Yevamot 222

לא פסל את הראשונה וכן ב' חרשות

HE HAS NOT THEREBY RENDERED THE FIRST INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the kinyan of both is of equal validity or invalidity, if the levir's kinyan of the first was valid, that of the other, coming as it does after it, is ineffective, while if his kinyan of the first was invalid, that of the other was equally invalid and both have the same status as strangers whom he never married. He may, therefore, retain the first who is in any case permitted to him, while the second must be released, since it is possible that the kinyan of a minor is valid and both were, therefore, the lawful wives of the deceased brother, who, as rivals, cannot both be married by the levir. ');">¹</span> AND THE SAME LAW IS APPLICABLE TO TWO DEAF WOMEN. [IF ONE WAS] A MINOR AND THE OTHER DEAF, AND THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH THE MINOR AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE DEAF WIDOW, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE DEAF WIDOW, HE HAS RENDERED THE MINOR INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a preventive measure against the possibility of marrying the deaf woman first. Cf. Gemara supra 111a — Rashi. Cf. infra p. 779, n. 1. [Mishnayoth edd.: 'he does not render the minor ineligible', the reason being if the minor is fully acquired, the act of cohabitation with the deaf-mute that followed has no validity. Should, on the other hand, the kinyan in regard to a minor be of no effect whatsoever, then she could not be considered the wife of the deceased brother, v. Bertinoro a.l.]. ');">²</span>

קטנה וחרשת בא יבם על הקטנה וחזר ובא על החרשת או שבא אחיו על החרשת פסל את הקטנה

IF THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH THE DEAF WIDOW AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE MINOR, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE MINOR, HE HAS RENDERED THE DEAF WIDOW INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is possible that the minor is fully acquired, while in the case of the other it is certain that, as a deaf person, she is only partially acquired. ');">³</span> [IF ONE WAS] OF SOUND SENSES AND THE OTHER DEAF, AND THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH THE FORMER AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE LATTER, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE LATTER, HE DOES NOT RENDER THE FORMER INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM]. IF THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH THE LATTER, AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE FORMER, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE FORMER, HE RENDERS THE LATTER INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM]. [IF ONE WAS] OF AGE AND THE OTHER A MINOR, AND THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH [THE WIDOW] WHO WAS OF AGE, AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE MINOR, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE MINOR, HE DOES NOT RENDER THE ELDER INELIGIBLE FOR HIM. IF THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH THE MINOR, AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH [THE WIDOW WHO WAS] OF AGE, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH [THE WIDOW WHO WAS] OF AGE, HE RENDERS THE MINOR INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM].

בא יבם על החרשת וחזר ובא על הקטנה או שבא אחיו על הקטנה פסל את החרשת

R. ELEAZAR RULED: THE MINOR IS TO BE INSTRUCTED TO EXERCISE HER RIGHT OF <i>MI'UN</i> AGAINST HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus annulling her marriage and enabling the levir to retain the elder woman. ');">⁴</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to Mishnah 109a which deals with the levirate marriage of two sisters, cf. however supra p. 760, n. 5. ');">⁵</span> So also did R. Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. Pedath, one of the Amoraim. ');">⁶</span>

פקחת וחרשת בא יבם על הפקחת וחזר ובא על החרשת או שבא אחיו על החרשת לא פסל את הפקחת

state: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. Shammua', the Tanna in our Mishnah. ');">⁷</span> And [both statements<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That (a) the halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar in our Mishnah and that (b) it is also in agreement with R. Eliezer's view in the Mishnah supra 109a, as stated in the Gemara supra 110a. ');">⁸</span> were] required. For if the statement had been made on the first [Mishnah] only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to Mishnah 109a which deals with the levirate marriage of two sisters, cf. however supra p. 760, n. 5. ');">⁵</span>

בא יבם על החרשת וחזר ובא על הפקחת או שבא אחיו על הפקחת פסל את החרשת

[it might have been assumed that] in that case alone did Samuel hold that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement With R. Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 779, n. 3. ');">⁹</span> since [the levir there] had not fulfilled the commandment of the levirate marriage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There only it is permissible to teach the minor to exercise her right of mi'un, in order that the levir may be enabled to perform the commandment with the elder. ');">¹⁰</span> but in this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">¹¹</span>

