this verse also comes to teach you that the years spent dwelling outside of Eretz Yisrael do not count as part of his tally. Consequently, if he was sick during this period or she was sick, or if one of the two of them was imprisoned in jail, it does not count as part of his tally.

MISHNA: In the case of four brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and the ones married to the sisters died, then those sisters must perform ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage. Since both sisters require levirate marriage with each of the surviving brothers, a levirate bond exists between each sister and the brothers. Each of them is considered the sister of a woman with whom each brother has a levirate bond and is therefore forbidden to him by rabbinic law. And if they married the sisters before consulting the court, they should divorce them, for the Sages decreed that in this situation they may not remain married. Rabbi Eliezer says that there is a dispute in this matter: Beit Shammai say: He may maintain her as his wife, while Beit Hillel say: They must divorce them. If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relations because she was a relative of his wife or a relative on his mother’s side, then he is forbidden to marry her but permitted to marry her sister. Because she is his close relative, she is exempt from levirate marriage with him, and therefore she is not bound to him with a levirate bond. Consequently, her sister is not considered the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond, and he is permitted to enter into levirate marriage with her. But the second brother, who is not a close relative of either sister, is forbidden to marry both of them. Indeed, for him each woman remains the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. If a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or a prohibition stemming from sanctity will be transgressed when one of the women marries one of the brothers, then her sister must perform ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as she is considered the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. In this case, the sister who is forbidden to the brother due to a mitzva or due to sanctity is bound to the brother for the purpose of ḥalitza. If one of those women was forbidden to this one brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relations and the second woman was forbidden to that second brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relations, then she who is forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother, and she who is forbidden to that brother is permitted to this one. And this is the case that was referred to when they said: When her sister is also her yevama, i.e., in a case where two sisters are also yevamot and therefore happened for levirate marriage before two brothers, she either performs ḥalitza or enters into levirate marriage. This must be referring to a case where each sister is forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition concerning forbidden relatives. In this case, each sister has a levirate bond only with the one brother to whom she is permitted, and the prohibition against marrying the sister of a woman with whom one has a levirate bond does not apply. Therefore, each brother can either perform the act of ḥalitza or consummate the levirate marriage with the sister to whom he is not related. GEMARA: The Gemara deduces from the halakha cited in the mishna: Conclude from here that the levirate bond is substantial. That is, the very obligation of levirate marriage creates a bond that is similar to marriage. For if the levirate bond were not substantial, why would these two women not enter into levirate marriage? After all, these two women come from two households, as each had a different husband, and they both require levirate marriage. Let this brother consummate the levirate marriage with one sister and let that brother consummate the levirate marriage with the other sister. The fact that the mishna requires ḥalitza in this situation indicates that the levirate bond is substantial and resembles marriage to the extent that each sister is forbidden to each brother due to the prohibition against marrying the sister of a woman to whom one has a levirate bond. The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I could say to you that according to this tanna the levirate bond is not substantial, and yet they are prohibited from entering levirate marriage for a different reason. It is because the tanna holds that it is prohibited to negate the mitzva of levirate marriage. It is prohibited to act in a way that would lead to a situation where the mitzva to perform levirate marriage is negated. How would this situation arise? Perhaps before one brother consummates the levirate marriage, the other brother dies, and only one brother remains. In that case, the second sister would also happen before him for levirate marriage, and by performing levirate marriage with one sister he would thereby negate the mitzva of levirate marriage with the other sister. When the remaining brother marries one of the sisters, the mitzva to enter into levirate marriage or perform ḥalitza is automatically negated from the second sister, as she is then forbidden to him as his wife’s sister. The Gemara asks: If so, if this is the rationale behind the ruling in the mishna, then the same concern would exist if there were three brothers, as well. Why did the mishna specify four brothers? It could have cited the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters. In these circumstances, the concern for negating the mitzva of levirate marriage also exists. The Gemara answers: Indeed, the ruling would be the same in that case. However, the mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to specify that the women must perform ḥalitza in a case involving three brothers, as certainly the mitzva of levirate marriage is negated with one of the sisters when the yavam marries the other sister. But in the case of four brothers, where there is concern only over the possibility that one of the brothers might die, we might have said that we are not concerned over the possibility of the death of a brother and therefore allow the brothers to consummate the levirate marriage. The mishna therefore teaches us that even in the case where there is concern only for the negation of the mitzva, they must perform ḥalitza and not consummate the levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if we are concerned over the possibility that the remaining brother might die,

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. § 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. § 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.

The Gemara summarizes: The halakha is that a nursing mother needs to wait twenty-four months, excluding the day on which the baby was born and excluding the day on which she is betrothed. And if she was widowed but was not nursing, then she needs to wait only three months, excluding the day on which her previous husband died and excluding the day on which she is betrothed.

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from another baraita: Grandchildren are considered like children. If one of a man’s children died or was discovered to be a eunuch, the father has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. This directly contradicts Rav Huna’s statement that one fulfills the mitzva even if his children die. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is indeed a conclusive refutation. § It was taught in the baraita that grandchildren are considered like children. Abaye thought to say that if one’s children die, he fulfills the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply through grandchildren, provided a son was born to his son and a daughter to his daughter, and all the more so if a son was born to his daughter, as his grandchildren take the place of his children in these cases. However, if a daughter was born to his son, no, she cannot take the place of her father. Rava said to him: We require merely fulfillment of the verse: “He formed it to be inhabited,” and there is fulfillment in this case, as the earth is inhabited by his descendants. The Gemara comments: In any event, everyone agrees that if one has two grandchildren from one child, no, he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, even if he has both a grandson and a granddaughter. The Gemara asks: And has he not? Didn’t the Rabbis say to Rav Sheshet: Marry a woman and have sons, as you have not yet fathered any sons, and Rav Sheshet said to them: The sons of my daughter are my sons? This indicates that one can fulfill the mitzva through grandchildren even if he did not have a son and daughter of his own.

GEMARA: Rami bar Ḥama said: What is the difference between the case of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, that the Sages enacted rabbinic marriage for them despite their condition, and the case of an imbecilic man and an imbecilic woman, that the Sages did not enact marriage for them? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecilic man and a minor who married women and died, their wives are exempt from ḥalitza and from levirate marriage. This indicates that the marriages of an imbecile and a minor are of no significance. The Gemara explains: In the case of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, where the ordinance of the Sages can be fulfilled, i.e., these marriages can be maintained, the Sages enacted marriage for them. By contrast, with regard to an imbecilic man and an imbecilic woman, where the ordinance of the Sages cannot be fulfilled, as one cannot live with an imbecilic partner, in accordance with the well-known saying: A person cannot reside in a basket, i.e., in close quarters, with a snake, the Sages did not enact marriage for them. The Gemara asks: And what is the difference between a minor, that the Sages did not enact marriage for him, and a deaf-mute, that the Sages did enact marriage for him? The Gemara explains: In the case of a deaf-mute, as he will not reach the stage of eligibility for marriage by Torah law, the Sages enacted marriage for him. Conversely, with regard to a minor, as he will eventually reach the stage of eligibility for marriage by Torah law when he matures, the Sages did not enact marriage for him. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of a minor girl, who will reach the stage of eligibility for marriage by Torah law someday, and yet the Sages enacted marriage for her, as her mother and brothers may marry her off by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: There the Sages issued their decree for a different reason, so that people should not treat her in the manner of ownerless property. If she marries, her husband will watch over her; if not, she might be treated disrespectfully. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between a minor girl, that she may perform refusal, i.e., she can retroactively nullify her marriage by means of a declaration of refusal of her husband, and a female deaf-mute, that she cannot perform refusal, as the Sages did not establish the option of refusal in her case? Since the marriage of a deaf-mute woman also applies by rabbinic law, why didn’t the Sages establish refusal in her case as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that if so, i.e., had the Sages enacted refusal for a female deaf-mute,

The Gemara identifies the aforementioned halakhot. Marriage is referring to that which we said with regard to a woman whose husbands have died. The case of lashings is as we learned in a mishna (Nidda 63b): One who was flogged for transgressing a Torah law, and repeated the same transgression and was flogged again, if he then repeats the sin a third time, the court places him in a narrow, vaulted chamber and they feed him barley until his stomach bursts. Once he has sinned and been flogged twice he has established a presumption of wickedness, and when he sins again he is caused to die so that he will not continue to sin. The case of set patterns of menstrual bleeding is as we learned in a mishna (Nidda 63b): A woman does not

The Gemara explains the proof from this source: And here it is a case where by Torah law, the bill of divorce is nullified, and yet due to the reason of: What good is the power of the court, his nullification is ineffective, which means that we permit a married woman to all men. The Gemara answers: The halakhot of marriage afford no proof, as with regard to one who betroths a woman, he betroths on the authorization of the Sages, and in this case the Sages nullified the betrothal, which they can do because their consent was required for the betrothal to be effective in the first place.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile and the slave does not wish to be circumcised, he abides with him up to twelve months. If, after this period, he will still not be circumcised, he then sells him on to gentiles. The Sages said this halakha before Rav Pappa and asked: In accordance with whose opinion is it? It seems that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn’t he say: One may not maintain an uncircumcised slave even for a moment? Rav Pappa said to them: You can even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since perhaps that halakha of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi applies only where the slave did not make his refusal to be circumcised explicit; however, where he did make his refusal to be circumcised explicit, since he has made it explicit, it is prohibited to maintain him, as Rabbi Akiva rules. Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid from Neharde’a. He said to me: If so, that Rabbi Akiva agrees that one may temporarily maintain a slave who has not explicitly refused to be circumcised, then when Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yishmael that the verse with regard to an uncircumcised slave is referring to one who purchases a slave at twilight on the eve of Shabbat, let him instead answer him that the verse is referring to this case of a slave who has not explicitly refused to be circumcised. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Akiva said only one out of two possible reasons why it would be permitted to be in possession of such a slave. Ravin sent a message citing a halakha in the name of Rabbi Ilai: And all of my teachers said to me in his name: What is the case of an uncircumcised slave whom it is permitted to maintain? This is one whose master purchased him on condition not to circumcise him. The Sages said this halakha before Rav Pappa and asked: In accordance with whose opinion is it? It seems that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn’t he say: One may not maintain an uncircumcised slave even for a moment? Rav Pappa said to them: You can even say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since perhaps that ruling of Rabbi Akiva applies only where the master did not make a condition with regard to the slave that he would not be circumcised; however, where he did make such a condition, since he made a condition, even Rabbi Akiva would concede it is permitted to maintain him.

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who did not wait three months after separating from her husband, and remarried and gave birth to a son, and it is not known if he was born after nine months of pregnancy to the former husband or if he was born after seven months to the latter husband, if she had sons of certain patrilineage from the first husband and sons of certain patrilineage from the second one, and the son of uncertain patrilineage married and died childless, then the brothers from both husbands must perform ḥalitza with his wife, as they might be his paternal brothers. But they may not perform levirate marriage with her, in case he is only their maternal half brother, and his wife is forbidden to them. And similarly, with regard to him and their wives, if one of them dies childless, he performs ḥalitza and not levirate marriage.

Although one who is considered a robber according to the words of the Sages is unfit for other forms of testimony, he is fit as a witness for testimony that a woman’s husband died. A robber according to Torah law is unfit as a witness even for testimony that a woman’s husband has died. Should we say that what Rav Menashe said is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Yehuda said in the mishna that one who is considered absolutely wicked because he admitted that he is a murderer is unfit for testifying to the death of a husband, but one who was merely present among a gang of murderers is not. The Gemara rejects this: Rav Menashe could have said to you: I am speaking even according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Although the Rabbis did not allow one who was wicked by Torah law to testify for a woman, a witness who admitted: I killed him, is nevertheless believed. And the rationale of the Rabbis here is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava disputed Rav Yosef’s opinion and said: Even if one said that he was willingly sodomized by this man, he is not believed concerning his own actions, because a person is his own relative. Consequently, he may not testify about himself, just as the testimony of any relative is disqualified. And furthermore, a person does not make himself wicked. His testimony with regard to his own actions is inadmissible because he is his own relative, but his testimony is accepted both to put a sodomizer to death or to render it permitted for a woman to remarry by saying that he killed her husband.

Or perhaps go this way and compare a father’s sister and a mother’s sister to a different halakha: The Torah rendered him liable here and rendered him liable with his aunt, i.e., the wife of his father’s brother: Just as concerning his aunt, he is liable to receive punishment only with regard to the wife of his father’s brother from his father, i.e., the wife of his father’s paternal brother, and not for the wife of his father’s brother from his mother, i.e., the wife of his father’s maternal brother, so too here, he is liable only with regard to a father’s sister or a mother’s sister from their father, i.e., a paternal sister, and not from their mother, a maternal sister.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna’s wording that if he already has children he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but he may not neglect the mitzva to have a wife. This supports what Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even if a man has several children, it is prohibited to remain without a wife, as it is stated: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). And some say a different version of the inference from the mishna: If he already has children, he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply and he may also neglect the mitzva to have a wife. Shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of what Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said? The Gemara responds: No, it means that if he does not have children he must marry a woman capable of bearing children, whereas if he has children he may marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. A practical difference between a man who has children and one who does not is whether he is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a woman capable of having children. This is permitted only for one who does not yet have children.

The Gemara asks: Can a child born during the eighth month of pregnancy survive? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A child born during the eighth month is like a stone with regard to the halakhot of set-aside [muktze] on Shabbat, and therefore it is prohibited to move him on Shabbat, as it may be presumed that he is not viable at all. However, his mother may bend over him and nurse him,

§ The Sages taught: One who loves his wife as he loves himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time when they reach maturity, about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace. As a result of his actions, there will be peace in his home, as it will be devoid of quarrel and sin. One who loves his neighbors, and who draws his relatives close, and who marries the daughter of his sister, a woman he knows and is fond of as a family relative and not only as a wife,

And the Rabbis say: Both this one and that one, i.e., whether she had been fully married or merely betrothed to another, she is forbidden to her first husband. Rather, how do I establish the phrase: “After she was defiled”? This verse does not refer at all to the case of a woman who married another man lawfully, as she is not called “defiled.” Rather, it comes to include a sota who secluded herself with another man, as she is forbidden to her husband due to the concern that she might have committed adultery. This baraita shows that a sota is termed “defiled,” despite the fact that hers is an uncertain case. The Gemara rejects this argument: And what does: Secluded herself, mean in this context? It means that she had actually engaged in relations. And why does the baraita call this: Secluded herself, instead of the more straightforward: Engaged in sexual relations? The baraita employed a euphemistic expression, but it actually means that she engaged in intercourse. The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a woman who had engaged in relations, the term defilement is already explicitly written with regard to her, in the chapter that deals with a sota. Why is it necessary to derive that she is defiled from a different source, as in the context of a sota herself the verse states: “She being defiled secretly” (Numbers 5:13)? The Gemara explains that “may not take her again to be his wife after she was defiled” does not teach that she is called “defiled,” but rather that the halakha establishes upon her a prohibition. In other words, if the husband engages in relations with his wife after she had had intercourse with another, he transgresses a prohibition. And the Gemara comments that Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar does not hold the opinion that there is a prohibition in the case of a sota, as he maintains that a husband who has relations with his sota wife does not transgress any prohibition at all, and the same is true even if she definitely fornicated with another man.

was empty, and now her body is full with the child, and therefore she is no longer “as in her youth.” But in a situation where “she has no child,” when at the outset her body was empty and now her body is also empty, as she has given birth, you might say that she should not be disqualified. Therefore, it is necessary to write both verses. Parenthetically, the Gemara lists terms signifying the following discussions, to serve as a mnemonic device: Said to him, we should not make, by death, we should make and not make, by a child, yavam and teruma, levirate marriage and teruma. This list of terms, taken from the introductions or key phrases in each of the ensuing discussions, is the mnemonic. Rav Yehuda from De’iskarta said to Rava, in continuation of the discussion of the baraita: Should we not make the halakha concerning dead children like the halakha concerning living children with regard to levirate marriage by an a fortiori inference, and say: And if in a place where the Torah made the halakha with regard to a child from the first husband like the halakha with regard to a child from the second husband, to disqualify her from teruma, for as long as she has a child who is not a priest she is prohibited from partaking of teruma, the Torah nevertheless did not make dead children like living ones; therefore, in a place where the Torah did not make a child from the first husband like a child from the second to exempt her from levirate marriage, is it not right that we should not make the dead like the living? Why, then, is a yevama exempt from levirate marriage if her late husband’s only child dies? The verse states: “Her ways are the ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17). In other words, since the ways of Torah are those of pleasantness, the Torah would not obligate a woman who has married in the meantime to subsequently perform ḥalitza, as this might demean her in her husband’s eyes. The Gemara inquires: And let us make the halakha with regard to dead children like the halakha with regard to living ones with regard to teruma, from an a fortiori inference: And if in a place where the Torah did not make a child from the first husband like a child from the second to exempt her from levirate marriage, it nevertheless made the living like the dead, as a woman whose husband died and left a child is exempt from levirate marriage even if that child subsequently dies; then, in a place where the Torah made a child from the first like a child from the second to disqualify her from teruma, is it not right that we should make the living like the dead? The Gemara responds: Therefore, the verse states “and she have no child, she is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth” (Leviticus 22:13), and here she does not currently have children. The Gemara further suggests: And let us make her child from the first husband like her child from the second one with regard to levirate marriage, again from an a fortiori inference: And if in a place where the Torah did not make the living like the dead with regard to teruma, it still made a child from the first husband like a child from the second, then in a place where it made the living like the dead, with regard to levirate marriage, is it not right that we should make a child from the first husband like a child from the second, and thereby exempt her from levirate marriage? The Gemara answers: The verse states about levirate marriage: “And he has no child” (Deuteronomy 25:5), and in fact he had none at the time of his death. The Gemara offers another possibility: And should we make a child from the first husband not like a child from the second one with regard to teruma, from an a fortiori inference: If in a place where the Torah made the living like the dead to exempt her from levirate marriage, it still did not make a child from the first husband like a child from the second, then in a place where the Torah did not make the living like the dead, with regard to teruma, is it not right that we should not make the child from the first husband like the child from the second? The Gemara responds: Therefore, the verse states: “And she have no child,” but in fact this woman has children. MISHNA: 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.

§ The mishna states that if they married their wives before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage. Sheila teaches a baraita that clarifies the mishna: And this is the case even if both of the brothers were priests. A woman who performed ḥalitza is normally forbidden to a priest, yet in this case, although the brother of the other man performed ḥalitza, they are not required to divorce. What is the reason for this halakha? It is as follows: A ḥalutza is forbidden to a priest by rabbinic law because her status is similar to that of a divorcée, who is forbidden to a priest by Torah law. And in a case of uncertainty as to whether she is a ḥalutza, since it may not have been her yavam who performed the ceremony, the Sages did not issue a decree.

The Gemara raises a challenge: And say that the verse: “The daughter of your father’s wife” comes to exclude women who were forbidden, as they are liable for violating prohibitions but were nevertheless married to his father, such as a mamzeret. If so, his sister from such a union would not be considered his sister. Rav Pappa said: Betrothal comes into effect with women who are forbidden, and one would be liable for violating prohibitions despite the fact that union with them is forbidden, and so she is called the wife of your father.

The Gemara cites other instances where the Sages administered lashes for immodest behavior. As Rav would flog one who betroths a woman by intercourse, despite the fact that betrothal is effective by this method, because he acted in a promiscuous manner. And he would likewise flog one who betroths a woman in the marketplace, rather than at home, as this too is loose behavior, and he would also administer lashes to one who betroths a woman without a prior marriage agreement [shiddukhei], as this too is an act of permissiveness.

MISHNA: One who had intercourse with his yevama, whether unwittingly, i.e., he thought he was having intercourse with someone else, or intentionally, i.e., he knew she was his yevama and nevertheless had intercourse with her without intent to perform levirate marriage; whether due to coercion or willingly; even if he was unwitting and her participation was intentional, his participation was intentional and she was unwitting, he was coerced and she was not coerced, or she was coerced and he was not coerced; both one who merely engages in the initial stage of intercourse and one who completes the act of intercourse has thereby acquired his yevama. And similarly, the Torah did not distinguish between an act of intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and intercourse in a typical manner. And so too, with regard to a man who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden [arayot] by the Torah or with those who are unfit for him even though they are not in the category of arayot, for example, a widow with a High Priest; a divorcée and a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] with a common priest; a mamzeret, i.e., a woman born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship, or a Gibeonite woman with an Israelite; the daughter of an Israelite with a mamzer or a Gibeonite; he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood through this act no matter how it was performed, and the Torah did not distinguish between the act of intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and intercourse in a typical manner.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The lineage of the offspring is sullied, and if the child is a girl she is restricted in whom she may marry. The Gemara asks: To whom is she prohibited from marrying? If we say it is to the congregation of Israel, but didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua himself say that the lineage of the offspring is unflawed and he or she may marry into the congregation of Israel? Rather, the offspring is prohibited to marry into the priesthood, as all of the amora’im who render the offspring fit to enter the congregation of Israel agree that the offspring has flawed lineage and is forbidden to marry into the priesthood.

