Yevamot 191

ודלמא אאינו פוסל אי נמי ממאי דאיתא לדרב הונא דלמא ליתא דרב הונא כלל ובדרב המנונא קמיפלגי דאמר רב המנונא שומרת יבם שזינתה אסורה ליבמה

Is it not possible [that he referred] to the ruling 'DOES NOT DISQUALIFY'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of one's wife and brother-in-law-; Samuel indicating that in this case, and in this case alone, the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose that the sister-in-law is permitted to her first husband contrary to the view of the first Tanna who forbids her. ');">¹</span> Or else [it might be argued], whence is it proved that R. Huna's explanation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 95b. ');">²</span> is tenable? Is it not possible that R. Huna's explanation is altogether untenable and that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab and Samuel. ');">³</span> differ on the ruling of R. Hamnuna who stated that 'A woman awaiting the decision of the levir, who played the harlot, is forbidden to her levir';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cit. 80b, Sot 18b, supra 95a. ');">⁴</span>

דרב אמר הרי היא כאשת איש ומיפסלא בזנות ושמואל אמר אינה כאשת איש ולא מיפסלא בזנות וא"נ בקדושין תופסין ביבמה קמיפלגי דרב אמר הרי היא כאשת איש ולא תפסי בה קדושין ושמואל אמר אינה כאשת איש ותפסי בה קדושין

Rab maintaining that she 'has the status of a married woman' and is consequently prohibited<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the levir. ');">⁵</span> by reason of her immoral act,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a married woman is prohibited to her husband if she has committed such an act. ');">⁶</span> while Samuel maintains that 'she has not the status of a married woman' and does not therefore, become prohibited<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the levir. ');">⁵</span> by reason of her immoral act? Or else [it might be replied] that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab and Samuel. ');">³</span>

והא אפליגו בה חדא זימנא חדא מכלל דחברתה איתמר:

differ on the question whether betrothal of a sister-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a stranger before she had performed halizah. ');">⁷</span> is valid, Rab maintaining that she 'has the status of a married woman' and betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a stranger before she had performed halizah. ');">⁷</span> with her is, in consequence, invalid, while Samuel maintains that 'she has not the status of a married woman' and betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a stranger before she had performed halizah. ');">⁷</span> with her is, therefore, valid. But on this question<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The validity of betrothal of a sister- in-law. V. supra n. 7. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אמרו לו מתה אשתך ונשא אחותה מאביה מתה ונשא אחותה מאמה מתה ונשא אחותה מאביה מתה ונשא אחותה מאמה ונמצאו כולן קיימות מותר בראשונה ובשלישית ובחמישית ופוטרות צרותיהן

they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab and Samuel. ');">³</span> had already disputed once!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 92b. Why should they dispute the same point twice. ');">⁹</span> — The one was stated as an inference from the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By disciples. Rab and Samuel, however disputed the point only once. ');">¹⁰</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN WAS TOLD 'YOUR WIFE IS DEAD AND HE MARRIED HER PATERNAL SISTER; [AND WHEN HE WAS TOLD] 'SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His second wife. ');">¹¹</span>

ואסור בשניה וברביעית ואין ביאת אחת מהן פוטרת צרתה

ALSO IS DEAD', HE MARRIED HER MATERNAL SISTER;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was thus a perfect stranger to the first wife. ');">¹²</span> SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His third wife. ');">¹³</span> TOO IS DEAD, AND HE MARRIED HER PATERNAL SISTER;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A perfect stranger to the second. ');">¹⁴</span> 'SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fourth. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואם בא על השניה לאחר מיתת הראשונה מותר בשניה וברביעית ופוטרות צרותיהן ואסור בשלישית ובחמישית ואין ביאת אחת מהן פוטרת צרתה:

