Commentary for Yevamot 2:13

כיצד אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו – she exempts her rival/co-wife [from the requirement of levirate marriage or Halitzah].

Introduction This mishnah explains how “the wife of his brother who died before he was born” exempts her rival wife from yibbum. This category of women was mentioned in the first mishnah of chapter one (there it was the 14th category).

ונולד להן אח – and was found to be dependent upon a levir, but upon him she is prohibited because of [the prohibition of] the brother’s wife, for he was not a contemporary [having not yet been born].

What is the case of “the wife of his brother who died before he was born”? If there were two brothers, and one of them died, and then a third brother was born, and then the second brother had yibbum with his dead brother’s wife and then died himself, the first woman is exempt as the wife of his brother who died before he was born, and the second wife [is exempt] because she is her rival wife. If he had ma’amar with her and died, the second wife, must perform halitzah but may not have yibbum. Reuven and Shimon are brothers and Shimon dies. Afterwards, Levi is born. Reuven then takes Shimon’s widow in yibbum. Afterwards Reuven also dies without children. This same widow, who was originally Shimon’s wife and then became Reuven’s wife, now technically should become liable to have yibbum or halitzah with Levi, the third brother. However, since Levi was not yet born when Shimon died, she is not liable for yibbum with Levi. Since she is exempt, all of her rival wives are exempt as well.

ואח"כ יבם השני את אשת אחיו – and he has another wife.

In order to understand this section, we must remind ourselves that ma’amar is the giving of money from the yavam to the yavamah, a parallel to the betrothal money given as “kiddushin” in regular marriages. As I explained in the introduction, according to the Torah there is no marital process for the widow who goes through yibbum. All that really happens is that he has relations with her, and thus yibbum is performed. However, the rabbis created an institution called “ma’amar” whereby the yavam would give her betrothal money similar to the betrothal money given in regular marriages (we will learn these laws in tractate Kiddushin). Ma’amar, however, does not make the woman the yavam’s full wife. The status of their marriage is only rabbinic. This will have many important implications in future mishnayoth. In our mishnah, Reuven does not have full yibbum with the woman, but only does ma’amar, and then dies. The woman therefore, is not biblically liable to have yibbum with Levi, the third brother, but only rabbinically liable. Since she is only rabbinically liable, her rival wife is not truly exempt, and according to biblical law she could have yibbum. However, since Reuven did perform ma’amar with the other wife, the rival wife can only have halitzah.

ומת – without children.

הראשונה – she is the wife of the first brother who fell before him already one time, goes forth because of [the prohibition of] being the wife of his brother who had not yet been born.

עשה בה – this one who died.

מאמר – the explanation he betrothed her with money (as opposed to a document or an act of sexual intercourse) and with a Yevamah/widow of his deceased brother who died without issue, betrothal thorugh money is not a complete Kiddushin/betrothal, but rather, from the words of the Scribes/Soferim, the Yevamah is not acquired to the levir to become like a completely married woman until he comes upon her and he didn’t have sufficient time to marry her until he died.

שנייה חולצת – and it does not exempt her because of being a rival of a woman forbidden on account of consanguinity because she is not actually her rival/co-wife.

ולא מתיבמת – because the statement of intention acquires partially and she is [also] partially a rival of a woman forbidden on account of consanguinity, and in every place where there isn’t complete Kiddushin/betrothal, she performs the act of Halitzah and does not engage in a levirate marriage.

ומת – the levir who married the wife of the brother who died without issue.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the same topic as the previous mishnah, the exemption of “the wife of his brother who died before he was born” and her rival wife.

מיבם לאיזו שירצה – and she exempts her [co-wife] colleague, and this does not refer to performing a statement of intention [of levirate marriage] , but rather, it refers to the first clause [of the Mishnah], as it is taught, the first is prohibited, etc. and as Rabbi Shimon states for since he was born, she had already had a levirate marriage performed on her and she did not have on this one the levirate relation through the marriage of his first brother ever, she is permitted to him, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

If there were two brothers and one of them died, and the second had yibbum with his dead brother’s wife, and after a [third] brother was born the second died, the first wife is exempt on account of her being the wife of his brother who died before he was born, while the second is exempt as her rival. If he had ma’amar with her, the second wife must perform the halitzah but she may not have yibbum. Rabbi Shimon says: he may have yibbum with either of them or perform halitzah for either of them. The scenario in this mishnah is only slightly different from that in the previous one. Again, Reuven and Shimon are brothers. Shimon dies and in this case Reuven has yibbum with Shimon’s wife even before Levi is born. In the previous mishnah Levi was born and then Reuven had yibbum with Shimon’s wife. When Reuven dies, his wife who had previously been married to Shimon is exempt from yibbum with Levi because she is “the wife of his brother who died before he was born”. The rival wife is again, also exempt. The innovation of this mishnah is that even though when Levi was born, the woman was no longer waiting to have yibbum, in other words she was at the time a regular wife to Reuven and not a shomeret yavam, and Reuven did not die before Levi was born, in any case she is forbidden to Levi because he was not yet born when Shimon died.