The Gemara asks: This phrase “in her lifetime” is necessary, as indicated by the plain meaning of the phrase, to exclude the time after death, i.e., to teach that a wife’s sister is forbidden only while the wife is still alive, whereas after her death the sister is permitted. The Gemara answers: That halakha that a woman is permitted after her sister’s death is derived from “and you shall not take a woman to her sister” (Leviticus 18:18), as when one of them is dead it is no longer considered “a woman to her sister.” The Gemara further asks: If this halakha is derived from “a woman to her sister,” I would say that even if she were divorced, her sister is permitted. Therefore, the verse states: “In her lifetime,” which indicates that the prohibition is in effect in all cases that are in her lifetime. This teaches that although she is divorced, her sister is not permitted.

The Gemara challenges the halakha again: Then say: When there is a firstborn, let the mitzva return to the eldest brother if the other brothers refuse to perform levirate marriage. But when there is no firstborn, the court does not return to the eldest, as the mitzva primarily applies specifically to the firstborn, and if there is no firstborn, none of the brothers take precedence. Why did Abaye the Elder teach: It is a mitzva for the eldest of the brothers to consummate the levirate marriage? If the eldest did not wish to do so, then the court goes to his younger brother. If he also did not wish to do so, the court returns again to the eldest. This implies that the eldest, even if he is not the firstborn, has a greater mitzva than the younger brothers.

It was stated: With regard to a man who engaged in intercourse with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house, i.e., before they got married, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer, as the future husband is not considered his father. And Shmuel said that the offspring is a shetuki, a child of unknown paternity. Rava said: Rav’s statement stands to reason in a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others. However, if she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, we cast the child after him, i.e., we assume that the child is the betrothed’s son.

The Gemara questions the previous assumption with regard to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion on the matter: But did Rabbi Akiva say that spitting does not disqualify the yevama from a later levirate marriage to one of the other brothers? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If she removed the shoe but did not

§ The Gemara begins a discussion concerning the halakhic details of ḥalitza. Rava said: The judges need to establish a location ahead of time where the ḥalitza will be performed, as it is written: “His yevama shall ascend to the gate to the Elders” (Deuteronomy 25:7), indicating that there is an established place, “the gate,” for the court to convene for ḥalitza. The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, conducted a case of ḥalitza before five judges. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion were they ruling? If you say they ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but it was proven above that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his initial opinion and requires only three judges. The Gemara answers: They did this only to publicize the matter and not because this number of judges is required.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Akiva hold that the court may not allow a woman to remarry based on another woman’s testimony? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: A woman is trusted to bring her own bill of divorce and affirm in court that it was written and signed properly, and that trust is based on the following a fortiori inference: If women, e.g., a rival wife, whom the Sages said are not deemed credible to say that another woman’s husband died, are nevertheless trusted to bring their bills of divorce, then is it not logical that this woman herself, who is deemed credible to say that her husband died, should be trusted to bring her own bill of divorce? This statement indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, it is specifically the women who the Sages mentioned who are not deemed credible. In general, a woman is deemed credible, and another woman is permitted to remarry on the basis of her testimony. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Rabbi Akiva disqualified the testimony of a woman, it was before they established the protocol that a woman may be permitted to remarry on the basis of another woman’s testimony. There, where he allowed it, it was after they established that protocol.

§ The mishna states: In the case of one who was married to two women and died childless, the intercourse or ḥalitza of either one of them with the yavam releases her rival wife from the levirate bond. The Gemara questions why the mishna considers only the possibility that he would do so with only one of the women: But let him instead consummate levirate marriages with both of them. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse states that a yavam who performs ḥalitza is referred to as: “The man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9). The fact that the word “house” appears in the singular indicates that even had he instead chosen to consummate a levirate marriage, only one house may he build, by consummating a levirate marriage with one of his brother’s wives, but he may not build two houses.

Rav Sheshet said: I say that Rav said this halakha when he was dozing and lying down, as it is difficult. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who betroths a minor girl, her betrothal is in suspension. What does it mean that it is in suspension? Is it not that when she reaches majority, the betrothal reaches majority with her and is fully realized even if he did not have intercourse with her after she reached majority?

The Gemara comments: Who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that a legal presumption [ḥazaka] is established after two occurrences. As it is taught in a baraita: If a woman circumcised her first son and he died as a result of the circumcision, and she circumcised her second son and he also died, she should not circumcise her third son, as the deaths of the first two produce a presumption that this woman’s sons die as a result of circumcision. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She should circumcise her third son, as there is not considered to be a legal presumption that her sons die from circumcision, but she should not circumcise her fourth son if her first three sons died from circumcision. The Gemara asks: Isn’t the reverse taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the woman’s third son must be circumcised and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he is not circumcised? Which of them was composed later and is therefore presumed to be more reliable? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: An incident occurred involving four sisters in Tzippori, that the first sister circumcised her son and he died, and the second sister circumcised her son and he died, and the third one circumcised her son and he too died. The fourth sister came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said to her: Do not circumcise him. This indicates that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel a presumption is established only after three occurrences.

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna teaches this halakha categorically, indicating that it is no different if she is his brother’s widow from betrothal, and it is no different if she is his widow from marriage. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Granted, she is forbidden to him if she was widowed from marriage, as, if he were to marry her, it would be a violation of both the positive mitzva that the High Priest marry a virgin and the prohibition for him to marry a widow. And a positive mitzva, i.e., levirate marriage, does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva together. However, if she was a widow from betrothal and is therefore still a virgin, the positive mitzva of levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara answers: By Torah law, levirate marriage is permitted in this case. However, there is a rabbinic decree prohibiting their first act of intercourse due to their second act of intercourse. After they have engaged in intercourse once, they have fulfilled the mitzva of levirate marriage, and any subsequent act of intercourse would constitute a violation of the prohibition without the fulfillment of a mitzva.

§ The Sages taught: A mistaken ḥalitza is valid, while a mistaken bill of divorce is invalid. A coerced ḥalitza is invalid, while a coerced bill of divorce is valid. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of a coerced bill of divorce? If they force him until he says: I want to give the bill of divorce, then even this type of ḥalitza also should be valid, as although he was initially coerced, he acquiesced. And if he did not say by the end of the giving of the bill of divorce: I want to divorce her, then even this type of coerced bill of divorce should also not be acceptable.

If the house fell upon a man and upon his brother’s daughter, to whom he was married, and it is unknown which of them died first, her rival wife performs ḥalitza and does not enter into levirate marriage. Entering into levirate marriage is not possible, as, if the wife died after her husband, the surviving wife would be rendered the rival wife of a forbidden relative, since the yavam is the father of the wife who died. This status prevents the creation of a levirate bond between him and the surviving wife as well. On the other hand, ḥalitza is necessary in case the wife died before her husband, thereby allowing the creation of a levirate bond between her rival wife and her father, the yavam. GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that the fetus disqualifies its mother from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to do so. The Gemara explains: If she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and her husband died and left her pregnant, the fetus disqualifies her from partaking of teruma, as it is stated: “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13). The phrase “as in her youth” excludes a pregnant woman, whose body has changed from her youth. If she is an Israelite woman married to a priest, the fetus does not enable her to partake, as one who was born enables others to partake of teruma, whereas one who is not yet born does not enable others to partake. It is taught in the mishna that the same principle applies to a yavam. The Gemara explains: If she is the daughter of a priest who has a levirate bond to an Israelite, he disqualifies her, as it is stated in the verse cited above: “And is returned to her father’s house,” which excludes a widow waiting for her yavam, who has not returned to her father’s house, as a levirate bond was created with her yavam. If she is an Israelite woman with a levirate bond to a priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “The purchase of his money, he may eat of it” (Leviticus 22:11), and this woman is his brother’s acquisition. The bond with her yavam ensued from his late brother’s marriage to her, not through any action of his own. The mishna teaches that the same principle also applies to betrothal. The Gemara explains: If she is the daughter of a priest betrothed to an Israelite, he disqualifies her,

Rava raised an objection from a baraita: From where is it derived that if a priest does not want to observe the strictures against disqualified women, that the court forces him [dafno] by flogging him, and it sanctifies him despite his wishes? The verse states, at the end of the chapter that deals with the prohibitions of the priesthood: “And you shall sanctify him…he shall be sacred for you” (Leviticus 21:8), which indicates that this is performed even against his will.

Therefore, Rava presents his own resolution to the apparent inconsistency in Beit Shammai’s rulings in the mishna: Rather, both this first clause and that latter clause concern cases in which property was bequeathed to her when she was a widow waiting for her yavam. The first clause concerns a case in which the yavam had not performed a levirate betrothal with her, and the latter clause concerns a case in which he had performed a levirate betrothal with her.

The Gemara responds that this proof can be refuted as well: What about the fact that the prohibition of a nazirite is not especially severe, as a leprous nazirite can request to have his nazirite vow dissolved by a Sage? Since he can nullify the prohibition against shaving, this prohibition is evidently not very severe, and therefore one cannot prove anything with regard to all of the prohibitions of the Torah from this case. The Gemara adds: As, if you do not say this, that the prohibitions of a nazirite are not as severe as other prohibitions, that halakhic ruling that we maintain that a positive mitzva does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva would be negated.

Rabbi Elazar said: From the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan needed to state this, it would seem that there is an individual opinion that disagrees with him, even though no such opinion is mentioned in the mishna. Rabbi Asi answered: Yes, that is correct, and so it is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (Yevamot 6:6): With regard to a woman who is certainly not pregnant, for example, a woman who, at the time of her husband’s death, had not lived with her husband for some time because she always eagerly hurried, like one pursued, to go to her father’s house, or because she had been subject to anger in her husband’s house, or because her husband had been incarcerated in prison, or because her husband was elderly or infirm, or because she was infirm. Or a woman who could not be pregnant because she miscarried after her husband’s death, or because she was barren, or elderly, or a minor, or a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], or if for some other reason she was unsuited to give birth; even though the reason for the decree to wait three months does not apply to such a woman, nevertheless, she must wait three months. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda permits such women to be betrothed or to marry immediately. It is apparent from the baraita that the question of whether a woman is required to wait the three months when the reason to do so does not apply is subject to a dispute. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yoḥanan retracted his statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Yosef said: Even if he wanted to retract his statement, would he retract from the baraita that records the opinions of the Sages of the vineyard of Yavne? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, said: I heard from the mouth of the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne that all those women enumerated in the baraita above need to wait three months. If the great Sages of Yavne held in accordance with the opinion Rabbi Yosei, then the halakha is certainly in accordance with his opinion.

§ It was taught in the mishna: Or even if one saw that a wild animal was eating parts of him, one may not testify that he died. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this only where the animal was eating from a place on his body that does not cause his soul to depart, i.e., does not inevitably lead to death, such as his hand or foot. But if the animal was eating from a place on his body that does cause his soul to depart, one may testify to his death. And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If someone cut a man’s two passageways, the trachea and the esophagus, or most of the way through the two passageways, and the maimed person fled, one may testify to his death.

The Master said above in the baraita: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma, but his wives [nashav] and slaves may partake of it. The Gemara is puzzled by this teaching: From where does a tumtum have wives? If he does not have a visible male organ, how can he marry a woman? If we say that he merely betrothed a woman, as it is taught in another baraita: If a tumtum betrothed a woman his betrothal is considered a valid betrothal, as he might be a male, and similarly if he was betrothed by a man, his betrothal is deemed a valid betrothal as he might be a female, there is a difficulty.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara suggests that they disagree with regard to the issue of a more inclusive prohibition, and this dispute pertains to the status of a more inclusive prohibition specifically according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Ḥiyya holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, one is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that one is liable only on one count. The Gemara asks: And what more inclusive prohibition is there here in these cases? Granted, in the case of a non-priest who served in the Temple on Shabbat, initially he was permitted to perform labor every day and was prohibited from engaging in the Temple service. When Shabbat came, since he is now prohibited from engaging in prohibited labor in all contexts due to Shabbat, he is also prohibited from engaging in labors related to the Temple service due to Shabbat. Indeed, the additional prohibition of Shabbat was added to the previously existing prohibition against performing service in the Temple. This is a more inclusive prohibition since it also includes prohibited labor outside of the Temple. The same is true with regard to a blemished priest who served in the Temple while ritually impure: Initially, prior to his becoming ritually impure, he was allowed to eat from the consecrated animals but was prohibited from performing the Temple service, like all blemished priests. When he was rendered ritually impure, since he is now prohibited from eating of the consecrated items, he is also prohibited from performing the Temple service due to that same ritual impurity. There is, then, a more inclusive prohibition here. However, with regard to the case of a bird that was killed by pinching, you find that the prohibition against the eating of consecrated items by a non-priest and the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass take effect simultaneously. You do not, however, find a more inclusive prohibition here as there was no original prohibition that took effect beforehand. Instead, this is a case of two prohibitions that take effect simultaneously. Rather, the previous explanation is rejected and the Gemara suggests instead that they disagree with regard to an additional prohibition that takes effect simultaneously, and this dispute pertains to the status of these prohibitions specifically according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Ḥiyya holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that one is liable on two counts in cases of prohibitions that take effect simultaneously. And bar Kappara holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that one is liable only on a single count.

David said: There are three distinguishing marks of this nation, the Jewish people. They are merciful, they are shamefaced, and they perform acts of kindness.
They are merciful, as it is written: “And He will give you mercy, and have mercy upon you and multiply you” (Deuteronomy 13:18); not only will God have mercy upon you, but He will bestow the attribute of mercy upon you.
They are shamefaced, as it is written: “And that His fear shall be upon your faces” (Exodus 20:17), and the fear that is on one’s face is his shame.
They perform acts of kindness, as it is written: “For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to practice righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19), i.e., to perform acts of kindness.
Whoever has these three distinguishing marks is fit to cleave to this nation. Those who lack these qualities, however, are unfit to be part of the Jewish people. When David saw the cruelty of the Gibeonites, he decreed that they may never enter into the congregation of Israel.

The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: But in that case, she thereby gains from her prohibited betrothal, as she may subsequently marry the man who betrothed her illegally. If so, we find a sinner benefiting from his transgression. Rather, the Gemara emends the teaching: If her yavam was a regular Israelite, this second man who betrothed her must give her a bill of divorce, and she is permitted to the yavam, as a non-priest may marry a divorcée. § Rav Giddel said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said that Rav said: With regard to a yevama, betrothal does not apply to her, but marriage does apply to her. The Gemara expresses puzzlement: If betrothal does not apply to her, marriage also should not apply to her. How can marriage take effect if the earlier and less binding stage of betrothal is of no consequence? Rather, emend the above statement and say: Neither betrothal nor marriage apply to her. And if you wish, say a different explanation. What is the meaning of the phrase: Marriage does apply to her? It is referring to a case of licentious sexual relations. In other words, although Rav maintains that betrothal is ineffective for her, if she entered the wedding canopy with another man and had relations with him, her status changes and she is forbidden to the yavam. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna said that a widow awaiting her yavam who committed an act of licentious sexual relations is forbidden to her yavam. And if you wish, say: Actually, it is as we said initially, that betrothal does not apply to her but marriage does apply to her. However, this does not mean that marriage is actually effective. Rather, the halakha is that he must give her a bill of divorce, as people might confuse this case with that of a woman whose husband went overseas. The Sages decreed that he must give her a bill of divorce so that people would not say that a woman who remarried after hearing that her husband had died likewise does not require a bill of divorce.

And Rabbi Yosei also reasoned: This is like a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow. Just as the High Priest’s children are unfit for the priesthood, and he himself disqualifies the widow from marrying into the priesthood, so too, any man whose children are unfit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. This inference comes to exclude a second-generation Egyptian, whose children are not unfit, as it is written: “The children of the third generation that are born to them may enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:9). It is taught in the baraita under discussion that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow; anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between Rabbi Yosei and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? They appear to be stating the same principle, that a man disqualifies a woman from the priesthood only if his children are unfit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage as well. Ulla said: The practical difference between them is in the case of an Ammonite and a Moabite convert. And both of them derived their respective opinions from none other than the case of a High Priest with a widow. Rabbi Yosei reasoned: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, his children are unfit for the priesthood and he himself disqualifies the widow, so too, any man whose children are unfit disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel reasoned: Just as in the case of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, where all of his children from her are unfit for the priesthood and he disqualifies her as well, so too, in the case of a man all of whose children are unfit, he disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse. This is to the exclusion of an Ammonite or a Moabite convert, as not all of his children are unfit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage, as the Master said: An Ammonite man is unfit to enter the assembly but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite man is unfit but not a Moabite woman. Since only the sons of an Ammonite or Moabite convert are unfit, they do not disqualify a woman with whom they engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood.

Rather, the phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” comes to include in the prohibition against eating of the Paschal lamb a convert to Judaism who was circumcised but did not yet immerse in a ritual bath, and a child who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin. Although he does not have a foreskin, he is still seen as lacking the act of circumcision. And he, Rabbi Akiva, maintains that it is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision, in order to usher him into the covenant of Abraham, even though he has no foreskin that can be removed.

And Shmuel said: If she refused this yavam, she is permitted to that one, and it is not comparable to a yevama who has received a bill of divorce. For in the case of the yevama who has received a bill of divorce, it is he who performed the act of giving the bill of divorce to her, and he thereby renders her forbidden to his brothers as well. Here, she is performing an act on him, as she says: I do not desire you and I do not want you, indicating: It is you whom I do not desire, but I may desire your fellow.

Rava said: This is what the baraita is saying: The first child is even fit to become a High Priest. And if she has a second child, he is treated as though he is definitely a mamzer due to the uncertainty concerning his status, and therefore he is permitted to marry a mamzeret, i.e., this tanna holds that even one whose status as a mamzer is uncertain is permitted to marry one who is definitely a mamzeret. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: He is not treated as though he is definitely a mamzer due to an uncertainty concerning his status; rather, his status as a mamzer is uncertain and he is treated accordingly, and therefore he is both prohibited from marrying an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage since he might be a mamzer, and he is also prohibited from marrying a mamzeret since he might not be a mamzer.

As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: From where is it derived with regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a daughter of a priest or with a female Levite or with a female Israelite that they thereby render her unfit to marry into the priesthood? As it is stated: “But a priest’s daughter when she will become a widow, or a divorcée, and have no child, she returns to her father’s house as in her youth” (Leviticus 22:13). The verse indicates that she returns to her father’s house and enjoys the rights of the priesthood only in a case where she engaged in intercourse with one to whom widowhood and divorce can apply, i.e., one with whom her marriage would be valid and would be broken only through death or divorce. Excluded from this is a union with a gentile or a slave, to whom neither widowhood nor divorce can apply, as no marriage bond can be formed with them.

Rav Avya said: They taught that one acquires only the rights to the slave’s labor only with regard to a Jew who purchased a slave from a gentile slave owner, but if a gentile sold his own body as a slave directly to a Jew, then the Jew acquires his body.

However, according to Reish Lakish, who said that the entire household, apart from the woman who received ḥalitza, is liable to receive karet, was it necessary to teach us that betrothal does not take effect on forbidden relations for which one is liable to receive karet? According to Reish Lakish, after the yavam performs ḥalitza, the mitzva of levirate marriage is canceled and the karet prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife is once again in force. As all agree that betrothal does not take effect on those liable to receive karet, it is unnecessary for the mishna to teach this ruling.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this amoraic dispute as to whether or not one who had been circumcised but his residual foreskin was drawn forward is considered uncircumcised by Torah law is parallel to the following dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in the Tosefta (Shabbat 16:7): One whose foreskin was drawn forward, and similarly, one who was born circumcised, and a convert who converted when he was already circumcised, and a child whose appropriate time for circumcision already passed and he was still uncircumcised, and all others who require circumcision, which, as the Gemara parenthetically adds, comes to include one who has two foreskins, both of which must be removed, may be circumcised only during the day. Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon says: If the circumcision is performed at its appropriate time, i.e., on the eighth day,

Rami bar Ḥama said: They said that if one said to a scribe [lavlar]: Write a bill of divorce for my betrothed now, such that when I marry her I will divorce her with the bill of divorce, if he indeed gave her this bill of divorce after their marriage it is a valid bill of divorce. Why? Because it is already in his power to divorce her while she is betrothed to him, and therefore the bill of divorce written during their betrothal is valid.

the twelve months of the year of mourning, i.e., several years have elapsed since the twelve-month mourning period for Saul, and it is not the proper way to eulogize after such a long time.

§ The Gemara relates a story that deals with the permission of a woman to remarry. Yitzḥak the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, was walking from Cortva to Spain and died along the way. They sent this message from Spain: Yitzḥak the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, was walking from Cortva to Spain and died. The Gemara asks: Are we concerned about the possibility of two men named Yitzḥak or not? Perhaps there is someone else with the same name, and therefore the mention of his name is not a sufficiently distinguishing mark. Abaye said: We are concerned about this possibility. Rava said: We are not concerned.