ALSO IS DEAD, AND HE MARRIED HER MATERNAL SISTER;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A stranger to the third. ');">¹⁶</span> AND LATER IT WAS FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL ALIVE, HE IS PERMITTED TO LIVE WITH THE FIRST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since his marriage with her was valid. ');">¹⁷</span> THIRD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a complete stranger to him when he married her (V. supra p. 652. n. 12). His previous marriage with her maternal sister (his second wife) had no validity because the latter was a sister of his first wife and was forbidden to him as 'his wife's sister'. ');">¹⁸</span> AND FIFTH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marriage with whom was valid since the marriage with her sister (the fourth) was invalid. Cf. supra n. 2, mutatis mutandis. ');">¹⁹</span>

בן תשע שנים ויום אחד הוא פוסל ע"י אחין והאחין פוסלין על ידו אלא הוא פוסל תחלה והאחין פוסלין תחלה וסוף

WHO ALSO EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the man died without issue and one of his surviving brothers contracted the levirate marriage with or submitted to halizah from one of these widows. ');">²⁰</span> BUT HE IS FORBIDDEN TO LIVE WITH THE SECOND OR THE FOURTH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The validity of his marriage wife the first and third causes the second and the fourth to be prohibited to him as his wives' respective sisters. Cf. supra note 2. ');">²¹</span> AND COHABITATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By one of the levirs. Cf. supra note 4. ');">²²</span> WITH ONE OF THESE DOES NOT EXEMPT HER RIVAL. IF, HOWEVER, HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband. ');">²³</span>

כיצד בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו פסל ע"י אחין באו עליה אחין ועשו בה מאמר נתנו גט או חלצו פוסלין על ידו:

COHABITED WITH THE SECOND AFTER THE DEATH OF THE FIRST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it was proved that the first report of her death was true (Rashi). ');">²⁴</span> HE IS PERMITTED TO LIVE WITH THE SECOND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The death of the first wife has removed from the second the prohibition of wife's sister (since a wife's sister is prohibited only during the lifetime of the wife) marriage with whom becomes valid. ');">²⁵</span> AND FOURTH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage with the second having become valid (v. supra n. 9), that with the third (being now the man's wife's sister) becomes invalid and, consequently, the marriage with the fourth who is now a perfect stranger becomes valid. ');">²⁶</span> WHO ALSO EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 4. ');">²⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אטו כולהו לאו לאחר מיתת ראשונה נינהו אמר רב ששת לאחר מיתת ראשונה ודאי:

BUT HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband. ');">²³</span> IS FORBIDDEN TO LIVE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous notes, mutatis mutandis. ');">²⁸</span> WITH THE THIRD AND WITH THE FIFTH, AND COHABITATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By one of the levirs. Cf. supra note 4. ');">²²</span> WITH ONE OF THESE DOES NOT EXEMPT HER RIVAL.

בן תשע שנים וכו': בן תשע שנים ויום אחד תחלה פסיל בסוף לא פסיל והתני רב זביד ב"ר אושעיא העושה מאמר ביבמתו ואח"כ בא אחיו שהוא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד עליה פסלה

A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY RENDERS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This will be explained in the Gemara infra. ');">²⁹</span> [HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] UNFIT [FOR MARRIAGE] WITH HIS BROTHERS, AND HIS BROTHERS RENDER HER UNFIT FOR HIM, BUT WHILE HE RENDERS HER UNFIT FROM THE OUTSET ONLY, THE BROTHERS RENDER HER UNFIT BOTH FROM THE OUTSET AND AT THE END. IN WHAT MANNER?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This will be explained in the Gemara infra. ');">²⁹</span> A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY WHO COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW RENDERS HER UNFIT [FOR MARRIAGE] WITH HIS BROTHERS; THE BROTHERS, HOWEVER, RENDER HER UNFIT FOR HIM WHETHER THEY COHABITED WITH HER, ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE OR SUBMITTED TO HER <i>HALIZAH</i>. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Did not all those [marriages<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That were enumerated in the first clause of our Mishnah. ');">³⁰</span>

אמרי ביאה פסיל אפילו בסוף מאמר תחלה פסיל בסוף לא פסיל וביאה אפילו בסוף פסיל והא קתני אלא שהוא פוסל תחלה והן תחלה וסוף כיצד בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו וכו'

take place] after the death of the first wife!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then was 'AFTER THE DEATH OF THE FIRST' mentioned only in the second clause in the case where HE COHABITED WITH THE SECOND? ');">³¹</span> — R. Shesheth replied: [By this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2. ');">³²</span> was meant]. AFTER THE ASCERTAINED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the other cases death was only reported. ');">³³</span> DEATH OF THE FIRST WIFE.