גדולה וקטנה בא יבם על הגדולה וחזר ובא על הקטנה או שבא אחיו על הקטנה לא פסל את הגדולה בא יבם על הקטנה וחזר ובא על הגדולה או שבא אחיו על הגדולה פסל את הקטנה ר' אלעזר אומר מלמדין הקטנה שתמאן בו:

where<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir having cohabited with both widows. ');">¹²</span> the commandment of the levirate marriage has been fulfilled, it might have been assumed that both must be released by a letter of divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that the minor is not to be taught to exercise her right of mi'un. ');">¹³</span> And if the information<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי אלעזר וכן אמר רבי אלעזר הלכה כרבי אלעזר

had been given on the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">¹¹</span> only, [it might have been suggested that] only in this case [is the <i>halachah</i> in agreement with him], because the elder is subject to levirate marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 2. ');">¹⁵</span> with him, but not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 5. ');">¹⁶</span>

וצריכא דאי איתמר בהא קמייתא בהך קאמר שמואל הלכה כרבי אליעזר משום דלא קיים מצות ייבום אבל בהא דאיקיים מצות ייבום אימא תרוייהו לפקו בגט

in the other case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 779, n. 3, where, should the minor fail to exercise her right of mi'un, the elder widow would, as his wife's sister, be altogether exempt from the levirate marriage. ');">¹⁷</span> [Hence both statements were] required. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A LEVIR WHO WAS A MINOR COHABITED WITH A SISTER-IN-LAW WHO WAS A MINOR, THEY SHOULD BE BROUGHT UP TOGETHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this with this'. As the divorce of a minor is invalid, they cannot be separated by a letter of divorce, should they desire to do so, before both have attained their majority. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואי אשמעינן בהא משום דגדולה רמיא קמיה אבל אידך לא צריכא:

IF HE COHABITED WITH A SISTER-IN-LAW WHO WAS OF AGE, SHE SHOULD BRING HIM UP UNTIL HE IS OF AGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During his minority he cannot divorce her (cf. supra note 10). ');">¹⁹</span> IF A SISTER-IN-LAW DECLARED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [AFTER HER LEVIRATE MARRIAGE], 'HE HAS NOT COHABITED WITH ME',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he denies her statement. ');">²⁰</span> [THE LEVIR] IS COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being assumed that a period of thirty days sometimes elapses before a marriage is consummated, her word is accepted; v. Gemara. ');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> יבם קטן שבא על יבמה קטנה יגדלו זה עם זה בא על יבמה גדולה תגדלנו

BUT [IF HER DECLARATION WAS MADE] AFTER THIRTY DAYS, HE IS ONLY REQUESTED TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He cannot be compelled, because it is assumed that no one postpones consummation of marriage for a longer period than thirty days. His word is, therefore, accepted. As the woman, however, by her statement, declared herself to be still bound to him by the levirate bond it is necessary that she should perform halizah, to submit to which, however, the levir can only be asked, not compelled. ');">²²</span> WHEN, HOWEVER, HE ADMITS [HER ASSERTION], HE IS COMPELLED, EVEN AFTER TWELVE MONTHS, TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH. IF A WOMAN VOWED TO HAVE NO BENEFIT FROM HER BROTHER-IN-LAW, THE LATTER IS COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH, [IF HER VOW WAS MADE] DURING THE LIFETIME OF HER HUSBAND,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she is not likely to have had in her mind the possibility of ever marrying the levir. The vow is, therefore, presumed to have been due to some quarrel or misunderstanding between her and the levir and to be in no way due to a desire on her part to evade the precept of the levirate marriage. ');">²³</span>

היבמה שאמרה בתוך שלשים יום לא נבעלתי כופין אותו שיחלוץ לה לאחר שלשים יום מבקשין הימנו שיחלוץ לה ובזמן שהוא מודה אפילו לאחר שנים עשר חדש כופין אותו שיחלוץ לה