MISHNA: With regard to one who divorces a woman and remarries her and then dies childless, his wife is permitted to enter into levirate marriage with her yavam,

The Gemara asks: But there is the prohibition for priests to contract ritual impurity from a corpse, which is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, as only priests are bound by this prohibition, and the reason that this command applies only to male priests is that the Merciful One writes: “Speak to the priests the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall defile himself” (Leviticus 21:1), from which it is inferred: The sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron. Therefore, were it not for this specific derivation, I would say that women from priestly families are also obligated to avoid becoming ritually impure. What is the reason for this? Is it not due to the principle that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, that women are equated to men with regard to all punishments in the Torah, including those that are not equally applicable to all?

The mishna states: With regard to anyone who has a son of any kind, that son exempts his father’s wife from any levirate bond. The Gemara asks: What is added by the phrase: Of any kind? Rav Yehuda said: It adds a child who is a mamzer. What is the reason that a mamzer exempts a woman from any levirate bond? As the verse states with regard to levirate marriage: “And he has no [ain lo] child” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The phrase ain lo can be understood as ayyen alav, meaning investigate him. That is to say, investigate whether he is indeed childless, because any child, even a mamzer, exempts the widow from a levirate bond.

§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic device for a series of statements cited in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Woman; and land; helper; this; two; the blessings; merchants; lowly. The Gemara presents these statements: Rabbi Elazar said: Any man who does not have a wife is not a man, as it is stated: “Male and female He created them…and called their name Adam” (Genesis 5:2). And Rabbi Elazar said: Any man who does not have his own land is not a man, as it is stated: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth He has given to the children of men” (Psalms 115:16).

GEMARA: The mishna assumed that an innkeeper is less trustworthy than an ordinary woman, such that the Rabbis argued that if the innkeeper was deemed credible, it should be obvious that an ordinary woman should be deemed credible. The Gemara asks: What was unfavorable about the innkeeper that made her less trustworthy than an ordinary woman? Rav Kahana said: She was a gentile innkeeper, and she was therefore deemed credible only because she was speaking offhandedly when she said that the man died and this is his staff, and this is his bag, and this is the grave in which I buried him. And similarly, Abba, son of Rav Minyumi, son of Ḥiyya, taught: She was a gentile innkeeper, and she was speaking offhandedly, saying that this is his staff, and this is his bag, and this is the grave in which I buried him. But didn’t they say to her: Where is our friend? This indicates that she was answering their question rather than speaking offhandedly. The Gemara explains: Once she saw them, she cried. They said to her: Where is our friend? Then she said to them: He died, and I buried him. Since she cried before being questioned, the crying was considered the beginning of her account, and she is considered to have been speaking offhandedly. § The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving a certain individual who came to testify before Rabbi Tarfon with regard to a woman whose husband had died. He said to him: My son, how do you come to know testimony that the husband of this woman died? He said: He and I were traveling on the road together, and a troop of soldiers chased after us. He hung onto an olive branch, and tore it off to use as a heavy staff to intimidate the soldiers, and forced the troop to withdraw. After this heroic act I said to him, admiring his bravery: Lion [arye], may your strength continue to be firm. He said to me: From where do you know that my name is Arye? That is what they call me in my city: Yoḥanan, son of Rabbi Yehonatan, the lion from the village Shiḥayya. After a while, he fell sick and died, and consequently the fellow traveler knew his name and could testify about him. And Rabbi Tarfon allowed his wife to marry based on this testimony. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Tarfon require inquiry and interrogation of the witness? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: An incident occurred involving a certain person who came before Rabbi Tarfon to present testimony that a woman’s husband died. He said to him: My son, how do you know this testimony? He told him: He and I were traveling on the road together, and a troop of soldiers chased after us. He hung onto a fig branch, and tore it off, and forced the troop to withdraw by intimidating the soldiers with the branch. I said to him: May your strength continue to be firm, lion. He said to me: You have intuited my name well, for that is what they call me in my city: Yoḥanan, son of Yonatan, the lion from the village Shiḥayya. The man concluded his story: After a while, he fell sick and died. Rabbi Tarfon said to him, in order to check his story: Did you not tell me that the dead man said that his name was Yoḥanan, son of Yonatan, from the village Shiḥayya, which is called Lion? He replied to him: No. Rather, this is what I told you: He told me that he is called Yoḥanan, son of Yonatan, the lion from the village Shiḥayya. Then Rabbi Tarfon cross-examined him in this manner two or three times, and the witness repeatedly kept his statements consistent, so Rabbi Tarfon allowed his wife to marry. In this version of the story, the mere report of events does not seem sufficient. An interrogation of the witness is also necessary. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The court does not examine witnesses who give testimony concerning the marital status of women by means of the standard procedures of inquiry and interrogation; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: The court must examine them utilizing these means.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Hoshaya, son of Rav Idi: We learned in a baraita there that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any human baby that survives for thirty days after its birth is not to be considered a stillbirth. Rather, the baby is considered to be viable, and so the wife of the baby’s father is never subject to any obligation of levirate marriage. But, by inference, were it not to survive for thirty days, there would be uncertainty whether the baby was viable or not.

Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: And did we not resolve these mishnayot, by explaining that in those particular cases she did have the option of clarifying the matter? He said to him: And shall we stand and rely on answers? Admittedly, we found some way of resolving these questions, but the accumulation of difficulties indicates that the rationale: What could she have done, is unacceptable. And indeed, Rav Pappa ceased to follow his original intention and did not issue a lenient ruling.

Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Yosei concedes that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists when it is an expanded prohibition. An expanded prohibition is a prohibition that has a greater scope than the original prohibition, either because it applies with greater severity or because it applies to additional individuals. Rabbi Yosei holds that if the second prohibition incorporates additional individuals into the list of those for whom the original item is prohibited, then it takes effect in addition to the previous prohibition that had a more limited range.

MISHNA: Which offspring of forbidden relations have the status of a mamzer? It is the offspring of a union with any next of kin that is subject to a Torah prohibition that he should not engage in sexual relations with them; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Shimon HaTimni says: It is the offspring of a union with any forbidden relation for which one is liable to receive karet at the hand of Heaven. And the halakha is in accordance with his statement. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is the offspring of a union with any forbidden relation for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment.

§ The Gemara addresses the statement of the mishna that this is the halakha both for a boy who is nine years and one day old as well as a twenty-year old who has not developed two pubic hairs. In both cases, their sexual relations are not considered proper intercourse with regard to levirate marriage. And the Gemara raises a contradiction against this from the following source: With regard to a man twenty years old who has not developed two pubic hairs, they must bring proof that he is twenty years old, and he is established as a eunuch, who may neither perform ḥalitza nor perform levirate marriage. Likewise, in the case of a woman who is twenty years old and has not developed two pubic hairs, they must bring proof that she is twenty years old, and that she is a sexually underdeveloped woman, who may neither perform ḥalitza nor enter into levirate marriage. This shows that the status of a nine-year-old male and a twenty-year old man without pubic hairs are not the same, as the intercourse of a nine-year-old is considered of some significance, whereas that of a eunuch is entirely disregarded, as he may not even perform ḥalitza. The Gemara answers: Wasn’t it stated with regard to this baraita that Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said that Rav said: And this halakha applies only if he developed other signs of a eunuch by the age of twenty. The mishna, by contrast, is referring to one who merely showed the signs of maturity at a late age. Rava said: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: And he is the eunuch. One can learn from here that this is referring to one who is definitely a eunuch. The Gemara asks a question with regard to the halakha itself: And in a case where he does not develop the signs of a eunuch, until what age is he considered a minor? The school of Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Until most of his years have passed, i.e., until he reaches the age of thirty-five, i.e., halfway to seventy, the standard length of a man’s life. On the same issue, the Gemara relates: When they would come before Rava to inquire about someone who had reached the age of maturity but had not yet developed the physical signs, if the person in question was thin, he would say to them: Go and fatten him up before we decide on his status. And if he was fat, he would say to them: Go and make him thin. As these signs, the pubic hairs of maturity, sometimes they fall off due to thinness and sometimes they fall off due to fatness. It is therefore possible that after his bodily shape is adjusted he will develop the signs of maturity and will not have the status of a eunuch.

The Gemara asks: And a minor girl, from where do we derive that she has a marriage contract? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 67a): With regard to a minor who refuses her husband and leaves him, and likewise a woman who is a secondary forbidden relative prohibited by rabbinic law, and a sexually underdeveloped woman who is incapable of bearing children, these women have no marriage contract. The Gemara infers: However, any other woman who can be divorced by means of a bill of divorce, and this includes a minor girl, is entitled to a marriage contract.

The Gemara asks: In what manner did you establish the baraita? You established it as referring to insufficient property. However, say the latter clause of the baraita: Lest the fetus be found to be a male, and daughters do not receive any of the inheritance where there is a son. Yet according to Abaye’s explanation, on the contrary, the insufficient property is the daughters’, whether or not there are any sons. The Gemara answers: In the latter clause we have come to a different case, in which there is sufficient property. The Gemara raises another objection to Abaye’s explanation: Does an inheritance of insufficient property belong to the daughters? Didn’t Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If the male orphans proceeded to sell the insufficient property, although by rabbinic ordinance it is designated for the daughters’ sustenance, what they sold was sold. Apparently, the Sages did not expropriate the properties from the male inheritors, but merely designated them for the daughters’ sustenance. How, then, can the sons’ ownership be disregarded with regard to the slaves’ partaking of teruma?

§ Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Abba, brother of Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi, said that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to a hermaphrodite, one is liable to receive the punishment of stoning on his account for intercourse at two places, whether one penetrated him anally, in the manner of homosexual intercourse, or through his female organ. The Gemara raises an objection against this from the following teaching. Rabbi Eliezer said: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if he had relations with a male. In what case is this statement said? It is if he had relations with him through his male organ, i.e., in the manner of homosexual intercourse, but if he engaged in intercourse with him through his female organ, he is exempt.

As it is taught in a baraita: None of those with whom relations are forbidden by Torah law require a bill of divorce from him, even if he married them in a proper manner, apart from a married woman who married by mistake by permission of the court. And Rabbi Akiva adds: Also a brother’s wife and a wife’s sister. Since it is possible that these two women could become permitted to him, by levirate marriage in the case of a brother’s wife, or a wife’s sister after his wife’s death, they too require a bill of divorce. And with regard to the issue at hand, since Rabbi Akiva said that a wife’s sister requires a bill of divorce, this factor by itself indicates that his wife is forbidden to him, as his wife is considered the sister of his divorcée. The Gemara refutes this claim: And wasn’t it stated with regard to this case that Rav Giddel said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said that Rav said: In the case of this brother’s wife, mentioned by Rabbi Akiva, what are the circumstances? For example, if his brother betrothed a woman and then went overseas, and the man who was here heard that his brother was dead, and he arose and married his brother’s wife as a yevama The reason for Rabbi Akiva’s ruling is that uninformed people will say: This first one had a condition in the betrothal with his wife, and his betrothal was canceled because the condition was left unfulfilled, and this other one married well, in compliance with the halakha, as she was not his brother’s wife. It is for this reason that Rabbi Akiva requires him to give her a bill of divorce.

And it was stated that the amora’im disagreed on this issue: With regard to one who ate forbidden fats or performed any other transgression for which one is liable to receive lashes or karet, when he was between the age of twelve years and one day and the age of eighteen years, and he developed the signs of one who was a eunuch by natural causes, as explained below, and afterward he grew two pubic hairs, Rav said: He is retroactively considered a eunuch by natural causes. In other words, these hairs are not viewed as a sign of maturity. Rather, he lacked sexual capacity from the outset, which means he became an adult at the standard age of thirteen and is held liable for his actions from that point in time. And Shmuel said: No, he was a minor at the time he committed his offense, as the two hairs are a sign of his maturity, albeit delayed.

MISHNA: With regard to a deaf-mute who married a halakhically competent woman, and a halakhically competent man who married a deaf-mute: If either man wants to divorce his wife, he may divorce her, and if he wants to maintain her as his wife, he may maintain her. The reason why a deaf-mute man can divorce his wife is that just as he marries her by intimation, i.e., his marriage is not performed by explicit speech, as deaf-mutes rely on gestures, so too, he divorces her by intimation.

Rava said: The dead has acquired it, as deriving benefit from anything consecrated for the dead is prohibited. Nanai, son of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, said to Rav Kahana: But didn’t Rava say that Rav Naḥman said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda? Accordingly, the woman’s robe must be returned. He said to him: Doesn’t Rav Yehuda admit that the robe has not yet been collected? And since it has not yet been collected, it remains in his possession, and his inheritors can render its use as a burial shroud prohibited.

Beit Shammai said to them: But we can learn this halakha from the scroll of the marriage contract, as every husband writes for her that: If you marry another man, take what is written for you in this contract. This shows that her right to receive the money of her marriage contract is dependent upon her eligibility to remarry. In this case, as she is deemed credible when she says her husband died and she may marry again, she is likewise entitled to the money of the marriage contract. And Beit Hillel again retracted their opinion, and decided to teach in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda said: If the woman entered into levirate marriage based upon her own testimony, her yavam comes into the inheritance of the property of his dead brother based on her testimony. He adds: If Beit Shammai taught their halakha that she is entitled to her money, by interpreting homiletically the language of a marriage contract, will we not teach by interpreting homiletically the Torah itself? Rav Ḥisda explains: The Merciful One states in the Torah: “He shall succeed in the name of his dead brother” (Deuteronomy 25:6), which is interpreted by the Sages as referring to the right of inheritance of the brother who consummates the levirate marriage. And this man did succeed with respect to the marital relationship, as he consummated the levirate marriage based on the testimony of his yevama that her husband died. Consequently, he takes the place of his brother with respect to his inheritance as well.

And if he raised his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, then, whether he retains his priestly sanctity or whether he does not retain his priestly sanctity, she may partake of teruma. If he retains his sanctity she may partake, as Rabbi Yosei said: Even if a convert married a convert, his daughter is fit for marrying into the priesthood. If he does not retain his sanctity she may partake, as Rabbi Yosei said: The congregation of converts is not called the congregation of the Lord, and therefore even those forbidden from entering the congregation may marry converts. Consequently, it is certainly permitted for the priest with crushed testicles to marry the daughter of converts.

This is as it is stated: “You are entirely beautiful, my love, and there is no blemish in you” (Song of Songs 4:7). If the Elders conducting ḥalitza needed to be expert judges, there would be no reason to explicitly exclude the blind, as they are unfit to be judges in a regular court. Evidently it is permitted for laymen to be judges for ḥalitza, and only blind individuals are excluded. The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, the first tanna, what does he do with the verse “before the eyes of”? The Gemara answers: That verse comes for that which Rava taught, as Rava said: The judges must see the spittle that exits from the mouth of the yevama as part of the ceremony of ḥalitza, as it is written: “His yevama shall approach him, before the eyes of the Elders, and remove his shoe from on his foot and spit before him and respond and say: So shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9). The Gemara asks: If so, the other Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, should also require “before the eyes” to teach Rava’s statement. The Gemara answers: Yes, this is so, as Rabbi Yehuda understands “before the eyes” as requiring the judges to see the spittle. But then from where does he derive the eligibility of laymen? He derives it from the phrase: “In Israel,” in the verse “And his name shall be called in Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:10), which indicates that any Israelite, even one who is not an expert judge, may preside over ḥalitza. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other Sage, the first tanna, what does he do with this phrase: “In Israel”? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which was taught by Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: “In Israel” means in a court of Israelites from birth, and not in a court of converts. The mitzva of ḥalitza must be conducted by judges who can trace their lineage to other Jews from birth, and not converts. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: “In Israel” is written another time as well (Deuteronomy 25:7, 10), and that is the source of this principle. And the other, the first tanna, what does he do with this additional “In Israel”? The Gemara explains: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda said: Once we were sitting in study before Rabbi Tarfon, and a yevama came to perform ḥalitza, and he said to us: After the ḥalitza is completed, you should all respond: “He who had his shoe removed.” He understands the verse “His name shall be called in Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:10) to mean that all those who witness the ḥalitza must respond: “He who had his shoe removed” (Deuteronomy 25:10).

§ The mishna teaches: If the yavam performed ḥalitza and then either performed levirate betrothal, or gave a bill of divorce, or engaged in intercourse, nothing is effective after ḥalitza. The Gemara asks: And let the tanna likewise teach that nothing is effective after intercourse, for he also mentioned the case of one who engaged in intercourse and then proceeded to perform other actions such as levirate betrothal, divorce and ḥalitza. Indeed, Abaye and Rava both say that the mishna should teach: Nothing is effective after intercourse, as this clause is fit to be inserted into the mishna. The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna; why did he not state this? The Gemara explains: The permission for a yevama to marry a member of the public is preferable to him. He preferred to teach cases in which the yevama is permitted to marry any man from the general public as opposed to a situation where she is married to the yavam. The mishna teaches that all the halakhot with regard to levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal and the like apply both in cases of one yevama to one yavam, as well as in cases of two yevamot to one yavam. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of ben Azzai. As it is taught in a baraita: Ben Azzai says: Levirate betrothal is effective after levirate betrothal in the case of two yevamin and one yevama, but levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal in the case of two yevamot and one yavam. The tanna of the mishna, in contrast, does not differentiate between the cases. The mishna further teaches: How so? If he performed levirate betrothal with this one and performed ḥalitza with that one, the first woman requires a bill of divorce to cancel the levirate betrothal. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this teaching supports the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: If a yavam performed ḥalitza with the woman who received levirate betrothal, then the rival wife is not exempt as this ḥalitza is invalid. The fact that the Gemara does not state that the ḥalitza be performed with the woman who received levirate betrothal indicates that this ḥalitza is not a valid ḥalitza and would not be sufficient to exempt the rival wife. And this would constitute a conclusive refutation of Rav Yosef’s opinion, for he holds that it is preferable to perform ḥalitza with the woman who received levirate betrothal and thereby exempt the second woman. As the first woman requires a bill of divorce and therefore is necessarily disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, it is preferable to perform ḥalitza with her as well and consequently leave the second woman eligible to marry a priest. The Gemara refutes this claim: Does the mishna teach: He should perform ḥalitza, which would imply that the yavam should do so ab initio? It teaches that he performed ḥalitza, implying that the ruling in the mishna is after the fact. Therefore, there is no indication in the mishna that the yavam should perform ḥalitza with the second woman, and it is possible that if he were to perform ḥalitza with the first woman he would thereby exempt the second one. It is simply that the particular case discussed by the mishna here concerns a man who performed levirate betrothal with this woman and ḥalitza with that one. It is further taught in the mishna: If he gave a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one, they require ḥalitza from him. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it supports the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna. As Rabba bar Rav Huna said: In cases of invalid ḥalitza, the yevama is required to repeat the ḥalitza with all of the brothers, as that single invalid ḥalitza is insufficient. Similarly, in this case of invalid ḥalitza, it would be necessary to perform ḥalitza with all of the yevamot. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: What is the meaning of require in this context? It means that such women require in general. The plural form does not refer to all the yevamot mentioned in the mishna, but rather it means that all yevamot in similar situations require ḥalitza.

Likewise, in the case of a halakhically competent man who married a halakhically competent woman, and she later became a deaf-mute: If he wants to divorce his wife, he may divorce her, as a wife does not have to have intellectual capacity to receive a bill of divorce, and if he wants to maintain her as his wife, he may maintain her. If she became an imbecile, he may not divorce her, i.e., a bill of divorce is ineffective in this case. If he became a deaf-mute or an imbecile after they were married, he may never divorce her, as he does not have the legal competence to give a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: For what reason is the halakha that in the case of the woman who becomes a deaf-mute, her husband may divorce her, but in the case of the man who becomes a deaf-mute, he may not divorce his wife? If the bill of divorce written by someone who formerly possessed all his senses and later became a deaf-mute is invalid, it stands to reason that it should not be valid when she becomes a deaf-mute either. They said to him: The man who divorces his wife is not similar to the woman who is divorced, as the woman is divorced whether she is willing or unwilling. Since the woman’s consent is not required, she may be divorced even if she is a deaf-mute. And, conversely, the man divorces his wife only willingly, and therefore the bill of divorce of a deaf-mute, who is not legally competent, is ineffective.

The Gemara answers: No, it is obvious both to this Master and to that Master that a hermaphrodite is deemed a full-fledged male. The practical difference between them relates to the question of whether one is liable to receive the punishment of stoning for intercourse with him at only one place or at two places. As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that one is liable to be punished with stoning on a hermaphrodite’s account for intercourse at two places, whether he penetrated him anally, in the manner of homosexual intercourse, or through his female organ. Since the hermaphrodite is deemed a male, one is liable to be punished with stoning for intercourse at either place. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that one is liable to be punished with stoning for relations with a hermaphrodite only if he penetrated him anally, as if he were a male.