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני בן תשע שנים ויום אחד הוא פוסל תחלה והן פוסלין תחלה וסוף בד"א במאמר אבל ביאה פוסלת אפי' בסוף כיצד בן ט' שנים ויום אחד הבא על יבמתו פסל ע"י אחין

A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS etc. Does a boy of the age of nine years and one day cause unfitness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of his sister-in-law for his brothers. ');">³⁴</span> [only where his act took place] at the outset,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before any of the adult brothers bad addressed a ma'amar to the widow. ');">³⁵</span> but if at the end<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After an elder brother had addressed to her a ma'amar. ');">³⁶</span> he causes no unfitness? Surely R. Zebid son of R. Oshaia learnt: If [a brother]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a deceased husband who died without issue. ');">³⁷</span>

ומי אית ליה מאמר כלל ע"י אחין והתניא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד הוא פוסל בדבר אחד והאחין פוסלין על ידו בארבעה דברים הוא פוסל ע"י אחין בביאה והאחין פוסלין על ידו בביאה במאמר בגט בחליצה

addressed a <i>ma'amar</i> to his sister-in-law, his brother of the age of nine years and one day, cohabiting with her afterwards, causes her to be unfit [for marriage with him]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that a boy of this age may cause unfitness even 'at the end'. ');">³⁸</span> — It may be replied: Cohabitation causes unfitness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2. ');">³²</span> even [if it took place] at the end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After an elder brother had addressed to her a ma'amar. ');">³⁶</span> while a <i>ma'amar</i> causes unfitness [only if it was addressed] at the outset,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before any of the adult brothers bad addressed a ma'amar to the widow. ');">³⁵</span>

ביאה דפסלה בין בתחלה בין בסוף פסיקא ליה מאמר דבתחילה פסיל בסוף לא פסיל לא פסיקא ליה

but if at the end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After an elder brother had addressed to her a ma'amar. ');">³⁶</span> it causes no unfitness. But does cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the boy of the age of nine years and one day. ');">³⁹</span> cause unfitness even [if it took place] at the end? Surely it was taught: BUT WHILE HE RENDERS HER UNFIT FROM THE OUTSET ONLY, THEY [RENDER HER UNFIT] BOTH FROM THE OUTSET AND AT THE END. IN WHAT MANNER? A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY WHO COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW etc!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on COHABITED. Since the illustration is limited to an act of cohabitation only the general statement that the boy RENDERS HER UNFIT FROM THE OUTSET ONLY, on which the illustration apparently hangs must also be limited to cohabitation. ');">⁴⁰</span> — Something, indeed, is here missing, and this is the proper reading: 'A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY RENDERS [HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] UNFIT [FOR MARRIAGE WITH HIS BROTHERS, if his action took place] AT THE OUTSET, but they RENDER HER UNFIT FOR HIM BOTH AT THE OUTSET AND AT THE END. This is applicable only in the case of a <i>ma'amar</i>, but cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the boy of the age of nine years and one day. ');">⁴¹</span>

איתמר נמי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל יש לו גט וכן אמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי יש לו מאמר תניא נמי הכי יש לו גט ויש לו מאמר דברי ר"מ

causes unfitness even [if it took place] at the end. IN WHAT MANNER? A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY WHO COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even at the end, i.e., after his brothers had addressed to her a ma'amar. ');">⁴²</span> RENDERS HER UNFIT FOR MARRIAGE WITH HIS BROTHERS. Has his <i>ma'amar</i>, however, any validity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'has he a ma'amar'? ');">⁴³</span> at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. insert 'for the brothers', which, with MS.M. and Pesaro ed. 1509, should be omitted. V. infra n. 5. ');">⁴⁴</span>

וסבר ר"מ יש לו גט והתניא עשו ביאת בן תשע כמאמר בגדול ר"מ אומר עשו חליצת בן תשע כגט בגדול ואם איתא ליתני כגיטו אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אית ליה וזוטר