BUT IF AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When her intention may have been to avoid marrying the levir. ');">²⁴</span> THE LEVIR MAY ONLY BE REQUESTED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But may not be compelled. ');">²⁵</span> TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH. IF THIS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Avoidance of the levirate marriage. ');">²⁶</span>

הנודרת הנאה מיבמה בחיי בעלה כופין אותו שיחלוץ לה לאחר מיתת בעלה מבקשין הימנו שיחלוץ לה ואם נתכוונה לכך אפי' בחיי בעלה מבקשין הימנו שיחלוץ לה:

HOWEVER, WAS IN HER MIND [EVEN IF HER VOW WAS MADE] DURING THE LIFETIME OF HER HUSBAND, THE LEVIR MAY ONLY BE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if he refuses, the widow, who is alone to blame for the fact that the levirate marriage cannot be contracted with her, is forbidden to marry again; nor is she entitled to her kethubah. ');">²⁷</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Must it be assumed that our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which allows levirate marriage to a minor. ');">²⁸</span> is not in agreement with R. Meir? For it was taught: A boy minor and a girl minor may neither perform <i>halizah</i> nor contract levirate marriage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is possible that on attaining majority they may be found wanting in procreative powers, in consequence of which they will be unfit for the performance of the levirate obligations. As the Pentateuchal law is thus incapable of fulfilment, the sister-in-law remains forbidden to the levir as his brother's wife'. ');">²⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי מאיר דתניא קטן וקטנה לא חולצין ולא מתייבמין דברי רבי מאיר

so R. Meir!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 61b. (Cf. supra n. 6). ');">³⁰</span> — It may even be said to agree with R. Meir, for R. Meir spoke only [of the levirate marriage of a sister-in-law] who was of age to a minor, and [of one who was] a minor to [a levir that was] of age, since one of these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the party that is of age. ');">³¹</span> [may possibly be performing] forbidden cohabitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 781, n. 7. ');">³²</span>

אפילו תימא רבי מאיר כי אמר ר' מאיר גדולה לקטן וקטנה לגדול דחד מינייהו ביאה דאיסורא הוא אבל קטן הבא על הקטנה דתרוייהו כי הדדי נינהו לא אמר

He did not speak, however, of a boy minor who cohabited with a girl minor, in which case both are in the same position.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both are not subject to punishment, even if their cohabitation is found to be a forbidden act and consequently may be allowed in a doubtful case such as this; cf. infra 114a. ');">³³</span> But, surely, it was stated, IF HE COHABITED WITH A SISTER-IN-LAW WHO WAS OF AGE SHE SHOULD BRING HIM UP UNTIL HE IS OF AGE!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not a case concerning two minors. ');">³⁴</span> — R. Hanina of Hozaah replied: If he had already cohabited [the law] is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the levirate marriage of a minor with one who is of age is forbidden, it is nevertheless valid ex post facto. ');">³⁵</span>

והא קתני בא על יבמה גדולה תגדלנו אמר רבי חנינא חוזאה בא שאני והא תגדלנו קאמר דכל ביאה וביאה דאיסורא הוא אלא מחוורתא מתניתין דלא כרבי מאיר

But was it not stated: SHE SHOULD BRING HIM UP UNTIL HE IS OF AGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying permissibility to continue to live with him. ');">³⁶</span> though each act of cohabitation is a forbidden one!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that our Mishnah permits directly, not only ex post facto, the levirate marriage of a minor. ');">³⁷</span> — The truth is clearly that our Mishnah cannot be in agreement with R. Meir.