Beit Shammai said to them: But we can learn this halakha from the scroll of the marriage contract, as every husband writes for her that: If you marry another man, take what is written for you in this contract. This shows that her right to receive the money of her marriage contract is dependent upon her eligibility to remarry. In this case, as she is deemed credible when she says her husband died and she may marry again, she is likewise entitled to the money of the marriage contract. And Beit Hillel again retracted their opinion, and decided to teach in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

The Gemara asks about this matter itself: And for what reason did they not institute that the date must be included in the betrothal document? This policy works out well according to the one who says that the reason the Sages instituted that the date must be written on a bill of divorce is due to the profits. As the husband receives the profits from the wife’s properties during the period of their marriage, it was necessary to write a date on the bill of divorce in order to know at what point his right to receive or sell these items was terminated. However, it was not necessary to include a date on a deed of betrothal, as this document serves only to create a bond of betrothal, and there are no profits from a betrothed woman. A husband does not have the right to receive profits from his betrothed’s property until she is his full-fledged wife.

Rather, Abaye said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis cannot be explained in the above manner. Instead, he suggests: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where he said to his ḥalutza: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that levirate betrothal is superimposed upon the levirate bond, and is therefore only possible when the bond exists, and since ḥalitza comes and releases the levirate bond, levirate betrothal is not effective for her. And the Rabbis hold: This, the levirate bond, stands on its own, and that, levirate betrothal, stands on its own. Although the bond has been canceled, the formula of: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, is effective. At the outset, before ḥalitza, if he had said to her: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, would this not be an effective betrothal despite the lack of connection between the levirate betrothal and the levirate bond? Now too it should be effective, even though she performed ḥalitza. Rava said: If he said to her: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, everyone agrees that it is effective, and she is acquired. And with what are we dealing here? It is a case where he said to her: Be betrothed to me with the levirate bond, and the dispute is as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds

The Gemara asks: What pearl does he mean? As it is taught in a baraita: “Neither shall they take a woman divorced from her husband,” even if she was divorced only from her husband. Even if the woman was separated from her husband and was not permitted to marry anyone else, e.g., if her husband wrote in the bill of divorce: This is your bill of divorce but you are not permitted to any other man, this document is certainly not considered a full-fledged bill of divorce, and yet she is disqualified from the priesthood. If her husband later passes away, she has the status of a divorcée, not a widow, which means that she is prohibited from marrying a priest. And this is the trace of a bill of divorce, which is not an actual bill of divorce and yet disqualifies from the priesthood.

Rabbi Yosei says: If she was secluded with him after the wedding in a place suitable for sexual intercourse, a claim concerning virginity is only credible immediately. But if she was not secluded with him, they presumably did not engage in intercourse, and such a claim is credible even several years later.

to forbidden relations for which one is liable for violation of a prohibition concerning which a betrothal between the couple would take effect. However, here, with regard to a gentile and a slave, since their betrothal of a Jewish woman would not take effect, a union with them is comparable to forbidden relations for which one is liable to receive karet, and therefore the offspring of such a union will be a mamzer.

The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear: Two twin brothers who are converts, and similarly twin brothers who are freed slaves, do not perform ḥalitza for each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them, and if they engage in intercourse with them they are not liable to receive karet for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. If they were not conceived in sanctity and only their birth was in sanctity, they do not perform ḥalitza or levirate marriage, but they are liable for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. If they were conceived and born in sanctity, they are like Jews from birth in all of their matters. In any event, the baraita is teaching that regular converts are not liable for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. It can be inferred that while there is no liability by Torah law,

Shmuel said to him: This, too, you learned in a mishna (61a): If he betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her, despite the fact that a High Priest is prohibited from marrying a widow. This indicates that her permissibility to him is determined according to the time of the betrothal rather than the time of marriage. The Gemara refutes this proof: There it is different, as it is written: “He shall take for a wife” (Leviticus 21:14). The superfluous expression “for a wife” indicates that he is permitted to marry the widow in this case. The Gemara objects: Here, too, with regard to a woman who matured after betrothal, it is written: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity,” and this should indicate that he may marry the grown woman in this case. The Gemara answers that the term “wife” allows for the inclusion of one case but not two. Consequently, since a High Priest may marry a widow he had betrothed before he was appointed High Priest, it cannot also be derived that he may marry a grown woman that he had betrothed before she matured. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include the case of a widow and exclude that of a grown woman? The Gemara answers: In this case, of the grown woman, her body has changed, and therefore she is forbidden to him even though she was betrothed before she matured. In that case, of the widow, her body has not changed. It is the priest’s personal status that has changed, and therefore she remains permitted. MISHNA: A High Priest may not marry a widow, whether she is a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. And he may not marry a grown woman. He may marry only a minor or a young woman. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare a grown woman fit to marry a High Priest. And he may not marry a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally. GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: “A widow…he shall not take” (Leviticus 21:14), which prohibits him from marrying any widow, whether she is a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. The Gemara is surprised by this statement: This is obvious, as the verse is referring to a widow without further specification. The Gemara answers: It is necessary; lest you say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the words “widow” and “widow,” based upon the usage of that term in a verse with regard to Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law (Genesis 38:11), as follows: Just as there, Tamar was a widow from marriage, so too here the verse is referring only to a widow from marriage. The tanna therefore teaches us that this is not the case. The Gemara asks: And say that it is indeed so, that the suggested verbal analogy is correct. The Gemara answers: It is similar to the case of a divorcée: Just as a divorcée is forbidden to a priest whether she was divorced from marriage or from betrothal, so too a widow is forbidden to a High Priest whether she is a widow from marriage or from betrothal.

MISHNA: Who is a minor girl who needs to perform refusal in order to annul her marriage? Any minor whose mother or brother married her off with her consent. If they married her off without her consent, she need not refuse her husband at all and may leave her husband without a declaration of refusal. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Any girl who is so young that she cannot keep her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, safe does not need to refuse, as the Sages instituted marriage only for a girl old enough to understand what she is doing.

The Gemara answers: Perhaps you spoke of an Ammonite convert who married the daughter of a Jew, and Rabbi Yoḥanan wished to teach that although his intercourse involves a transgression, as it is prohibited for him to enter into the congregation, his daughter is nevertheless fit to marry into the priesthood. Ulla said to him: Yes, this was Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teaching. As, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert who is the offspring of his forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, and similarly, with regard to the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert from his forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that she is fit to marry into the priesthood, whereas Reish Lakish said that she is disqualified from marrying a priest. Reish Lakish said she is disqualified, as he derives from the halakha governing a High Priest who married a widow that the daughter of any forbidden union is disqualified from the priesthood. Rabbi Yoḥanan said she is fit,

In an attempt to resolve the contradiction Abaye said: Since the latter clause of the baraita is in accordance with the Rabbis, who rule like Rabbi Yosei, the first clause is also in accordance with the Rabbis. And therefore the first clause, which permits the amputee’s prosthesis, is referring to a prosthetic foot covered in leather, as it constitutes a shoe due to its leather exterior. Rava said to him: But according to your explanation, if the prosthesis is not covered in leather, what would its status be? It would be unfit. If so, rather than teaching in the latter clause: Anpileya made of cloth is invalid for ḥalitza, let it distinguish within the matter itself and say: In what case is this statement that a wooden prosthesis is fit said? It is in the case of a prosthetic leg covered in leather, but if it is not covered in leather, it is unfit. Rather, the fact that the baraita was not taught in that manner indicates that Abaye’s explanation is incorrect. Therefore, Rava said that the contradiction should be reconciled in another way: Since the first clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that the shoes need not be made of leather, the latter clause is also taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the distinction between a wooden prosthetic and an anpileya of cloth is: This prosthesis protects the foot, and that soft shoe does not protect the foot, as it does not have a hard sole. Rabbi Meir does not require that the shoe be of leather, but he does require that it be protective footwear. With regard to the statement in the baraita that indicates that ḥalitza may be performed even if the yavam is not standing, Ameimar said: The one who performs ḥalitza by having his yevama remove his shoe must press his foot to the ground, and while in this position the yevama will remove his shoe. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But isn’t it taught in the baraita above: She may perform ḥalitza whether he was standing or sitting or leaning? One who is leaning cannot easily press his foot into the ground. He answered him: Say that the man may perform ḥalitza while in any of these positions, but that actually this is true only if he presses his foot to the ground, which is admittedly more difficult to do while leaning. And Ameimar also said about this issue: Someone who walks on the backs of his feet, meaning he is clubfooted and his foot is twisted upside down, cannot perform ḥalitza. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Leg supports can be used for ḥalitza. Does this not mean that this lame individual performs ḥalitza using these supports on his knees? This would indicate that even one with twisted feet can perform ḥalitza. The Gemara answers: No, the intention is that if he gave these supports to another whose foot is shaped normally and he wore them while performing ḥalitza, it is valid. That other one is allowed to perform ḥalitza while wearing these supports because they are also considered shoes, but one whose foot is misshapen may not perform ḥalitza with them, as it functions for him as a foot, not a shoe.

And who is deemed a man with crushed testicles? It is anyone whose testicles have been wounded, even one of them. And one whose penis has been severed is anyone whose sexual member has been cut off. As for the measure that renders him unfit, if there remains a portion of the corona, even as much as a hairsbreadth, he is still fit. However, if nothing at all is left of the corona, he is considered as one with a severed penis, for whom it is prohibited by Torah law to marry a Jewish woman.

§ Rav Amram said: This matter was said to us by Rav Sheshet, and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, i.e., he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion. Rav Sheshet’s statement was as follows: There is significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. And the tanna of the mishna also taught this halakha with regard to a sota (Sota 18a–b): When a sota is brought to the Temple to drink the bitter waters, she affirms the oath imposed on her by a priest that she has not committed adultery. The mishna explains that when she says amen, it is as though she herself states that: I did not go astray while betrothed, or married, or as a widow waiting for her yavam, or as a fully married woman.

MISHNA: A man may not neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply unless he already has children. Beit Shammai say: One fulfills this mitzva with two males, and Beit Hillel say: A male and a female, as it is stated: “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 5:2). GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna’s wording that if he already has children he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but he may not neglect the mitzva to have a wife. This supports what Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even if a man has several children, it is prohibited to remain without a wife, as it is stated: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). And some say a different version of the inference from the mishna: If he already has children, he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply and he may also neglect the mitzva to have a wife. Shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of what Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said? The Gemara responds: No, it means that if he does not have children he must marry a woman capable of bearing children, whereas if he has children he may marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. A practical difference between a man who has children and one who does not is whether he is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a woman capable of having children. This is permitted only for one who does not yet have children. § The mishna states that Beit Shammai say that one fulfills the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply when he has two males. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? The Gemara answers: We learn this from Moses as it is written: “The sons of Moses, Gershom and Eliezer” (I Chronicles 23:15). Since Moses did not have any other children, two sons must be sufficient to fulfill the mitzva. And the reason of Beit Hillel is that we learn from the creation of the world, as mankind was created male and female. The Gemara asks: And Beit Shammai, let them learn from the creation of the world as well. The Gemara answers that Beit Shammai could say to you: We do not derive a case where it is possible

and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, i.e., he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion: With regard to the wife of an Israelite who was raped, although she is permitted to her husband, she is disqualified for the priesthood. Therefore, if her husband dies, she may not marry a priest. And the tanna of our mishna also taught: And so too, in the case of one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden [arayot] by the Torah or with those who are unfit to marry him even though they are not in the category of arayot, the woman is disqualified from marrying a priest. What is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? What, is it not that it is no different whether they have intercourse unwittingly or intentionally, and it is no different whether they have intercourse due to coercion or willingly? And it is taught that he has rendered her disqualified from marrying a priest. The Gemara refutes this proof: No, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to the initial stage of intercourse, as this too invalidates her. The Gemara asks: The initial stage of intercourse of whom? If we say it is referring to those with whom relations are prohibited and carry a punishment of karet or death [arayot], is this to say that the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited is derived from the halakha with regard to a yevama, as implied by the phrase: And so too? On the contrary, we derive the halakha of a yevama from the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited, as the main source that indicates that the initial stage of intercourse is considered intercourse is stated in the context of those with whom relations are prohibited and not in the context of a yevama. Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical, i.e., anal, sexual intercourse with those with whom relations are prohibited [arayot]. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: On the contrary, the main source that atypical intercourse is considered intercourse, which is based upon the verse “The cohabitations of a woman” (Leviticus 18:22) is written with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited [arayot]. Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical intercourse by those liable for violating an ordinary prohibition not punishable by karet, with regard to whom the expression: The cohabitations of a woman, does not appear. In any event, Rav Sheshet’s proof from the mishna is not conclusive. § Rava said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged if he later has intercourse with her, due to the fact that it is prohibited for a priest to have intercourse with a zona. The Gemara expresses surprise: Due to the prohibition proscribing a zona, yes; due to ritual impurity, no? The Torah refers to a married woman who has had intercourse with another man as ritually impure, and she is forbidden to her husband. The Gemara emends Rava’s statement: Say that he is also flogged due to the prohibition with regard to a zona. Rabbi Zeira raised an objection based upon a verse with regard to a sota: “And neither was she taken” (Numbers 5:13) indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, i.e., raped, she is permitted to her husband. The term “And…she” indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is prohibited even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest. And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, e.g., the prohibition proscribing a priest’s wife to her husband if she has been raped, which is derived from the fact that the Torah indicates that the wife of an Israelite remains permitted, has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition. Rabba said in response: All married women who engaged in extramarital intercourse were included in the category of zona. When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if in fact she was forcibly taken, she is permitted. By inference, unlike the wife of an Israelite, the wife of a priest remains as she was. Since the Torah does not limit the category of zona with regard to the wife of a priest, she is considered a zona even if she was raped. And some say a different version of this discussion. Rabba said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged for having intercourse with her due to her ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: Due to ritual impurity, yes; due to the prohibition proscribing a zona, no? Apparently, in a case of rape, the victim is not called a zona. Rabbi Zeira raised an objection from the verse: “And neither was she taken” indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, she is permitted to her husband. The term: “And…she,” indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is forbidden even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest. And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition. Rava said: All were included in the verse “Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she was made ritually impure” (Deuteronomy 24:4). When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if she was forcibly taken she is permitted. By inference, the wife of a priest remains as she was, and she is forbidden.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If a tumtum, whose external sexual organs are indeterminate, was torn open so that his genitals were exposed, and he was found to be a male, he must not perform ḥalitza, because he is treated like a eunuch. A hermaphrodite may marry a woman but he may not be married by a man, as he is considered a man. Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to receive the punishment of stoning on his account as if he had had relations with a male.

The Gemara clarifies the statement of Beit Hillel: Did Beit Hillel really mean: Either they drink, which implies they may actually choose to drink? But doesn’t the Merciful One state: “And the man shall bring his wife” (Numbers 5:15), which indicates that the ritual of drinking the bitter waters applies only when the husband is still alive, and in this case there is no husband to do so; consequently, she should not be able to drink. Rather, Beit Hillel’s intent is as follows: The only means by which a suspected adulteress is able to collect her marriage contract is by drinking the bitter waters and proving her innocence. Therefore, where this is not possible due to the death of the husband, since the wives do not drink, they cannot collect their marriage contracts.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Nidda 5:6): After a woman gives birth, her husband penetrates inside and spills his semen outside for the entire twenty-four months during which the baby is breastfeeding, so that his wife not become pregnant, as that would terminate her milk production and the child might die. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. They said to him: These acts are nothing other than acts similar to those of Er and Onan, which are prohibited. Regardless, it can be deduced from here that Er and Onan engaged in normative sexual intercourse with Tamar, only they did not fully complete the sexual act.

Rav Mari bar Raḥel said to Rav Ashi that Ameimar said as follows: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. Rav Ashi said: Now that Ameimar said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who maintains that one who betroths a yevama before she has performed ḥalitza must give her a bill of divorce, if her yavam was a priest, he performs ḥalitza with her, as she is forbidden to him after the man who betrothed her gave her a bill of divorce, and she is thereby permitted to the man to whom she was betrothed.

MISHNA: A common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, unless he already has a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. And the Rabbis say: The only women in the category of zona, who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are a female convert, a freed maidservant, and any woman who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a man she is prohibited from marrying.

Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav was dozing or sleeping he said that halakha, and it is mistaken. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who was suspected of adultery with a married woman and as a result the court requires her husband to divorce her, and later she married someone else and was then divorced by this other, if the one who had been suspected of illicit relations with her then married her, he need not divorce her. The Gemara clarifies this: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is referring to a case where there are witnesses to their adultery, when another came and put an end to the rumor of her misconduct by marrying her, what of it? If there were witnesses, the adulterers may never marry each other. Rather, is it not referring to a case where there were no witnesses to the adultery, and the reason she does not have to be divorced from her third husband, with whom she committed adultery while married to her first husband, is specifically because another came and, by marrying her, put an end to the rumor? This implies that were it not so, i.e., had she not married someone else before marrying the man suspected of committing adultery with her, the court would have removed her from him and required them to divorce, even without witnesses to their adultery. This contradicts Rav’s statement above that they must divorce only if there were witnesses to the infidelity. The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you that the same is true even if another did not come and put an end to the rumor by marrying her. The same principle applies: If there were witnesses to the adultery the court removes her and requires them to divorce, but if there were no witnesses, the court does not remove her. And this is what the baraita is saying: The novelty in this baraita is that even though another came and put an end to the rumor by marrying her, nevertheless, the suspected adulterer may not marry her ab initio due to the original suspicions. The Gemara raises an objection from a different baraita that qualifies the previous one: In what case is this statement, that the court removes her from the suspected adulterer, said? It is when she has no children from her first husband. But if she has children from him, she is not required to be divorced from the suspected adulterer. On the contrary, if they were required to divorce, it could strengthen the original rumor and others might suspect that her children are mamzerim. However, if witnesses to her impurity, i.e., her adultery, came and testified that she had relations with this man while she was married, then even if she has several children from the first husband, she is required to be divorced. This implies that a woman without children from her first husband must separate from a man suspected of illicit relations with her on strength of suspicion alone.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If she performed ḥalitza using a shoe whose seams were opened up, which still covered most of the foot; or if she performed ḥalitza with a sandal whose sole was partially opened that still held most of the foot; or if she performed ḥalitza with a sandal made of cork [sha’am], or of fibers from a tree; or with a prosthetic foot of an amputee; or with a felt shoe [muk]; or with a leg blanket that an amputee makes for his feet as a covering in which to put the stumps of his legs, which is not an actual shoe; or with a leather anpileya; and likewise, a woman who performs ḥalitza with her yavam when he is an adult man,

However, Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees and says that he even enables her to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. With respect to this dispute, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Since you distinguish between teruma and the breast and thigh, do you maintain that teruma in the present is mandated only by rabbinic law? He said to him: Yes, and the proof is that I teach that a cake of dried figs that became intermingled with other cakes is nullified. If a cake of teruma figs became intermingled with one hundred ordinary cakes, the cake is nullified and it is not necessary to treat them all as teruma. If the cake, which is a food of importance in its own right, is nullified, this must be because the teruma is only by rabbinic law.