Surely it was taught: A boy of the age of nine years and one day renders [his sister-in-law] unfit for his brothers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last three words are wanting in cur. edd., but are rightly included in the Pesaro ed. V. supra n. 4. ');">⁴⁵</span> by one kind of act only, while the brothers render her unfit for him by four kinds of acts. He renders her unfit for the brothers by cohabitation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And by no other act. ');">⁴⁶</span> while the brothers render her unfit for him by cohabitation, by a <i>ma'amar</i>, by a letter of divorce and by <i>halizah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be said that the boy's ma'amar has any validity at all. ');">⁴⁷</span> — Cohabitation, which causes unfitness both from the outset and at the end, presented to him a definite law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] rt. [H] 'to cut', 'to decide', i.e., the law relating to cohabitation is definite and absolute. The act is always valid. Hence he mentioned it. ');">⁴⁸</span>

לר"ג דאמר אין גט אחר גט ה"מ בגדול אחר גדול וקטן אחר קטן אבל גדול אחר קטן מהני

[the law of the] <i>ma'amar</i>, however, which causes unfitness front the outset only but not at the end, could not be regarded by him as definite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And being undesirous of entering into details of the law he preferred to omit it. ');">⁴⁹</span> So it was also stated: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A boy of the age of nine years and one day. ');">⁵⁰</span> has [the power to give] a letter of divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His act is effective and causes his sister-in- law to be unfit for marriage to his brothers. ');">⁵¹</span> And so said R. Tahlifa b. Abimi: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A boy of the age of nine years and one day. ');">⁵⁰</span>

לרבנן דאמרי יש גט אחר גט ה"מ בגדול אחר גדול או בקטן אחר קטן אבל קטן אחר גדול לא מהני:

has [the power to address] a <i>ma'amar</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His act is effective and causes his sister-in- law to be unfit for marriage to his brothers. ');">⁵¹</span> It was taught likewise: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A boy of the age of nine years and one day. ');">⁵⁰</span> has [the right to give] a letter of divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His act is effective and causes his sister-in- law to be unfit for marriage to his brothers. ');">⁵¹</span> and he has [the right to address] a <i>ma'amar</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His act is effective and causes his sister-in- law to be unfit for marriage to his brothers. ');">⁵¹</span> so R. Meir. Could R. Meir, however, hold the view [that such a boy] has [the power to give] a letter of divorce?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His act is effective and causes his sister-in- law to be unfit for marriage to his brothers. ');">⁵¹</span> Surely it was taught: Cohabitation with a boy of the age of nine years [and one day] was given the same validity as that of a <i>ma'amar</i> by an adult; and R. Meir said: The <i>halizah</i> of a boy of the age of nine years was given the same validity as that of a letter of divorce by an adult.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Nid. 45a, supra 68a. ');">⁵²</span> Now, if that were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to R. Meir the letter of divorce of a boy of the age of nine years and one day is valid. ');">⁵³</span> it should have been stated, 'As that of his own letter of divorce'! — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A boy the age of nine years and one day. ');">⁵⁴</span> has [the right],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give a letter of divorce. V. supra p. 655. n. 11. ');">⁵⁵</span> but [his divorce is of a] lesser validity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and small'. Hence no comparison could be made between his halizah which is as valid as that of a divorce by on adult, and his own divorce which is not so valid. ');">⁵⁶</span> For according to R. Gamaliel who ruled that there is no [validity in a] letter of divorce after another letter of divorce, his ruling is applicable only [in the case of a divorce] by an adult after that of an adult, or one by a minor after that of a minor, but [a divorce] by an adult after that of a minor is effective,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the divorce of the minor is of lesser validity. ');">⁵⁷</span> while according to the Rabbis who ruled that a letter of divorce given after another letter of divorce is valid, the ruling applies only to [a divorce] by adult after that of an adult, or one by a minor after that of a minor, but [a divorce by] a minor after [that of] an adult is not effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the divorce of the minor is of lesser validity. ');">⁵⁷</span>