קרי כאן (דברים כה, ז) להקים לאחיו שם והאי לאו בר הכי הוא אמר אביי אמר קרא יבמה יבא עליה כל דהו

Should not the text, To raise up unto his brother a name,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 7. ');">³⁸</span> be applied here? And this minor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he is incapable of procreation. ');">³⁹</span> Surely, is not capable of it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To raise up unto his brother a name. Why then is he allowed, the levirate marriage? ');">⁴⁰</span>

רבא אמר בלאו הכי נמי לא מצית אמרת מי איכא מידי דהשתא אסירא ליה ולבתר שעתא שריא והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל יבמה שאין אני קורא בשעת נפילה יבמה יבא עליה הרי היא כאשת אח שיש לו בנים ואסורה

— Abaye replied: Scripture said, Her husband's brother shall go in unto her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV. 5. ');">⁴¹</span> whoever he may be.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even one who is incapable of fulfilling the commandment in its entirety. ');">⁴²</span> Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Others, 'Rabbah' (cf. Tosaf. supra 2a s.v. [H]). ');">⁴³</span>

ואימא הכי נמי אמר קרא (דברים כה, ה) כי ישבו אחים יחדו אפילו בן יום אחד:

replied: Without this [text] also you could not say [that a minor may not contract levirate marriage]. For is there any act [in connection with the levirate marriage] which is at one time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'now', while one of the parties is a minor. ');">⁴⁴</span> forbidden and after a time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When majority is attained. ');">⁴⁵</span> permitted? Surely, Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: Any sister-in-law to whom the instruction, Her husband's brother shall go in unto her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV. 5. ');">⁴¹</span>

יבמה שאמרה בתוך שלשים יום וכו': מאן תנא דעד תלתין יומין מוקים איניש אנפשיה

cannot be applied at the time when she becomes subject to the levirate marriage, is indeed like the wife of a brother who has children, and is consequently forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 30a; for all time, even when the cause of her prohibition had ceased to exist. Were not the minor then permitted the levirate marriage, this prohibition would not have been removed even after he had attained majority. ');">⁴⁶</span> But then might it not be suggested that this same [principle is applicable here] also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that a levir who was a minor at the time his brother died may never contract levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁷</span> — Scripture said, If brethren dwell together,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">⁴⁸</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן רבי מאיר היא דתניא טענת בתולים כל שלשים יום דברי רבי מאיר

even if [one brother is only] one day old.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Must the levirate marriage he contracted, cf. ibid. ');">⁴⁹</span> IF A SISTER-IN-LAW DECLARED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS etc. Who is it that taught that up to thirty days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After his marriage. ');">⁵⁰</span> a man may restrain himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From cohabitation. This being evidently the reason why in our Mishnah the woman's statement is accepted as true. ');">⁵¹</span>

רבי יוסי אומר נסתרה לאלתר לא נסתרה אף לאחר כמה שנים

— R. Johanan replied: It is R. Meir; for it was taught: A complaint in respect of virginity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A husband's assertion that he found no tokens of virginity (cf. Deut. XXII, 13ff), and that, consequently, his wife is not entitled to her kethubah. ');">⁵²</span> [may be brought] during the first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all'. ');">⁵³</span> thirty days;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After marriage; and the husband is believed when he states that he had only just then discovered her defect. If his complaint is made after thirty days, he cannot deprive his wife of her kethubah, it being assumed that her defect, if any, had been discovered by him long ago and that he had acquiesced. His present complaint is regarded as a mere pretext to penalize the woman because of some new quarrel that may have arisen between them. ');">⁵⁴</span>

רבה אמר אפי' תימא ר' יוסי עד כאן לא קאמר ר' יוסי התם אלא בארוסתו דגיס בה אבל אשת אחיו

so R. Meir. R. Jose said: If [the woman] was shut up [with him, the complaint must be made] forthwith; if she was not shut up [with him], it may be made even after many years.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tosef. Keth. I. ');">⁵⁵</span> Rabbah stated: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement in our Mishnah, which implies that for thirty days after marriage a man may restrain himself. (Cf. supra note 5). ');">⁵⁶</span> may even be said [to represent the opinion of] R. Jose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not only that of R. Meir. ');">⁵⁷</span> for R. Jose spoke there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tosef. Keth. I. ');">⁵⁵</span> only of one's betrothed with whom one is familiar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he met her in privacy consummation of marriage might well be assumed. ');">⁵⁸</span> but [not of] the wife of one's brother