MISHNA: With regard to a female convert whose sons converted with her, they do not perform ḥalitza for each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them, as their conversions are considered rebirth, and they are considered unrelated. This is so even if the conception of the first son was not in the sanctity of Israel, i.e., the mother had not yet converted when she conceived of him, but his birth was in the sanctity of Israel, as his mother had converted by the time she gave birth to him, whereas the second son was both conceived and born in sanctity. The first son is considered a convert, who is unrelated to his brother. And this halakha similarly applies to a maidservant whose sons were freed with her, as they too are not considered relatives. GEMARA: The sons of Yudan the maidservant were freed. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov allowed them to marry each other’s wives after divorce. Rava said to him: Didn’t Rav Sheshet prohibit marriage in that case? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said to him: He prohibited it and I permit it. I disagree with his ruling. The Gemara explains: If the two freed slaves or converts are half brothers from their father’s side and not from their mother’s side, everyone agrees that the marriage is permitted, as even a gentile and certainly a convert are considered unrelated to their father’s family. If they are half brothers from their mother and not from their father, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. When they disagree, it is a case where they are brothers both from their father and from their mother. The one who permits the marriage claims that we trace them after their father. Their paternal lineage is followed, since they are called the sons of so-and-so, their father. Since they are recognized by their paternal lineage, it is well known that they are considered unrelated, and there is no concern that people will infer that a man may marry his sister-in-law. And Rav Sheshet maintains that they are also called the sons of so-and-so, their mother. Therefore, this concern does exist, as it is not common knowledge that a convert is considered reborn and unrelated to his mother’s family. And some say a different version of this dispute: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov disagrees with Rav Sheshet, even with regard to maternal half brothers. And what is the reasoning behind this opinion? The legal status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and all his previous family relationships are disregarded, whether from his father’s side or from his mother’s side. We learned in the mishna: With regard to a female convert whose sons converted with her, they do not perform ḥalitza with each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them. What is the reason that they may not perform levirate marriage? Is it not because they are prohibited from marrying them, contrary to Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s opinion? The Gemara answers: No, the mishna means that these wives are not included in the law of ḥalitza and levirate marriage, as they are considered unrelated, and each wife is therefore permitted to marry anyone. And they, too, are permitted to marry her. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the mishna teach that this is so even if the mother converted while pregnant with the first son, and the second converted independently? Granted, if you say that they are prohibited from marrying each other’s wives, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: Even so they are prohibited from marriage. Although the first son was not conceived in sanctity and only his birth was in sanctity, whereas the second was both conceived and born in sanctity, and therefore they are like the sons of two different mothers, even so they are prohibited from performing levirate marriage with their sisters-in-law. But if you say they are permitted to marry each other’s wives, what is the meaning of the word even? The Gemara answers: The mishna means that although both of them were born in sanctity, and people might come to confuse them with Jews from birth, who may not marry their sisters-in-law, nevertheless they are permitted to marry each other’s wives. There are those who say a different version of this inference: So too, it is reasonable that they are permitted to marry their sisters-in-law, as the mishna teaches: Even if the mother converted while pregnant. Granted, if you say that they are permitted, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: Even so they are permitted. Although both of them were born in sanctity, and people might come to confuse them with Jews from birth, nevertheless, they are permitted. But if you say that they are prohibited, what is the meaning of the word even? The Gemara answers: The mishna means that although the first son was not conceived in sanctity and only his birth was in sanctity, whereas the second was both conceived and born in sanctity, so that they are like the sons of two mothers, nevertheless, they are prohibited from marrying each other’s wives. The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear: Two twin brothers who are converts, and similarly twin brothers who are freed slaves, do not perform ḥalitza for each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them, and if they engage in intercourse with them they are not liable to receive karet for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. If they were not conceived in sanctity and only their birth was in sanctity, they do not perform ḥalitza or levirate marriage, but they are liable for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. If they were conceived and born in sanctity, they are like Jews from birth in all of their matters. In any event, the baraita is teaching that regular converts are not liable for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. It can be inferred that while there is no liability by Torah law,

The Gemara examines Rav and Rav Naḥman’s actions: But didn’t Rava say: With regard to a woman who had an offer of marriage and accepted, the emotional excitement may have caused her to have a flow of menstrual blood, which would making her ritually impure and prohibit her from engaging in intercourse. Even if she was unaware of any flow, she must consider the possibility that it occurred. To purify herself, she needs to wait seven consecutive days that are clean from any flow of menstrual blood and then immerse in a ritual bath. Only then may she marry. If so, how could Rav and Rav Naḥman marry women on the day they arrived?

The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, that they must divorce only if there were witnesses, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that they must divorce if there is a matter that is distasteful. The Gemara challenges this: One halakha is difficult, as it contradicts the other halakha. The Gemara answers: This contradiction is not difficult. This one relates to a case where the rumor ceases and the woman is sent away only if there are witnesses, but that one relates to a case where the rumor does not cease, in which case he divorces her even if there are no witnesses. The Gemara elucidates the cases: In cases of a rumor that does not cease, even if there are no witnesses the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and he divorces her. If the rumor ceases and there are witnesses, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and he divorces her because there are witnesses. The Gemara clarifies this: At what point is it considered to be a persistent rumor? Abaye said: My mother told me: A rumor in the city lasts a day and a half. The Gemara comments: We said that this is the length of time only if the rumor did not cease in the meantime. But if the rumor did cease in the meantime, even it was later renewed, this is considered a rumor that has ceased and is disregarded. And we said that a rumor that ceased is not considered persistent only if the reason it ceased was not due to fear of the individual about whom it is said. But if it ceased due to fear, it is only due to fear and is still considered a persistent rumor. And we said that a persistent rumor has validity only if the subject of the rumor does not have any known enemies, but if he has enemies it may be assumed that it is the enemies who put out the rumor about him.

MISHNA: 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. GEMARA: Rav Naḥman said: He who taught the version of the mishna which reads: The first widow goes out, is not mistaken in his version, and he who taught a variant version of the mishna which reads: The second widow goes out, is not mistaken either, since it is possible to understand the mishna both ways. Both versions of the text can refer to the same woman, i.e., the wife of the first brother, by different titles. The Gemara explains that he who taught:

If a sexually underdeveloped man performed ḥalitza with his yevama, he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as his ḥalitza is invalid. However, if he had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her. This is because it is considered licentious sexual intercourse, since such intercourse does not fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage and is therefore categorized as forbidden relations with one’s sister-in-law. And similarly, with regard to a sexually underdeveloped woman, if one of the brothers performed ḥalitza with her he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. However, if he had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her because the intercourse is considered licentious sexual intercourse.

§ The Gemara above (54a–54b) derived that the initial stage of intercourse is considered an act of sexual intercourse with regard to prohibitions that are punishable by capital punishment or karet. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the initial stage of intercourse is considered an act of sexual intercourse with regard to those liable to receive punishment for violating ordinary Torah prohibitions? The Gemara answers: From the fact that the Merciful One reveals with regard to a designated maidservant that the prohibition has been violated only through an act of cohabitation with seed, i.e., a complete act of sexual intercourse, in the verse “And whoever lies with a woman in cohabitation with seed, and she is a bondmaid designated to a man” (Leviticus 19:20), by inference, those liable to receive punishment for violating ordinary prohibitions are liable even through the initial stage of intercourse. The Gemara responds: On the contrary, from the fact that the Merciful One reveals that the initial stage of intercourse is considered sexual intercourse with regard to forbidden relationships for which one is liable to receive karet, then, by inference, those liable for violating ordinary prohibitions are liable only through the completion of the act of sexual intercourse and not merely for the initial stage of intercourse. Rav Ashi said: If so, let the verse remain silent in the case of a designated maidservant, and it would be assumed that one is liable to receive punishment only for completing the act of sexual intercourse. The fact that the Torah specified that in this case one is liable to receive punishment only for completing the act of sexual intercourse indicates that with regard to other ordinary prohibitions one is liable even for the initial stage of intercourse. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the initial stage of intercourse is considered an act of sexual intercourse with regard to those liable to receive punishment for violating prohibitions specific to the priesthood? Since these prohibitions are unique in that they apply only to priests, their parameters cannot be derived from prohibitions that apply to the entire population. The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the words taking and taking. This verb appears in prohibitions punishable by karet, e.g., “And if a man shall take his sister” (Leviticus 20:17), and in prohibitions of the priesthood, where it states: “They shall not take a woman that is a harlot” (Leviticus 21:7). The Gemara asks further: From where do we derive that the initial stage of intercourse is considered an act of sexual intercourse with regard to those liable to receive punishment for violating a positive mitzva, e.g., one who has intercourse with an Egyptian or Edomite convert? The verse states: “The children that are born to them of the third generation may enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:9). It is therefore a positive mitzva that only the grandchildren of these converts may have intercourse with a Jew.

The Gemara qualifies the mishna’s case: No, it is necessary to teach that he has permission to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot in the case where it is possible for him to provide for all four women. The Gemara asks: If so, then the same should be true even if there are many more women as well; why does the mishna specifically discuss a case of four women? The Gemara explains: The mishna teaches us good advice; in a case of up to four women, yes, if he can provide for them then it is acceptable to marry all of them. But if there are any more than that, no, he should not, in order that he will be able to meet the conjugal rights of each woman at least once in each month. A Torah scholar is expected to provide conjugal relations once a week. If he marries no more than four women, then that will ensure that each of his wives will receive their conjugal rights at least once a month.

Abaye said to him: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty with this answer: If she is considered a non-virgin, she is also a zona, and if she is not a zona she is also not a non-virgin. And lest you say that it is analogous to a case of a woman who lost her virginity via penetration by a foreign object atypically, i.e., anally, whose hymen was therefore not damaged and she is not forbidden as a zona, yet she is no longer considered a virgin, that is not correct: If so, if such a woman is considered a non-virgin and forbidden to a High Priest, you would have no woman who is fit for the High Priesthood, who has not lost her virginity via penetration by a foreign object atypically, i.e., by a pebble used to clean herself in the lavatory. Rather, Rabbi Zeira said that Rav was referring to one who refused her husband after having only atypical intercourse with him. Although the act of intercourse was not licentious, as she was married at the time, she is nevertheless disqualified from marrying into the priesthood because she is not a virgin. § Rabbi Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: A woman who had intercourse with an animal is like one whose hymen was torn accidentally. Consequently, she is not a zona and is fit for the priesthood. This is also taught in a baraita: If a woman had intercourse with one who is not a man, i.e., an animal, although she is liable to stoning if she did so intentionally and in the presence of witnesses who forewarned her of her punishment, she is nevertheless fit for the priesthood.

The mishna delineates the circumstances in which it is prohibited to engage in relations with the sister of one’s wife and the sister of one’s yevama: If a man’s wife died, he is permitted to her sister. If he divorced her and then she died, he is permitted to her sister. If he divorced his wife and then she was married to another and then died, he is permitted to her sister. If his yevama died, he is permitted to her sister. If he performed ḥalitza with her and then she died, he is permitted to her sister. If after ḥalitza she was married to another and then died, he is permitted to her sister. The principle underlying all these cases is that the prohibition against engaging in relations with her sister only applies while the wife or yevama remain alive, irrespective of their current relationship to the man.

§ It was taught in the mishna that if a man divorced his wife after ten years without children, she is permitted to marry a second man, who may remain married to her for ten years. The Gemara comments: A second husband, yes, but a third one, no. Once she has been married to two men without children for ten years each, it is presumed that she is unable to have children.

As Rav said that she is like a married woman who married another man based on testimony that her husband was dead and is therefore forbidden to the yavam, i.e., to her first husband, who is called the yavam after his brother married her. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman, and is permitted to him. This apparently contradicts Rav Yehuda’s ruling in the name of Shmuel that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as here too people might mistakenly think that the original betrothal included an unfulfilled condition and she should therefore be forbidden to him as the wife of his brother.

Furthermore, if a man marries a woman forbidden to him as a secondary relative, she does not have the right to receive payment for her marriage contract if divorced or widowed, nor is she entitled to payment from her husband for the produce of her property that he used, nor is she entitled to provisions for her sustenance from his estate, nor does she get back her worn clothes or other objects she brought with her to her marriage. And the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, and the court forces him to divorce her. In contrast, a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcée or a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] married to a common priest, a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite of unflawed lineage, and an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage married to a Gibeonite or to a mamzer all have the right to receive payment for their marriage contract, although it was prohibited for them to marry.

MISHNA: A common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, unless he already has a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. And the Rabbis say: The only women in the category of zona, who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are a female convert, a freed maidservant, and any woman who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a man she is prohibited from marrying. GEMARA: The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: What is the reason for the halakha that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? It is because he is obligated to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Is it only priests who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but Israelites were not commanded? Why does the mishna specify that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? Rav Huna said to him: This halakha does in fact apply even to Israelites, and the tanna mentions priests because he wants to teach it in a way that would parallel the latter clause of the mishna, which states that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife

Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling applies specifically to a High Priest, and it is the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that when the verse states: “A virgin of his own people shall he take for a wife [isha]” (Leviticus 21:14), one might have thought a High Priest may marry a minor; the verse therefore states that he must marry a woman [isha], i.e., an adult. If he must marry a woman, one might have thought it means a grown woman. The verse therefore states that he must marry a virgin, which excludes a grown woman, who is considered only a partial virgin because her hymen is not fully intact. How so? He must marry a woman who has left the class of minority but who has not yet reached the class of grown womanhood, i.e., he must marry a maiden.

The Gemara explains: Rav says she requires a bill of divorce from him, for since he married her, he apparently retracted his condition, and is therefore married to her even though the condition was not met. And Shmuel says: She does not require a bill of divorce from him, because anyone who has sexual intercourse with his wife, his intention is that the intercourse is within the framework established by the initial betrothal and the condition he set at the time of betrothal still stands. Since it was not fulfilled, the marriage is annulled. If so, Rav and Shmuel already disagreed about this same issue.

MISHNA: The Sages decreed that in the case of a minor girl whose father died, her mother or brothers may marry her off. However, such a marriage does not have the same legal status as the marriage of an adult. Therefore, if the minor regrets having married, she is allowed to make a declaration of refusal to her husband, thereby annulling the marital bond. The Sages disagreed with regard to the details of this halakha: Beit Shammai say: Only betrothed girls may refuse. A girl may refuse, upon reaching adulthood, to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father. But Beit Hillel say that both betrothed and fully married girls may refuse. Beit Shammai say: Refusal may be directed only at her husband and not at her yavam. In such a situation, she must perform ḥalitza in order to dissolve the levirate bond. But Beit Hillel say: It may be directed at her husband or her yavam. Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in the presence of the husband. But Beit Hillel say: It may take place either in his presence or in his absence. Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in court. But Beit Hillel say: It may take place either in court, or not in court.

Ravina said: Everyone agrees that a condition is effective with regard to ḥalitza, and here they disagree with regard to a compound condition. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that we require a compound condition. The man must explicitly stipulate that the ḥalitza should be effective if the condition is upheld, and that it should not be effective if she does not fulfill the condition. If he did not state both the positive and negative sides of the condition it does not take effect, and the ḥalitza is effective and the levirate bond is canceled. Consequently, betrothal by the levirate bond is ineffective. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that we do not require a compound condition. Therefore, the condition applies and cancels the ḥalitza, which leaves the levirate bond intact.

MISHNA: With regard to a woman whose offspring was mixed with the offspring of her daughter-in-law, and their lineage was consequently indeterminate, and the mixed sons matured and married women, and subsequently they died, the certain sons of the daughter-in-law perform ḥalitza with the wives, but not levirate marriage, as with regard to each wife it is uncertain whether she is his brother’s wife, and therefore his yevama, and uncertain whether she is his father’s brother’s wife, who is forbidden to him. However, the certain sons of the elder woman, i.e., the mother-in-law, perform either ḥalitza or levirate marriage, as with regard to each wife it is uncertain whether she is his brother’s wife, in which case levirate marriage is valid, or his brother’s son’s wife, in which case she is permitted to him, after having performed ḥalitza with a son of the daughter-in-law. If the sons of certain, unflawed lineage were the ones who died, then the mixed sons perform ḥalitza with the widows of the elder woman’s sons but not levirate marriage, as it is uncertain whether she is his brother’s wife or his father’s brother’s wife. With the widows of the certain sons of the daughter-in-law, one of the mixed sons performs ḥalitza, in case she is his brother’s wife. And the other one performs levirate marriage, as even if she is his brother’s son’s wife, she is permitted to him.

MISHNA: If a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her. And there was an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos, a widow, and the king subsequently appointed him to be High Priest, and he nevertheless married her. Conversely, in the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who happened before a common priest, i.e., the priest was her yavam, and he was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, then even if he had already performed levirate betrothal with her, he may not marry her, because she is a widow. GEMARA: The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, that he may marry her? The verse states: “Shall he take for a wife” (Leviticus 21:14), an inclusive phrase that indicates that he may marry her in this situation despite the general prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara asks: If so, a widow waiting for her yavam should also be permitted to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: The word “wife” indicates that this does not include a yevama, who was not initially his wife but his brother’s. The mishna related an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla. The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king appointed him, yes, but not that he was worthy of being appointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here, as this was clearly not a proper appointment by the priests and the Sanhedrin but rather a political appointment, as Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos brought a vessel the size of a half-se’a [tarkav] full of dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest. MISHNA: A High Priest whose brother died without children performs ḥalitza and he does not perform levirate marriage, as he may not marry a widow. GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna teaches this halakha categorically, indicating that it is no different if she is his brother’s widow from betrothal, and it is no different if she is his widow from marriage. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Granted, she is forbidden to him if she was widowed from marriage, as, if he were to marry her, it would be a violation of both the positive mitzva that the High Priest marry a virgin and the prohibition for him to marry a widow. And a positive mitzva, i.e., levirate marriage, does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva together. However, if she was a widow from betrothal and is therefore still a virgin, the positive mitzva of levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow.

The Gemara asks: But did we not learn in a mishna about the case where it is uncertain whether the bill of divorce is closer to him or closer to her with regard to situations of divorce whose status is uncertain? And didn’t we learn in a mishna: In a case where his wife was standing in the public domain and he threw her the bill of divorce, if the bill landed closer to her, she is divorced. If it was closer to him, she is not divorced. If it was half and half, i.e., if the bill of divorce landed midway between the man and the woman, there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.

The tanna’im disagree about the question: How long is a woman’s period of protracted labor? For what period of time prior to her giving birth is the bleeding attributed to her labor? Rabbi Meir says: It is up to forty or fifty days before she delivers. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her month suffices for her, i.e., it is from the beginning of the month in which she gives birth. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Protracted labor does not last for more than two weeks. Shmuel rules in accordance with Rabbi Yosei in this case.

And Rava himself said the opposite of what he quoted in the name of others: A court may not conduct ḥalitza unless they, the judges, recognize the participants, and a court may not convene a declaration of refusal unless they, the judges, recognize the young woman. Therefore, witnesses may write a document of ḥalitza even if they do not recognize the women themselves, as one who witnessed a court conduct ḥalitza can be sure that the court already checked the party’s identities thoroughly. And witnesses may write a document of refusal even if they do not recognize the young woman who has refused, relying on the fact that witnesses must have already attested to their identities. And we need not be concerned about the possibility of a mistaken court, as there is no reason to fear that the first court conducted the case without properly identifying the participants.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the case is one of a child recovering from an illness, let us give him the full seven days that he needs to recuperate properly. As Shmuel said: In the case of a baby that was sick with a high fever, and subsequently the fever left him, one gives him a full seven days to heal and only then is he circumcised, but not before. The Gemara answers: The case is in fact one where we already gave him a full seven days to heal, but they culminated on the eve of Passover. The Gemara asks: But if the seven-day recovery period ended on the eve of Passover, why did the father wait until the time of eating the Paschal lamb, i.e., the first night of Passover? He should have circumcised him already in the morning, before the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb. The Gemara answers: We require

The Sages taught: A widow married to a High Priest, or a divorcée or a ḥalutza married to a common priest has the right to receive payment for her marriage contract; and for the produce of her property that her husband used; and sustenance; and she gets back her worn clothes and other objects she brought to the marriage; and she is disqualified as a ḥalala from marrying a priest; and her offspring is disqualified from the priesthood as a ḥalal; and the court forces him to divorce her. A woman who is a secondary relative prohibited by rabbinic law has neither a marriage contract; nor payment for the produce of her property; nor sustenance; nor does she get back her worn clothes; and she is fit to marry a priest and her offspring is fit for the priesthood; and the court forces him to divorce her.

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating teruma and exclude an acute mourner? Perhaps just the opposite is true. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that lack of circumcision should be included and should prevent a priest from eating teruma, as the halakhot governing an uncircumcised man are stringent in several respects, as alluded to by the following mnemonic of key words: Acts; karetim; the divine word; the slave. The Gemara spells out these stringencies: An uncircumcised man lacks the act of circumcision, and this act is performed on his body; the failure to perform circumcision is punishable by karet; circumcision existed before the divine word was spoken at Mount Sinai, as the mitzva of circumcision had already been given to Abraham; and the lack of circumcision of one’s male children and slaves precludes one’s eating the Paschal lamb, as is explicitly stated in the Torah (Exodus 12:48).

§ Apropos the discussion with regard to the mitzva to have children, the Gemara cites statements about marriage in general. Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Ḥanilai said: Any man who does not have a wife is left without joy, without blessing, without goodness. He proceeds to quote verses to support each part of his statement. He is without joy, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26), which indicates that the a man is in a joyful state only when he is with his household, i.e., his wife. He is without blessing, as it is written: “To cause a blessing to rest in your house” (Ezekiel 44:30), which indicates that blessing comes through one’s house, i.e., one’s wife. He is without goodness, as it is written: “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18), i.e., without a wife. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: One who lives without a wife is left without Torah, and without a wall of protection. He is without Torah, as it is written: “Is it that I have no help in me, and that sound wisdom is driven from me?” (Job 6:13), indicating that one who does not have a wife lacks sound wisdom, i.e., Torah. He is without a wall, as it is written: “A woman shall go round a man” (Jeremiah 31:21), similar to a protective wall. Rava bar Ulla said: One who does not have a wife is left without peace, as it is written: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation and shall miss nothing” (Job 5:24). This indicates that a man has peace only when he has a tent, i.e., a wife. On the same verse, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever knows that his wife fears Heaven and she desires him, and he does not visit her, i.e., have intercourse with her, is called a sinner, as it is stated: And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A man is obligated to visit his wife for the purpose of having intercourse when he is about to depart on a journey, as it is stated: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace, etc.” The Gemara asks: Is this last statement derived from here? It is derived from there: “And your desire shall be to your husband” (Genesis 3:16), which teaches that a wife desires her husband when he is about to depart on a journey. Rav Yosef said: The additional derivation cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is necessary only near the time of her set pattern, i.e., when she expects to begin experiencing menstrual bleeding. Although the Sages generally prohibited intercourse at this time due to a concern that the couple might have intercourse after she begins bleeding, if he is about to depart on a journey he must have intercourse with her. The Gemara asks: And how much before the expected onset of menstrual bleeding is considered near the time of her set pattern? Rava said: An interval of time, i.e., half a daily cycle, either a day or a night. The Gemara comments: And this statement that a man must have intercourse with his wife before he departs on a journey applies only if he is traveling for an optional matter, but if he is traveling in order to attend to a matter pertaining to a mitzva, he is not required to have intercourse with his wife so that he not become preoccupied and neglect the mitzva.

§ The Sages taught: One who loves his wife as he loves himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time when they reach maturity, about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace. As a result of his actions, there will be peace in his home, as it will be devoid of quarrel and sin. One who loves his neighbors, and who draws his relatives close, and who marries the daughter of his sister, a woman he knows and is fond of as a family relative and not only as a wife,

Rabbi Ya’akov says: It is as though he diminishes the Divine Image, as it is stated: “For in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6), and it is written immediately afterward: “And you, be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:7). Ben Azzai says: It is as though he sheds blood and also diminishes the Divine Image, as it is stated: “And you, be fruitful and multiply,” after the verse that alludes to both shedding blood and the Divine Image. They said to ben Azzai: There is a type of scholar who expounds well and fulfills his own teachings well, and another who fulfills well and does not expound well. But you, who have never married, expound well on the importance of procreation, and yet you do not fulfill well your own teachings. Ben Azzai said to them: What shall I do, as my soul yearns for Torah, and I do not wish to deal with anything else. It is possible for the world to be maintained by others, who are engaged in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.

Shmuel said: And if one wishes to ensure that one’s slave does not declare the immersion to be for the sake of conversion, then one needs to hold him tightly in the water in a way that demonstrates the owner’s dominance over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery. That is as demonstrated in this incident involving Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave: When he wished to immerse him, he passed him to Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, to perform the immersion on his behalf, and he said to them: Be aware that I will claim compensation for him from you if you do not prevent my slave from immersing for the sake of conversion. They placed a bridle [arvisa] upon his neck, and at the moment of immersion they loosened it and then immediately tightened it again while he was still immersed.

The Gemara explains the cases involved: What is the period of mourning to which Rav Ḥisda is referring? As we learned in a mishna (Ta’anit 26b): During the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs, it is prohibited to cut hair and to launder clothes, but on Thursday it is permitted in deference to Shabbat. And it is taught in a baraita: Prior to this time the public reduce their activities, refraining from business transactions, from building and planting, and they may betroth women but may not marry them, and they may not make a betrothal feast. The Gemara assumes that the baraita is referring to the days immediately preceding the Ninth of Av. Accordingly, during the days prior to the Ninth of Av it is prohibited to launder clothes, but it is permitted to be betrothed. It was upon this period of time that Rav Ḥisda based his a fortiori inference. To defend Rav Yosei’s ruling in the mishna, the Gemara explains: When that baraita is taught, it is taught with regard to the period prior to the period that is prior to the Ninth of Av, i.e., the days prior to the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs. It is only then that it is permitted to be betrothed, but during the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs it is prohibited. Therefore, the basis of Rav Ḥisda’s a fortiori inference is undermined. Rava said: From the period prior to the period that is prior to the Ninth of Av, a challenge to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling can also be advanced based on an a fortiori inference, as follows: If in a period of mourning when it is prohibited to conduct business transactions, it is permitted to be betrothed, then during the thirty-day morning period for a husband, when it is permitted to conduct business transactions, isn’t it logical that it should also be permitted to be betrothed? The Gemara accepts the conclusion of this a fortiori inference and therefore concludes: Do not say that Rabbi Yosei says: All women may be betrothed within three months; rather, emend his statement to say: All women may be married within three months except for a widow. However, even Rabbi Yosei agrees that it is permitted for a widow to be betrothed during this period.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a yavam is betrothed to the sister of his yevama, then since the yevama is his betrothed wife’s sister, it is forbidden for him to consummate a levirate marriage with her. However, if his betrothed wife died, what is the halakha with regard to his yevama; is he then permitted to consummate a levirate marriage with her? It is Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina who both say: If his wife died, he is permitted to consummate a levirate marriage with his yevama. Their opinion is disputed by Shmuel and Rav Asi, who both say: If his wife died, he is forbidden to his yevama. Rava said: What is Rav’s reasoning? She is permitted due to the fact that she is a yevama who, when her husband died, was permitted to the yavam, and then when the yavam betrothed her sister she became forbidden to him as his wife’s sister, and then when his wife died the yevama reverted to her original status and was permitted to him. As such, she should also revert to her original permitted status with regard to levirate marriage and be permitted to consummate a levirate marriage with the yavam. Rav Hamnuna raised an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: With regard to a case of three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters and one of whom is a bachelor, if one of the sisters’ husbands died and the bachelor performed levirate betrothal with that sister, and afterward the second brother who was married to the other sister died, and so his wife also happened before the bachelor for levirate marriage, the bachelor is then bound to each of the sisters through a levirate bond. In such a case it is prohibited for the bachelor to consummate a levirate marriage with either one, as it is prohibited to marry the sister of a woman to whom one is bound through a levirate bond. And if afterward the wife of the second brother died after him, i.e., after her husband had already died, which restored the original situation in which the bachelor was bound by a levirate bond only to the widow of the first brother, then in such a case that yevama, the widow of the first brother, performs ḥalitza but may not enter into levirate marriage. Rav Hamnuna explains the challenge from the baraita: But why may she not consummate the levirate marriage? She should be like a yevama who was initially permitted to her yavam, and then became forbidden to him, and then reverted to her original status and was permitted, and so in this case she should also revert to her original permitted status with regard to levirate marriage and be permitted to consummate a levirate marriage with him. The fact that the baraita rules that she is prohibited from consummating the marriage demonstrates that she does not revert to her original permitted status. Rava was silent, as he had no immediate answer. After Rav Hamnuna left the study hall, Rava said to himself: Why did you not say to him that the baraita does not pose a challenge because it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said in a mishna (108b) with regard to the case of a man who divorced his wife, remarried her, and then died childless, that the yevama may not consummate levirate marriage with her yavam because once a yevama has stood before her yavam in a forbidden state, even for a single moment, she remains forbidden to him forever, and in that case, during the period she was divorced from her husband she was forbidden to her yavam? The Rabbis, however, disagree with his opinion, and the halakha is ruled in accordance with their opinion. He then said to himself: It is not certain that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar because one could say that Rabbi Elazar said his opinion only where she was not suitable for the yavam, i.e., she was forbidden to him, already from the time of her happening before her yavam for levirate marriage at the moment of her husband’s death. However, where she was suitable for her yavam at the time of her happening before him and became forbidden to him only at some later point, as in the case of a yavam who betrothed the sister of his yevama, did he actually say that if the reason for the prohibition is removed then she does not return to her permissible state? If the baraita does not represent the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, then it must be unanimously agreed upon, and therefore it indeed poses a challenge. He then said: Yes, actually, Rabbi Elazar did state his opinion even in such a case, and so it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a yavam who betrothed the sister of his yevama, Rabbi Elazar says: If his yevama dies, he is permitted to his wife. If his wife dies, that yevama performs ḥalitza but may not enter into levirate marriage with him. Therefore, the challenge from the baraita can be dismissed since it represents only Rabbi Elazar’s opinion. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Shmuel and Rav Asi, who say that she may not consummate the levirate marriage, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that they hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as perhaps the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Elazar in the case of a man who divorced and remarried his wife and then died childless only due to the fact that in that case, from the time of her happening for levirate marriage and onward she was not forbidden to them, i.e., her yevamin. The fact that the prohibition between her and her yevamin ended before she ever happened before them for levirate marriage means it has no bearing on her current eligibility for levirate marriage. However, here, in the case where the yavam betrothed the sister of his yevama, since she became forbidden after she had already happened before him for levirate marriage, even the Rabbis would agree that she remains permanently ineligible to consummate levirate marriage with him. MISHNA: A yevama may neither perform ḥalitza nor enter into levirate marriage until she has waited three months from the time of her husband’s death. And similarly, all other women may not be betrothed and may not marry until they have waited three months since their previous marriage ended. This waiting period is necessary so that, should a woman give birth shortly after remarrying, it will be obvious who the father of the child is. This applies both to virgins and non-virgins, both to divorcées and widows, and both to women who were married to their previous husbands and women who were only betrothed. All of these women must wait three months before remarrying even though for some of them the reason for doing so does not apply. Rabbi Yehuda says: The women who were married to their previous husbands may be betrothed, and the women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands may marry without waiting three months. This is true except for the betrothed women that are in the area of Judea, due to the fact that the groom is familiar with her. The custom in Judea was for the couple to be secluded together before the marriage so that they would become familiar with each other. This led to the possibility that they might cohabit even during their betrothal period. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one does not need to wait three months whenever the reason for doing so does not apply. Rabbi Yosei says: All of the women may be betrothed within three months even if they were previously married, except for a widow,

And it was further taught in a baraita: Any of those with whom relations are forbidden by Torah law do not require a bill of divorce to dissolve a union, except for a married woman who remarried by permission of the court. The Gemara infers: It is only a woman who married by permission of the court who requires a bill of divorce, but if she married based on testimony of witnesses she does not require a bill of divorce.

§ Rava said: The rationale of Beit Shammai for their opinion that rival wives are permitted in levirate marriage is not due to a specific verse. Rather, Beit Shammai apply the well-known halakhic principle that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. Since the first wife was already a prohibited relation to her brother-in-law during his brother’s lifetime, the second prohibition of a wife’s sister does not apply to her. Accordingly, her presence is entirely disregarded, as though there is no forbidden relative here to exempt the rival wife.

Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who came and said: I was circumcised for the sake of conversion but I did not immerse, the court should immerse him, as what would be the problem with that; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Since in any case the court immerses him, Rabbi Yehuda does not require proof of the convert’s claim that he was circumcised for the sake of conversion because he holds that it is sufficient to be either circumcised or immersed for the sake of conversion. Rabbi Yosei says: The court does not immerse him. He holds that both circumcision and immersion must be performed specifically for the sake of conversion and are indispensable parts of the conversion process. Therefore, since it is impossible to verify the convert’s claim with regard to his circumcision, there is no benefit to having him immerse. The baraita states a ramification of their dispute: Therefore, the court may immerse a convert who was already circumcised on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Since he holds that circumcision alone effected conversion, the immersion will not effect any further change in his status, and so it is permitted on Shabbat. And Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. Since he holds that both circumcision and immersion are necessary to effect a conversion, the immersion will effect a change in his status by making him Jewish. Therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use. The Gemara analyzes the latter clause: The Master said in the baraita: Therefore, the court may immerse a convert who was already circumcised on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this an obvious extension of his opinion; since Rabbi Yehuda said that either one of circumcision or immersion is sufficient, where a convert was circumcised in our presence the court may certainly immerse him, even on Shabbat. What, then, is the need for the baraita to include the clause that begins with: Therefore? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification lest you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the immersion is in fact the principal act that effects conversion, and when he said in the first clause that a convert who claims to have been circumcised should be immersed since there is no problem with that, his reasoning was that he holds it is only immersion that effects the conversion. And therefore performing the immersion on Shabbat would not be permitted, as it establishes the person with a new status and so would be prohibited by a rabbinic decree because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda requires either this or that, i.e., either immersion or circumcision alone is sufficient to effect a conversion. The Gemara analyzes the next statement in the baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this an obvious extension of his opinion? As, since Rabbi Yosei requires two acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion, we may certainly not establish that person with a new status on Shabbat by completing his conversion by immersing him. The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification lest you say that according to Rabbi Yosei circumcision is in fact the principal act that effects conversion, and it is only there, in the first clause of the baraita, where the circumcision was not performed in our presence and so there is no way to verify whether it was done for the sake of conversion, that Rabbi Yosei states that the court should not proceed to immerse him; however, where the circumcision was performed in our presence, one might say that the conversion was already effected by the circumcision, and therefore let us immerse this convert on Shabbat. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yosei requires two acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion. Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi, and as Rav Yosef teaches it, Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi was also present, and as Rav Safra teaches it, a third Sage, Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, was also present, in which a convert came before him who was circumcised but had not immersed. He said to the convert: Remain here with us until tomorrow, and then we will immerse you. Rabba said: Learn from this incident three principles: Learn from it that a convert requires a court of three people to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra taught that the case involved three Sages. And learn from it that one is not considered to be a convert until he has been both circumcised and immersed. And learn from it that the court may not immerse a convert at night, as they instructed him to remain there until the following day. The Gemara suggests: And let us say that one should also learn from it that we require a court of experts to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra identified that three expert Sages were present. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps they simply happened to be there, but in fact three laymen would suffice. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A convert requires a court of three to preside over conversion, because “judgment,” is written with regard to him, as the verse states: “And one judgment shall be both for you and for the convert that sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16), and legal judgments require a court of three judges. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to someone who came and said: I am a convert, one might have thought that we should accept him; therefore, the verse states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land, you shall not oppress him” (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on “with you” suggests that only someone who was already presumed by you to be a valid convert should be accepted as a convert. If he came and brought witnesses to his conversion with him, from where is it derived that he is to be accepted? It is from the beginning of that verse, which states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land.”

MISHNA: The mitzva of ḥalitza, the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds, must be performed before three judges, and the ritual does not require the judges to be experts fit to adjudicate other matters, as even if all three are laymen, it is acceptable. If she performed ḥalitza while he was wearing a shoe made of soft leather that covers the whole foot, her ḥalitza is valid, but if she performed ḥalitza while he was wearing a soft shoe [anpileya] made of cloth, her ḥalitza is invalid, as it is not considered a real shoe. If ḥalitza was performed while he was wearing a sandal, i.e., footwear made of hard leather, that has a heel, it is valid; but if performed with a sandal without a heel, it is invalid ḥalitza. If the leg of the yavam was amputated anywhere from the knee down and she performed ḥalitza as he wore a shoe on the stump of his leg, it is valid ḥalitza. If, however, the leg was amputated anywhere from the knee and above, and she performed ḥalitza as he wore a shoe on the stump of his leg, it is invalid ḥalitza. If she performed ḥalitza while the man was wearing a sandal that did not belong to him, or a sandal made of wood, or on the left shoe, which was being worn on his right foot, it is valid ḥalitza. If she performed ḥalitza as the man was wearing a shoe that was too large for him but which he can still walk in, or a shoe that was too small but that covered most of his foot, her ḥalitza is valid. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna says that even three laymen are qualified for ḥalitza, why do I need it to mention judges? It would be sufficient to say that the mitzva requires three people. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that we require three people who can at least dictate the verses read during the ḥalitza ritual to the participants like judges, as they are not complete laymen in that they are literate. The Gemara comments: We already learned this halakha in a baraita, as the Sages taught: The mitzva of ḥalitza is performed before three individuals who know how to dictate the verses like judges. Rabbi Yehuda says: Ḥalitza must be performed before five individuals acting as judges.

§ Apropos the discussion with regard to the mitzva to have children, the Gemara cites statements about marriage in general. Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Ḥanilai said: Any man who does not have a wife is left without joy, without blessing, without goodness. He proceeds to quote verses to support each part of his statement. He is without joy, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26), which indicates that the a man is in a joyful state only when he is with his household, i.e., his wife. He is without blessing, as it is written: “To cause a blessing to rest in your house” (Ezekiel 44:30), which indicates that blessing comes through one’s house, i.e., one’s wife. He is without goodness, as it is written: “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18), i.e., without a wife.

MISHNA: The Sages decreed that in the case of a minor girl whose father died, her mother or brothers may marry her off. However, such a marriage does not have the same legal status as the marriage of an adult. Therefore, if the minor regrets having married, she is allowed to make a declaration of refusal to her husband, thereby annulling the marital bond. The Sages disagreed with regard to the details of this halakha: Beit Shammai say: Only betrothed girls may refuse. A girl may refuse, upon reaching adulthood, to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father. But Beit Hillel say that both betrothed and fully married girls may refuse. Beit Shammai say: Refusal may be directed only at her husband and not at her yavam. In such a situation, she must perform ḥalitza in order to dissolve the levirate bond. But Beit Hillel say: It may be directed at her husband or her yavam. Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in the presence of the husband. But Beit Hillel say: It may take place either in his presence or in his absence. Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in court. But Beit Hillel say: It may take place either in court, or not in court. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: She may refuse as long as she is a minor, even four or five times if her relatives married her off again to another man after each refusal. Beit Shammai said to them: The daughters of Israel are not to be treated with disregard and should not be passed from one man to another. Rather, she refuses once. And then she must wait until she reaches majority, and refuse, and marry.

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: What is the reason of Beit Shammai for ruling that a married minor girl may not perform refusal? It is because there are no conditions with regard to marriage. Although a betrothal can be conditional, the condition is nullified upon consummation of the marriage. Likewise, marriage cannot be conditional, as the sexual relationship is not subject to conditions. And if a married minor girl would refuse, others may mistakenly think this to be a condition with regard to the marriage of an adult woman, and they will come to say that there can be a condition with regard to marriage. The Gemara asks: But what is there to say if she entered the marriage canopy but did not yet engage in sexual intercourse? The marriage goes into effect even though it has not yet been consummated. The Gemara replies: There are no conditions with regard to a wedding canopy, i.e., the wedding ceremony. The Gemara asks further: But what is there to say if the father delivered his daughter to the agents of the husband to be married, so that she was considered married even before the marriage ceremony took place? The Gemara answers: The Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances, and no marriages are conditional. It follows that refusal cannot take place once a minor girl is married. And with regard to Beit Hillel, what is their reasoning? It is known that marriage of a minor girl is by rabbinic law, and therefore no one would confuse this type of marriage with an adult marriage. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Beit Shammai’s reason is that a man would not readily render his sexual act licentious sexual intercourse. If he had intercourse with the minor girl and the marriage was later retroactively annulled by her refusal, then his sexual act was outside the context of marriage and is regarded as licentious.

The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said that even in marriage, one should be careful not to create a situation that could lead to the birth of mamzerim. Therefore, a man should not marry a woman in this country and then go and marry another woman in a different country, lest a son from one marriage and a daughter from the other, unaware that they are both children of the same father, unite with one another, and it could emerge that a brother marries his sister, the children of whom would be mamzerim.

It may be inferred logically from the fact that the Torah rendered him liable here and rendered him liable with his sister: Just as with regard to his sister he is liable to receive punishment whether she is his sister from his father or from his mother, so too here, he is liable whether she is his father’s sister from his father or from his mother.

And if you would say that indeed three men are required, but isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to refusal, Beit Shammai say that a declaration of refusal may be performed only by a court of experts, and Beit Hillel say: It may be performed in a court of experts, or not in a court of experts. Both concede that whether the judges are experts or not, three men are required. On the other hand, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, validate declarations of refusal even before two men. And Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha follows that pair. Evidently, Rav Naḥman is willing to rule differently from the unattributed mishna that rules that three judges are necessary for ḥalitza.

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who remarries his divorcée, and one who marries his ḥalutza, and one who marries a relative of his ḥalutza, Rabbi Akiva says that one’s betrothal of such women is not effective. And therefore, even if he attempts to do so, it is meaningless and she does not require a bill of divorce from him in order to separate from him. And if she has relations with him she is rendered unfit and her child is unfit, and we force him to send her away. The Rabbis say that one’s betrothal of such women is effective, and therefore if he betrothed her she requires a bill of divorce from him, and if she has relations with him she remains fit and her child is fit.

The Gemara asks: If she said to her husband that he divorced her, let us believe her claim, in accordance with the statement of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A woman who said to her husband: You divorced me, is deemed credible. Why? There is a presumption that a woman would not dare to lie in the presence of her husband about a matter which he knows to be untrue. If so, why isn’t her claim that she was divorced accepted? This would mean that there is no need for any testimony concerning his death, as the ties between them have already been severed.

§ We learned in a mishna there (Gittin 45b): A man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not take her back again, even if it turns out that the rumor was untrue. Likewise, if he divorced his wife due to a vow of hers that is unbearable to him he may not take her back even if she is released from that vow. Rabba bar Rav Huna sent a question to Rabba bar Rav Naḥman: Our teacher, instruct us. If one of those men listed in that mishna divorced his wife due to her bad reputation or vow and it was therefore prohibited for him to take her back, yet he nevertheless remarried her, what is the halakha? Must he divorce her? Rabba bar Rav Naḥman said to him: We already learned in the mishna (24b): With regard to one who is suspected of committing adultery with a married woman, and he, her husband, divorced her, even if he subsequently remarried her he must divorce her. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Is this comparable to the case I asked about? There, in the mishna, it says: They, the court, remove her from him, whereas here (Gittin 45b), the mishna states: He divorced her of his own accord. Perhaps if the court requires them to divorce, the halakha is different. The Gemara explains: And Rabba bar Rav Naḥman, who held that the two mishnayot were comparable, had a text of the mishna that also read: He divorced her, instead of: They remove her. Rabba bar Rav Huna asks: Still, is this comparable? Here, the question was raised in a case where the first husband remarried her, which will not strengthen the rumors of her bad reputation, but there, the mishna refers to the man with whom she committed adultery remarrying her, which strengthens those rumors. He said to him: They are certainly comparable to each other: Here, in the mishna discussing one who is suspected of committing adultery, the Sages said that he may not marry her and if he did marry her he must divorce her. So too, the Sages said in the case of one who divorced his wife due to her reputation or vow that he may not take her back, and if he does remarry her he must divorce her. The Gemara rejects this: That is not so, as there, when the man suspected of committing adultery marries the woman, he thereby strengthens the rumor of adultery. For this reason he must divorce her. Here, we say that he, the husband, established the facts of the rumor and found that it was not so and the rumor was baseless. Therefore, there is no need for him to divorce her if he remarries her. Rabba bar Rav Huna’s question remains unresolved. MISHNA: 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.

If the yavam consummated the levirate marriage with her, then her legal status is that of his wife in every sense, and therefore the yavam has the same rights to her property as in a regular marriage. And the only exception to this is that her marriage contract will still be payable from the property of her first husband and not from the property of the yavam.

Rabbi Akiva says: He should nullify the vow, lest she exceed more than is fitting for him. A husband is entitled only to a certain sum from his wife’s earnings (see Ketubot 64b). If she earns only the sum of money to which he is entitled, the vow certainly does not go into effect. However, she might earn more, in which case the vow would apply with regard to the additional amount. To avoid this scenario, it is preferable for the husband to nullify the vow. This shows that according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva a vow applies even with regard to an entity that has not yet come into the world. In this case, the entity is the earnings for work she has yet to perform. The Gemara refutes this proof: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This mishna is not referring to a woman who renders the earnings for work she has yet to perform forbidden, but to a wife who says: Let my hands be consecrated to their Maker. In other words, she declares that it is as though her hands were sanctified, which means that anything produced by them is forbidden. Since these hands are in the world, she has not attempted to acquire something that does not exist. Therefore, there is no proof from here with regard to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion on that issue.

The Gemara cites Rava’s final ruling: Rava said that the halakha is the same for a quarantined sandal, a confirmed sandal, and a sandal of idolatrous worship, i.e., a sandal that was placed on a statue of idolatrous worship; one should not perform ḥalitza with it, and if she did perform ḥalitza with it, her ḥalitza is valid. If, however, he was wearing a sandal that functioned as an offering of idolatrous worship, in that it was brought as a gift to an idol;

§ The mishna taught: If there was a quarrel between him and her, her testimony that her husband died is not accepted. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a quarrel between him and her? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is a case where people heard her say to her husband: Divorce me. The Gemara asks: Is this proof? All women likewise say this when they are angry; this does not prove that there was an unresolved quarrel left between them. Rather, a quarrel is when she says to her husband: You divorced me, i.e., she claims that she was actually divorced. The Gemara asks: If she said to her husband that he divorced her, let us believe her claim, in accordance with the statement of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A woman who said to her husband: You divorced me, is deemed credible. Why? There is a presumption that a woman would not dare to lie in the presence of her husband about a matter which he knows to be untrue. If so, why isn’t her claim that she was divorced accepted? This would mean that there is no need for any testimony concerning his death, as the ties between them have already been severed. The Gemara answers: In fact, a couple is considered to be quarreling when she says: You divorced me in the presence of two witnesses, so-and-so and so-and-so; and the court asked those men and they said: This matter never happened. In this case it is obvious that there was a terrible quarrel between them, but her claim that she was divorced is not accepted. Consequently, her later claim that her husband is dead is not accepted. § The Gemara analyzes the ruling of the mishna itself. What is the reason that in the case of a quarrel between them the court does not accept her testimony? Rav Ḥanina said: Because she lies, i.e., due to their quarrel she is likely to testify falsely that her husband died. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Because she says what she imagines to be the case. When there is peace between them, she examines the matter thoroughly to discover whether he actually died, but if there is a quarrel between them she is not so exacting, as she is pleased to be rid of him. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two explanations?

MISHNA: And if any of these fifteen women who are prohibited as forbidden relatives had undergone a betrothal or divorce whose status is uncertain with the deceased brother, then those women who were their rival wives must perform ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage since they are possibly the rival wives of forbidden relatives. The mishna elaborates: How could there be a situation of uncertainty with regard to betrothal? If in the public domain he threw her an item for the purpose of betrothal and there were eight cubits between them, and the item was possibly closer to him and did not enter into her domain, and possibly closer to her, i.e., within four cubits of her, whereby she could acquire the object, this is a case of uncertainty with regard to betrothal.

§ The Gemara mentioned that a yevama is supported from her deceased husband’s estate. It now proceeds to cite a baraita that teaches this halakha: The Sages taught: A yevama during the first three months following her husband’s death receives sustenance payments from the husband’s estate. This is because her previous marriage to him is the cause of her current unmarried state, since is it due to that marriage that she must first wait three months before remarrying. From this point forward, she does not receive sustenance payments, neither from the husband’s estate nor from the yavam, as he has not yet consummated a levirate marriage with her. The baraita continues: If the yavam was brought to judgment and it was decided that he was obligated to either consummate the levirate marriage with her or perform ḥalitza, and he ran away to avoid doing so, she receives sustenance payments from the estate of the yavam, which is his penalty for neglecting his duty. The Gemara asks: If she happened before her yavam who is a minor for levirate marriage, what is the halakha? From the yavam she does not have any right to sustenance payments because, as a minor, he is unable to consummate a levirate marriage, but as to payments from her husband’s estate, what is the halakha? Since his death placed her in a situation that forces her to remain in an unmarried state, does his estate have to take the responsibility of supporting her? Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this matter: One said she does have rights to sustenance payments, and the other one said she does not have any rights. And the halakha is that she does not have any rights to sustenance payments. This is because the husband is not considered to be responsible for her situation; rather, it is thought that she was penalized by Heaven.

The Gemara answers: Perhaps you spoke of an Ammonite convert who married the daughter of a Jew, and Rabbi Yoḥanan wished to teach that although his intercourse involves a transgression, as it is prohibited for him to enter into the congregation, his daughter is nevertheless fit to marry into the priesthood. Ulla said to him: Yes, this was Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teaching. As, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to the daughter of an Ammonite convert who is the offspring of his forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, and similarly, with regard to the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian convert from his forbidden marriage with a woman of Jewish birth, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that she is fit to marry into the priesthood, whereas Reish Lakish said that she is disqualified from marrying a priest. Reish Lakish said she is disqualified, as he derives from the halakha governing a High Priest who married a widow that the daughter of any forbidden union is disqualified from the priesthood. Rabbi Yoḥanan said she is fit,

We are not concerned about any rumor after marriage. If a rumor spread about a woman after her marriage that she was forbidden to her husband, the court takes no notice of these reports. The Gemara answers: There is a novel aspect to this teaching: Lest you say that since she came to the court and they permitted her, the very fact that her case had to be discussed indicates that her status is not fully established, and consequently one might think that it should be considered like a rumor before marriage, and she should therefore be forbidden, Rav Ashi therefore teaches us that even in this case, once she is married the court takes no notice of unsubstantiated rumors.

The Gemara asks: And why do you not resolve the dilemma from a teaching of Rava? For Rava said: If a yavam gave a bill of divorce for his levirate betrothal, her rival wife is permitted. The levirate betrothal he had previously performed is thereby canceled, which leaves the bond intact, and the rival wife of this yevama remains available for levirate marriage. This indicates that levirate betrothal and the levirate bond are not connected. The Gemara answers: To Rava it is obvious, but to Rav Ḥananya it is a dilemma. What, then, is the halakha? Since no other proof is forthcoming, and Rav Ḥananya does not accept the teaching of Rava, the question remains undecided. The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved. § It was taught in the mishna: If the yavam performed ḥalitza and then performed levirate betrothal, nothing is effective after ḥalitza and this levirate betrothal is not valid. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who says that betrothal does not take effect on those who are forbidden as they are liable for violating a prohibition. Once he has performed ḥalitza, the woman is forbidden to him due to the prohibition derived from the verse “So shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9), and betrothal is ineffective. But the Rabbis say something is effective after ḥalitza. Although the woman who performed ḥalitza is forbidden to him, if he does betroth her, his betrothal is effective, as with any regular prohibition. The Gemara asks: And can you establish that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? But doesn’t the first clause of the mishna teach: If he gave a bill of divorce and performed levirate betrothal, she requires a bill of divorce and ḥalitza. Now if this is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, once he gave her a bill of divorce, is levirate betrothal effective for her? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived that if one gives a bill of divorce to his yevama, she is forbidden to him forever and he no longer has the option of marrying her? As it is stated with regard to a woman who was divorced and married another man who subsequently died or divorced her: “Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife” (Deuteronomy 24:4). Rabbi Akiva emphasizes the words “who sent her away,” implying that he may not remarry her after sending her away. This indicates that there is an instance where a husband may not remarry his wife even if she has not married another, merely because he has given her a bill of divorce. This applies to the case of a yevama where the bill of divorce she receives renders her permanently prohibited to him. According to Rabbi Akiva, once she is rendered prohibited to him, no further action performed by the yavam is effective, so why does the levirate betrothal performed require a bill of divorce? Rav Ashi said: This is not difficult because the bill of divorce for levirate marriage was established by the Sages and only has the force of rabbinic law, and the aforementioned verse is not a Torah prohibition, but rather a mere support. Therefore there is no Torah prohibition against marrying a yevama who received a bill of divorce, and the levirate betrothal performed afterward is effective according to Rabbi Akiva as well. With regard to the halakha of betrothal after ḥalitza, the Gemara notes: This halakha is also taught in a baraita as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: These matters were only stated in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who considers a yevama who underwent ḥalitza to be prohibited like a forbidden relation. Therefore, any further betrothal is not effective with her, as is the case with forbidden relations. But the Rabbis say something is effective after ḥalitza. And I say: When is betrothal effective after ḥalitza? It is effective when he betrothed for the purpose of marriage, like the regular betrothal of any ordinary woman. But if he betrothed her after ḥalitza and specified that he is doing so for the purpose of levirate marriage, in that case nothing is effective after ḥalitza. It is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who performs ḥalitza with his yevama and then betroths her, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If he betrothed her for the purpose of regular marriage she requires a bill of divorce from him; if he betrothed her for the purpose of levirate marriage she does not require a bill of divorce from him. And the Rabbis say: Whether he betrothed her for the purpose of regular marriage, or whether he betrothed her for the purpose of levirate marriage, she requires a bill of divorce from him, as this betrothal is effective.

And so too, with regard to a man who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden [arayot] by the Torah or with those who are unfit for him even though they are not in the category of arayot, for example, a widow with a High Priest; a divorcée and a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] with a common priest; a mamzeret, i.e., a woman born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship, or a Gibeonite woman with an Israelite; the daughter of an Israelite with a mamzer or a Gibeonite; he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood through this act no matter how it was performed, and the Torah did not distinguish between the act of intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and intercourse in a typical manner.

It was taught above in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that if they married after they converted, follow the more flawed in lineage of the two. The Gemara asks: To what circumstances is this referring? If we say it is referring to a male Egyptian convert who married a female Ammonite convert, what is the meaning of: More flawed in lineage of the two, in this case? The halakha is that an Ammonite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman, and so she is not flawed at all. Rather, it must be referring to a male Ammonite convert who married a female Egyptian convert. If the child is male, assign him to his Ammonite father, so that he is permanently barred from entering the congregation. If it is a female, assign her to her Egyptian mother, so that she is treated like a second-generation Egyptian convert. MISHNA: Mamzerim and the Gibeonites who converted to Judaism in the days of Joshua are prohibited from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish. Their prohibition is eternal, for all generations, and it applies to both males and females.

The mishna stated that if the witness said with regard to the husband that he died, or: I killed him, or: We killed him, then he may not marry the wife of the deceased. The Gemara infers that he, the witness himself, may not marry the wife; this implies that to another she may be married on the basis of his testimony.

GEMARA: Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: In the case of a man who confers possession of a bill of divorce to his wife, i.e., he appoints an agent to take the bill of divorce to his wife, when she has a potential yavam, what is the halakha if her husband dies before she is divorced? One might say that since she hates her yavam, receiving the bill of divorce is for her benefit, as this act renders her prohibited to him, and it is a principle that one may act in a person’s interest in his absence. If so, as soon as the husband gives the bill of divorce to the agent she is divorced. Or perhaps, since she sometimes loves her yavam, this bill of divorce is to her disadvantage, and one may not act against a person’s interest in his absence. Consequently, she is not divorced until the bill of divorce reaches her possession. Rav Naḥman said to Rava that we learned an answer to this dilemma in the mishna And we are concerned about her statement, and she must perform ḥalitza and she does not enter into levirate marriage. The mishna states that the court gives her statement some credence in either case, both when her testimony would exempt her from levirate marriage and when it would allow her to marry her yavam. This indicates that levirate marriage is considered neither in her interest nor a disadvantage for her. Rather, its classification is uncertain. § Ravina said to Rava: With regard to one who confers possession of a bill of divorce to his wife through an agent in a situation when there was a quarrel between them, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains both sides of the question: Since she has a quarrel with him, the bill of divorce might be considered for her benefit. Or perhaps, her physical comfort is preferable to her, as she prefers to remain married despite the quarrel between her and her husband. Come and hear a resolution, as Reish Lakish said: There is a popular idiom among women: It is better to sit as two [tan du] than to sit lonely as a widow, i.e., a woman prefers the companionship of any husband over being alone.

Abaye said: This is not difficult. That baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, while this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; as it is taught in a baraita: One may not testify about a person’s identity based upon the position of a mole on his body. Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai says: One may testify based on a mole. What, is it not about this issue that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, holds that distinguishing marks are recognized as valid identification by Torah law, and one Sage, the anonymous first tanna, representing the majority of the Rabbis, holds that distinguishing marks are recognized as a means of identification only by rabbinic law and are therefore insufficient to permit a Torah prohibition?

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who went, she and her husband, overseas, and her son was with them, and later she came back and said: My husband died and afterward my son died, she is deemed credible. It is permitted for her to remarry, and she is exempt from levirate marriage. The reason is that she had children when she left, and therefore she retains her presumptive status of one who is exempt from levirate marriage. However, if she said: My son died and afterward my husband died, she is not deemed credible, i.e., she may not enter into levirate marriage. And yet we are concerned and give some credence to her statement, in case she was actually widowed by a childless husband, and therefore she performs ḥalitza to exempt her from the levirate bond with her yavam, and she does not enter into levirate marriage. If she went with her childless husband and returned alone and testified: A son was born to me overseas, and she further said: My son died and afterward my husband died, she is deemed credible and may even enter into levirate marriage, as she was presumed to be childless when she left and consequently she retains that presumptive status. However, if she said: My husband died and afterward my son died, she is not deemed credible for the purpose of exempting her from levirate marriage, but the court is concerned about her statement. And therefore she must perform ḥalitza and she does not enter into levirate marriage. If she said: A yavam was born for me overseas, i.e., when the family left the country her husband did not have a brother, and she claims that in the meantime a brother was born to her husband, and she also said: My husband died and afterward my yavam died, or: My yavam died and afterward my husband died, in either case she is deemed credible. This is because when she left she was not presumed to require levirate marriage, and the suggestion that her husband now has a brother is based solely on her testimony. However, if she went, she and her husband and her yavam, overseas, and upon her return she said: My husband died and afterward my yavam died, or: My yavam died and afterward my husband died, she is not deemed credible, as a woman is not deemed credible if she says: My yavam died, in order that she may marry another man. And she is not deemed credible if she says that her sister died, in order that she may enter the house of her sister’s husband. And a man is not deemed credible if he says: My brother died, so that he may enter into levirate marriage with his brother’s wife, and he is not deemed credible when he says that his wife died, in order that he may marry his wife’s sister. The Sages accepted impaired testimony of this kind only when there was a concern about creating a situation of a deserted wife.

Apparently, this mishna indicates that his wife’s sister, whether from the father, i.e., a paternal sister, or from the mother, i.e., a maternal sister, is forbidden. From where do we derive this halakha that the prohibition applies even to his wife’s maternal sister? The Gemara responds: It is derived from the prohibition proscribing his sister. Just as his sister is forbidden whether she is his sister from his father or from his mother, so too here, a wife’s sister is forbidden whether from the father or from the mother.

Rav Pappa said to them: You learned it in a mishna (Kiddushin 69a): People of ten types of lineages ascended from Babylonia: Priests, Levites, and Israelites, ḥalalim, converts, and freed slaves, and mamzerim, Gibeonites, children of unknown paternity [shetukim], and foundlings. With regard to Priests, Levites, and Israelites, they are permitted to marry into one another’s families; Levites, Israelites, ḥalalim, converts, and freed slaves are permitted to marry into one another’s families; converts, freed slaves, and mamzerim, Gibeonites, shetukim, and foundlings are permitted to marry into one another’s families; whereas the tanna does not teach that priestesses, i.e., daughters of priests, are permitted to marry a ḥalal. This must mean they are forbidden to them.

The Gemara responds: They need this for that which Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said, as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: “And have intercourse with her” means marriage, i.e., she is fully his wife from that moment onward. This teaches that he divorces her with a bill of divorce after levirate marriage, and she can no longer be released by ḥalitza, and he may subsequently remarry her if he so wishes. And the verse “and consummate the levirate marriage with her,” this means against her will. Although betrothal in general does not take effect without the woman’s consent, levirate marriage can be effected against her will.

The Gemara relates another incident related to this halakha: A certain priest married a convert, who had converted when she was less than three years and one day old. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: What is this? Why are you violating the halakha? He said to him: It is permitted for me to marry her, as Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. He said to him: Go remove her, i.e., divorce her. And if not, I will remove Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi from your ear [me’unekh] for you. In other words, I will take the necessary action to ensure that you obey and divorce her, so that you can no longer follow Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi’s opinion.

Rather, Rava said that the mishna is teaching this halakha with regard to a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is one of those unfit males listed in a baraita, who disqualify a woman from marrying a priest by their intercourse, as they are unfit to enter the assembly of Israel through marriage, as it is taught in a baraita: A nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is an Ammonite or a Moabite convert; or who is an Egyptian or an Edomite convert; or who is either a Samaritan [kuti], a Gibeonite, a ḥalal, or a mamzer, when he engaged in intercourse with a priestess, i.e., the daughter of a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite, he thereby disqualified her from marrying a priest, and, in the case of the daughter of a priest, from partaking of teruma.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Hoshaya, son of Rav Idi: We learned in a baraita there that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any human baby that survives for thirty days after its birth is not to be considered a stillbirth. Rather, the baby is considered to be viable, and so the wife of the baby’s father is never subject to any obligation of levirate marriage. But, by inference, were it not to survive for thirty days, there would be uncertainty whether the baby was viable or not. And an amoraic dispute was stated in the case in which the only offspring of a man died during the first thirty days of its life, and the widow, under the misconception that she was exempt from any obligation of levirate marriage, arose and was betrothed. Ravina said in the name of Rava: If she became the wife of an Israelite, i.e., the man who betrothed her was not a priest, then she performs ḥalitza with the yavam due to the uncertainty whether or not the offspring was viable, and then they may remain married. But if she became the wife of a priest, she does not perform ḥalitza with him because if she were to do so, she would become a ḥalutza and would therefore be prohibited from remaining married to her husband, who is a priest. Therefore, in this case, in order to allow her to remain married to her husband, the Sages did not require her to be concerned for the possibility that the offspring was not viable.

The mishna here, which states that according to Rabbi Yosei a priest who is a hermaphrodite enables his wife to eat teruma, is not to be relied upon in the presence of a baraita that teaches otherwise. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: A hermaphrodite is a creature unto himself, and the Sages did not determine whether he is a male or a female. He is consequently prohibited from marrying a woman, and if he does so he does not enable her to eat teruma.

The baraita continues: If there still remain on him shreds of flesh from the foreskin that invalidate the circumcision, he is circumcised a second time to remove them. The Gemara explains: This is as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 137a): These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut: Any fragments of the flesh that cover the greater part of the corona. If such shreds remain, the child is considered uncircumcised, and he may not partake of teruma. And in explanation of this mishna, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: This also includes the flesh that covers the greater part of the height of the corona.

And if the convert’s mother was from Israel, he may even preside as a judge in a court to adjudicate legal matters involving a native-born Jew. But with regard to ḥalitza, he may not act as a judge unless both his father and his mother were from Israel from birth, as it is stated with regard to ḥalitza: “And his name shall be called in Israel: The house of he who had his shoe removed” (Deuteronomy 25:10), implying that he must be born as a member of the Jewish people from both of his parents. § Rabba said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: If Elijah the Prophet should come and say: One may perform ḥalitza using a soft leather shoe, the Rabbis would listen to him. But if he says: One may not perform ḥalitza using a hard leather sandal, they would not listen to him, for the people already have established the practice of performing ḥalitza using a sandal. And Rav Yosef said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: If Elijah the Prophet should come and say: One may not perform ḥalitza using a soft leather shoe, they would listen to him. But if he says: One may not perform ḥalitza using a hard leather sandal, they would not listen to him, for the people already have established the practice of performing ḥalitza using a sandal. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? Seemingly, they both say the same thing. The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with respect to performing ḥalitza with a soft leather shoe ab initio. According to Rabba’s opinion, one may not perform ḥalitza this way ab initio, as Rabba said that only if Elijah comes and permits it would he be heeded, implying that until Elijah does so one may not perform ḥalitza this way. According to Rav Yosef’s opinion, one may perform ḥalitza with a soft leather shoe until Elijah comes and teaches us otherwise. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that one may even perform ḥalitza with a soft leather shoe ab initio, didn’t we learn in the mishna (101a): If she performed ḥalitza with a soft leather shoe, her ḥalitza is valid, and the past tense wording indicates after the fact, yes, but it is not valid ab initio? The Gemara answers: The same is true that one may perform ḥalitza with a soft leather shoe even ab initio, but since the tanna wished to teach in the latter clause of that mishna: If an anpileya, a soft shoe made of cloth, was used for ḥalitza, her ḥalitza is disqualified even after the fact, he also taught the first clause of the mishna using wording that indicates validity after the fact, even though it is in fact permitted even ab initio. The Gemara comments: And performing ḥalitza with a soft leather shoe ab initio is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita, Rabbi Yosei said: One time I went to the city of Netzivin in Babylonia, and I found there a certain Elder. I said to him: Do you know Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who was from Netzivin? He said to me: Yes, and he is a frequent visitor at my table. I asked the Elder: Have you ever seen if he conducted the ḥalitza of a yevama? He said to me: I saw that he conducted ḥalitza many times. I asked him: Using a soft leather shoe or a hard leather sandal? He said to me: Does anyone allow performing ḥalitza with a soft leather shoe? But the Torah said: “His shoe [na’alo]” (Deuteronomy 25:9) and not: His shoe [minalo]. I said to him: If so, what did Rabbi Meir see that made him say that if a woman performed ḥalitza using a soft leather shoe her ḥalitza is valid? Rabbi Ya’akov says in the name of Rabbi Meir: One may perform ḥalitza using a soft leather shoe ab initio. The Gemara explains: And for the one who said one may not perform ḥalitza with a soft leather shoe ab initio, what is the reason for this? If we say that a soft leather shoe is disqualified because the upper side of the soft leather shoe [panta] is on his foot directly, and the straps [arketa] tied around the upper portion of the shoe are like a second shoe on top of the shoe that is directly on top of his foot, and the Torah says: “Remove the shoe from on his foot,” indicating that the entire shoe must be “on his foot” but not from on something else that is on his foot, if so, then even after the fact as well, it should not be fit for use. If a soft leather shoe is unfit for ḥalitza by Torah law, it should be prohibited under all circumstances. Rather, it is a rabbinic decree due to the concern that one might use a torn soft leather shoe, which may nevertheless be worn if torn due to its softness but is prohibited as it does not cover his foot. No similar concern exists with regard to a torn sandal, as due to its hard exterior it would never be worn if torn, and therefore there is no concern that it will be used for ḥalitza. Alternatively, it is a rabbinic decree due to concern that one might perform ḥalitza with a half shoe, as the ḥalitza shoe must cover most of the foot, yet there are some who wear soft leather shoes that cover only half of the foot. Therefore, there is a prohibition against using a soft leather shoe for ḥalitza ab initio for fear that a half shoe might also accidentally be used. No similar fear exists with a hard leather sandal as a half sandal is never worn. Rav said: If I had not seen my beloved uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, conduct a ḥalitza using a sandal with laces, I would not have conducted ḥalitza with anything other than a sandal of Arabs, which is more tight fitting and snug. The Gemara explains: And with regard to this sandal of ours, i.e., the customary sandal of that day, although it does have a ring [ḥumrata] on top to ensure that it will not fall off the foot easily, we tie a strap to it during ḥalitza in order to make it tighter, so that her ḥalitza will be of the highest standard. The strap is tied on so that the sandal will not come off by itself, to ensure that the yevama will have to untie the strap in order to remove the sandal. § The Gemara presents a mnemonic device for the following three halakhot that Rav Yehuda taught in the name of Rav: Hatarat, meaning release of; yevama; sandal. This mnemonic serves as a reminder that the release of a yevama is done through removing a sandal. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The release of a yevama to enable her marriage to a member of the public occurs when most of the heel is removed from the shoe. Even though the shoe has not been entirely removed, or even removed from most of the yavam’s foot; it is still permitted for her to remarry. The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: If the straps of a soft leather shoe or a hard leather sandal were untied, but not through the actions of the yevama, or if the yavam removed most of his foot from the shoe him-self before the yevama completed the removal, her ḥalitza is disqualified. The Gemara infers: The reason her ḥalitza is disqualified is specifically that he removed most of his foot and she only completed the removal, but had she removed most of the foot from the shoe, then her ḥalitza would be valid. The Gemara continues: If so, yes, only when the yevama removes most of the foot is the ḥalitza valid, but if she removed only most of the heel, it would not be sufficient. The Gemara rejects this question: No, most of the foot is the same as most of the heel, and therefore the inference should be that even if she removed most of the heel from the shoe the ḥalitza is valid. And why do they call it: Most of the foot? Because the whole weight of the leg puts pressure on the heel. The Gemara comments: This baraita supports Rabbi Yannai, as Rabbi Yannai said: Whether he unties the shoe and she removes it, or whether she unties it and he removes it, her ḥalitza is disqualified unless she both unties it and takes it off. And on the same topic, Rabbi Yannai asked: If she did not remove the sandal, but instead ripped it off him, what is the halakha? If she burned it using coals, what is the halakha? The Gemara presents the real issue in question: Is exposure of the foot the essential act of ḥalitza that we require, through any act of removing that which covers the foot, which exists here? Or perhaps it is removal of the shoe from over the foot that we require, which is lacking here? No answer was found to this question, so the Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved. Rabbi Neḥemya asked Rabba the following question: If the man were wearing two shoes, one on top of the other, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that she removed the outer shoe and the inner shoe remains in place, but the Merciful One states in the Torah: “From on his foot” and not: From on that which is on his foot. The Gemara answers: No, this question wasn’t asked in a case where the inner shoe remained on his foot. Rather, it is necessary in a case where she tore the outer shoe and took off the inner shoe, and the outer one still remains on his foot although it is torn. The question centers around the previous one with regard to the nature of ḥalitza: What is the halakha for valid ḥalitza? Is it removal of the shoe that we require, which we have brought about in this example? Or perhaps it is exposing the foot that we require, which is lacking here, as the foot is still covered by the torn outer shoe.

and lead boys and girls and let them walk there where the keys were lost, and if they find the keys they will bring them to you of their own accord, without you saying anything to them. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Pedat maintains that with regard to a minor who eats meat from unslaughtered animals or violates other prohibitions, the court is not commanded to prevent him from doing so. The Gemara comments: Let us say that the following source supports his opinion: A person may not tell a child on Shabbat: Bring me a key, or: Bring me my seal from the public domain. However, he may allow the child to detach plants and allow him to throw in the public domain. This shows that one need not be strict with a child who transgresses a prohibition, but one may not tell a child to transgress a prohibition.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: What are the secondary forbidden relationships that were prohibited? His mother’s mother, and his father’s mother, and his father’s father’s wife, and his mother’s father’s wife, and the wife of his father’s maternal half brother, and the wife of his mother’s paternal half brother, and his son’s daughter-in-law, and his daughter’s daughter-in-law. A man is permitted to take his father-in-law’s former wife, provided she is not the mother of his wife, and his stepson’s wife, if the stepson died or divorced her. And he is prohibited from marrying the daughter of his stepson. And it is permitted for one’s stepson to marry the stepfather’s wife or daughter. Due to these rabbinic decrees concerning stepsons, unusual situations might arise. For example: And his stepson’s wife says to him, i.e., her husband’s stepfather, I am permitted to you, but my daughter is forbidden to you, since she is your stepson’s daughter. The Gemara challenges that which is stated in the baraita: His stepson’s daughter is not a secondary relation by rabbinic law. She is forbidden by Torah law, since the daughter of his stepson is the daughter of his wife’s son, as it is written: “You shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter” (Leviticus 18:17). The Gemara answers: This case was included because the baraita wanted to teach the latter clause, which states: His stepson’s wife says to him: I am permitted to you, but my daughter is forbidden to you. And although my daughter is forbidden to you by Torah law, nevertheless the Sages did not issue a decree forbidding me. Therefore, the case of his stepson’s daughter was also taught in the first clause, even though she is forbidden by Torah law and is not a secondary relation. The Gemara raises an objection: If so, that the baraita wished to teach this peculiarity, then why did it not teach: His father-in-law’s wife also says: I am permitted to you and my daughter is forbidden to you, as she is his wife’s sister. The Gemara answers: This matter is conclusive for him. In other words, his stepson’s wife is forever permitted and his stepson’s daughter is always forbidden to him. But as for the matter of his father-in-law’s wife’s daughter, this is not conclusive for him. This ruling is not final and might change, since if his wife dies her sister is permitted to him. Rav said that he received a tradition with regard to secondary forbidden relationships that four women have a conclusion; i.e., the prohibition does not continue to later generations but applies only to those women who were mentioned explicitly. Rav held three of them in his hand; he knew with certainty three of the four categories. They were: The wife of his mother’s paternal half brother, and the wife of his father’s maternal half brother, and his daughter-in-law. And Ze’eiri adds: Also the wife of his mother’s father. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic for remembering who said what is as follows: Ze’eiri adds an extra generation on top of the prohibitions of Rav, i.e., the wife of his mother’s father, which Rav did not mention. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav did not reckon this category mentioned by Ze’eiri to be among those who have a conclusion? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, this category might be mistakenly switched with the category of the wife of his father’s father, which does not have a conclusion. With regard to the wife of his father, the prohibition applies equally to the wife of all ancestors in the father’s line. Therefore, according to Rav, the Sages also included the ancestors of the mother’s father’s wife as secondary forbidden relationships. The Gemara asks: And why is Ze’eiri not concerned that the two categories will become confused? The Gemara answers: He is often found there, in his father’s father’s home, and goes there frequently, but here, to his mother’s household, he is not commonly found to go. Since he goes to his father’s home frequently, he knows that his father’s relatives are forbidden to him, and he will not confuse them with his mother’s relatives. Among the women enumerated by Rav is his daughter-in-law.

MISHNA: If she, i.e., the yevama, removed the shoe and spat in accordance with the halakha but did not recite the necessary text, her ḥalitza is valid. If she recited the text and spat but did not remove the shoe, her ḥalitza is disqualified. If she removed the shoe and recited the text but did not spit, Rabbi Elazar says: Her ḥalitza is disqualified, while Rabbi Akiva says: Her ḥalitza is valid.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile and the slave does not wish to be circumcised, he abides with him up to twelve months. If, after this period, he will still not be circumcised, he then sells him on to gentiles.

He said to him: How can these cases be compared? Granted, there, in the case where the offspring died during its first thirty days of life, since there are the Rabbis who disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concerning it, as they say that although the offspring did not survive for thirty days it is nevertheless considered a full-fledged, i.e., viable, offspring, therefore, with regard to the wife of a priest, since it is not possible for her to perform ḥalitza and remain permitted to her husband, we will be lenient and act in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. However, here, in the case of a woman who is pregnant with or nursing the child of another man, in accordance with whose opinion should we act? If we act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it will be of no benefit to the priest because Rabbi Meir said even with regard to the wife of an Israelite that he must divorce her and may never take her back. And if we act in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it will also be of no benefit to the priest because they say he must send her out with a bill of divorce and only remarry her at a later point. Since there is no opinion that does not require a bill of divorce to be given, there is no possibility to be lenient in this case by not requiring a bill of divorce to be given. A pregnancy is generally noticeable only after three months have passed. Therefore, during the first three months after a woman is divorced or widowed, she may not remarry due to the possibility that she is pregnant. The Sages decreed that even betrothing her during that time is prohibited, lest one also marry her (see 41a). Concerning this, an amoraic dispute was stated: In a case in which a man betrothed a woman during the three months following her divorce or her husband’s death, and then he fled, Rav Aḥa and Rafram disagree over what should be done. One said: We excommunicate him for violating the prohibition. And the other one said: His flight is sufficient for him, since it proves that he does not intend to marry her until it is determined that she is not pregnant. Therefore, there is no need to penalize him further. The Gemara relates: There was an incident like that, and Rafram said to those who asked what to do: His flight is sufficient for him.

The Gemara asks: But does Rav truly think that only if he has intercourse with her after she becomes an adult, then yes, her betrothal is realized, but if he did not engage in intercourse with her, then no, it is not realized? Wasn’t it stated that with regard to a minor who had not refused her husband and reached majority, and then went and married another, Rav said: She does not require a bill of divorce from the second man, as she is fully married to the first and consequently her second marriage is invalid? And Shmuel said: She does require a bill of divorce from the second man, as it is uncertain whether her second marriage is valid.

And so too, with regard to a man who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden [arayot] by the Torah or with those who are unfit for him even though they are not in the category of arayot, for example, a widow with a High Priest; a divorcée and a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] with a common priest; a mamzeret, i.e., a woman born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship, or a Gibeonite woman with an Israelite; the daughter of an Israelite with a mamzer or a Gibeonite; he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood through this act no matter how it was performed, and the Torah did not distinguish between the act of intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and intercourse in a typical manner. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the significance of the word even in the statement that begins with: Even if he was unwitting and her participation was intentional? Since the mishna has already said that there is no halakhic difference whether the act of intercourse was performed intentionally, what is added by that statement? The Gemara answers: The mishna is stated in the style of: Needless to say. It is needless to say that if he was unwitting and she intended to fulfill the mitzva, or alternatively, he acted intentionally without intent to fulfill the mitzva and she intended to fulfill the mitzva, he has acquired her. However, even if he was unwitting and she acted intentionally, where both of them did not intend to act for the sake of the mitzva, he nevertheless acquires her. Similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Even if both of them acted unwittingly, intentionally, or were coerced, he acquires the yevama through the act of intercourse. § The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances the mishna is referring to when it mentions a man who was coerced? If we say that it is when gentiles coerced him by threatening to kill him if he did not have intercourse with her and he therefore had intercourse with her, didn’t Rava say that there is no such thing as coercion of a man to have intercourse with a woman with whom relations are forbidden, because there is no erection of the male organ without intent? Consequently, even if he acted due to the threat, his action is considered intentional.

was empty, and now her body is full with the child, and therefore she is no longer “as in her youth.” But in a situation where “she has no child,” when at the outset her body was empty and now her body is also empty, as she has given birth, you might say that she should not be disqualified. Therefore, it is necessary to write both verses. Parenthetically, the Gemara lists terms signifying the following discussions, to serve as a mnemonic device: Said to him, we should not make, by death, we should make and not make, by a child, yavam and teruma, levirate marriage and teruma. This list of terms, taken from the introductions or key phrases in each of the ensuing discussions, is the mnemonic. Rav Yehuda from De’iskarta said to Rava, in continuation of the discussion of the baraita: Should we not make the halakha concerning dead children like the halakha concerning living children with regard to levirate marriage by an a fortiori inference, and say: And if in a place where the Torah made the halakha with regard to a child from the first husband like the halakha with regard to a child from the second husband, to disqualify her from teruma, for as long as she has a child who is not a priest she is prohibited from partaking of teruma, the Torah nevertheless did not make dead children like living ones; therefore, in a place where the Torah did not make a child from the first husband like a child from the second to exempt her from levirate marriage, is it not right that we should not make the dead like the living? Why, then, is a yevama exempt from levirate marriage if her late husband’s only child dies? The verse states: “Her ways are the ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17). In other words, since the ways of Torah are those of pleasantness, the Torah would not obligate a woman who has married in the meantime to subsequently perform ḥalitza, as this might demean her in her husband’s eyes. The Gemara inquires: And let us make the halakha with regard to dead children like the halakha with regard to living ones with regard to teruma, from an a fortiori inference: And if in a place where the Torah did not make a child from the first husband like a child from the second to exempt her from levirate marriage, it nevertheless made the living like the dead, as a woman whose husband died and left a child is exempt from levirate marriage even if that child subsequently dies; then, in a place where the Torah made a child from the first like a child from the second to disqualify her from teruma, is it not right that we should make the living like the dead? The Gemara responds: Therefore, the verse states “and she have no child, she is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth” (Leviticus 22:13), and here she does not currently have children. The Gemara further suggests: And let us make her child from the first husband like her child from the second one with regard to levirate marriage, again from an a fortiori inference: And if in a place where the Torah did not make the living like the dead with regard to teruma, it still made a child from the first husband like a child from the second, then in a place where it made the living like the dead, with regard to levirate marriage, is it not right that we should make a child from the first husband like a child from the second, and thereby exempt her from levirate marriage? The Gemara answers: The verse states about levirate marriage: “And he has no child” (Deuteronomy 25:5), and in fact he had none at the time of his death. The Gemara offers another possibility: And should we make a child from the first husband not like a child from the second one with regard to teruma, from an a fortiori inference: If in a place where the Torah made the living like the dead to exempt her from levirate marriage, it still did not make a child from the first husband like a child from the second, then in a place where the Torah did not make the living like the dead, with regard to teruma, is it not right that we should not make the child from the first husband like the child from the second? The Gemara responds: Therefore, the verse states: “And she have no child,” but in fact this woman has children. MISHNA: 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. 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. GEMARA: From the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: If she married without the consent of the court she is permitted to return to him, this indicates that she did so not by the consent of the court, but rather by witnesses, i.e., as there are two witnesses, she does not require special permission from the court. With this in mind, it may be inferred that the first clause of the mishna, which speaks of one who acted with the consent of the court, is referring to a situation when there was one witness. Apparently, one witness is deemed credible when he testifies about a husband’s death, i.e., the court will permit a wife to marry on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness. And we also learned in a mishna (122a): They established that they would allow a woman to marry if her husband was reported dead by one witness, based solely on what he learned from the mouth of another witness, i.e., hearsay testimony, and also the testimony of a woman who heard from another woman, and even the testimony of a woman who heard from a slave or from a maidservant. Apparently, one witness is deemed credible in this regard, as whenever hearsay testimony is accepted, the testimony of one witness is also valid. And we also learned in a mishna (Karetot 11b) that if one witness says to someone: You ate forbidden fat, and the accused says: I did not eat it, the accused is exempt from bringing an offering. The Gemara infers: The reason he is exempt is that the individual in question said: I did not eat it, which indicates that if he had been silent and failed to deny the accusation, the lone witness is deemed credible. Apparently, one witness is deemed credible by Torah law with regard to certain issues. § The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “Or if his sin be known to him” (Leviticus 4:23, 28). This indicates that he himself must be aware of his sin, and not if it was made known to him by others. In other words, one is not obligated to bring an offering due to the testimony of others, even if they testify that he had transgressed. I might have thought he should be exempt even though he does not contradict the witness’s claim. Therefore, the verse states: If his sin be known to him, which indicates that in any case, however he comes by this knowledge, he is liable. The Gemara clarifies this halakha. What are the circumstances? If we say that two witnesses came and informed him and he does not contradict them, why do I need a verse to teach this ruling? After all, the testimony of two witnesses is always accepted. Rather, is it not referring to one witness, and yet if he does not contradict the sole witness, that witness is deemed credible? One can learn from this that one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions. The Gemara refutes this claim: And from where do you infer that the reason is due to the fact that the one witness is deemed credible? Perhaps the accused must bring an offering because he remains silent, as there is a principle that silence is considered like an admission. And you should know that this is the reason, as the latter clause of that same baraita teaches that if two witnesses said to him: You ate forbidden fat, and he says: I did not eat it, he is exempt, and Rabbi Meir obligates him to bring an offering. Rabbi Meir said that this is an a fortiori inference: If two witnesses can bring him to the severe penalty of death by testifying that he had committed a transgression for which one is liable to receive the death penalty, should they not bring him to the more lenient obligation of an offering? The Rabbis said to him: There is a difference between the two cases, as with regard to an offering, what is the halakha if he would choose to say: I was an intentional sinner? One who sins intentionally is not liable to bring an offering. Since the accused in the latter clause of the baraita can negate the testimony that would have rendered him liable to bring an offering, he can likewise deny the act itself, whereas if witnesses testify that he performed an action that incurs the death penalty, his denial has no bearing on the case. The Gemara clarifies: In the first clause