If Reuven had ma’amar with the woman and then died, according to the first opinion, the ruling is the same as it was in the previous mishnah. Since she is only partially Reuven’s wife, she does not fully exempt her rival wife from yibbum.

In this section we see that R. Shimon disagrees with the previous opinion and rules that in the case under discussion in this mishnah, either the wife who was formerly married to Shimon or the rival wives may have yibbum or halitzah. Since Levi was born when the woman was no longer a shomeret yavam, all connection she had to Shimon is lost. She only becomes liable for yibbum because of her marriage with Reuven, and Levi was born before Reuven died (unlike Shimon). Therefore, according to R. Shimon, Levi must have halitzah or yibbum with either wife. In other words this is only a normal case of a man’s wives becoming liable for yibbum. Note that the mishnah says that Levi performs halitzah, even though in reality the woman performs halitzah by taking off his shoe and spitting.

לא חולצת ולא מתיבמת – her rival/co-wife and all the more so she herself, and similarly, a barren woman, as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:6): “[The first son] that she bears [shall be accounted to the dead brother that his name not be blotted out in Israel],” excluding a barren woman [ and similarly, the wife of a eunuch born without visible testicles and an androgynous individual does not engage in Halitzah nor levirate marriage, as it states ( there -Deuteronomy 25:5): “[When brothers dwell together and one of them lies] and leaves no son, [the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside the family],” excluding those for whom it is inappropriate for them to have children, and the wife of a convert and the wife of a freed slave does not engage in Halitzah nor levirate marriage, for there is no legal status of consanguinity neither for converts nor slaves, but a barren woman and an elderly women either engages in Halitzah or levirate marriage.

Introduction This mishnah gives some general principles for when a woman is liable for yibbum (or halitzah) and when she is forbidden/exempt.

אחותה – [her sister] who is a woman forbidden to a man on account of consanguinity when she is [also] her sister-in-law [widow of her childless brother-in-law] such as, for example, when two sisters fell to him from his two brothers and the one is prohibited upon him because of consanguinity such as when she is his mother-in-law or daughter-in-law, she performs Halitzah or levirate marriage but now did not come in contact with the sister of his levirate relation because someone forbidden on account of consanguinity is not his levirate relation.

A general rule has been said about the yavamah: Wherever she is prohibited as a forbidden relation, she may neither perform halitzah nor have yibbum. If her prohibition is due to a commandment or a prohibition due to holiness, she must perform halitzah but she may not have yibbum. If her sister is also her sister-in-law, she may perform halitzah or have yibbum. This general rule has been amply illustrated in the previous chapter and a half. If the yavamah was prohibited to her yavam according to the biblical laws of incest, she may not perform halitzah nor have yibbum. Indeed, she is not truly subject to the laws of yibbum, since the prohibition of incest “trumps” the obligation of yibbum.

This section mentions two lesser prohibitions, the “prohibition due to a commandment” and a “prohibition due to holiness. Tomorrow’s mishnah will explain what both of these categories are. Suffice it now to say that they are less consequential than the biblical incest prohibitions mentioned in the previous section. If a woman who is prohibited to her yavam in one of these ways should be liable for yibbum, she must perform halitzah but may not have yibbum. This is another way of stating that she is biblically liable for yibbum, but to avoid the problems that this type of yibbum would cause, the only option is halitzah.

If the sister of the prohibited woman is also her sister-in-law, meaning there is a situation in which two sisters married to two brothers, and then both brothers die and both women become liable for yibbum to a third brother, even though this brother is prohibited from one of the sisters, he can have yibbum or halitzah with the other. I will illustrate this complicated situation using names. Reuven, Shimon and Levi are brothers. Leah and Rachel are sisters. Leah marries Reuven and Shimon marries Rachel, and then both men die without children. Levi is married to Rachel’s daughter (from a marriage before she married Shimon). Levi can therefore not have yibbum with Rachel, since a man cannot marry a woman and her daughter. Nevertheless, Levi can have yibbum with Leah. Although in general a man cannot have yibbum with the sister of his yavamah (we will learn this in chapter three), in this case since Rachel was forbidden to him, she was never his yavamah. Therefore, Leah is permitted.

שניות – [secondary grade of forbidden relationships seen as incestuous] – forbidden incestuous or adulterous sexual relationships that the Scribes/Soferim decreed upon them which are called prohibitions resulting from a Mitzvah (i.e., based upon the Mitzvah not to deviate from the rulings of the Sages – see Deuteronomy 17:11), for it is a Mitzvah to hearken to the words of the Sages, and which are they? The mother of his mother, and there is no limitation but if it is the father of his mother alone, and the mother of his father, and it has no limitation [and if the father of his father] and the wife of his father’s father, and it has no limitation, and the wife of his mother’s father alone, and the wife of his brother’s father from the mother, and the wife of his mother’s brother, whether from the mother or whether from the father and there is no limitation, and daughter-in-law of his daughter, and the daughter of his son’s daughter and the daughter of the daughter’s daughter and the daughter of’s his son’s son and the daughter of his son’s daughter, and the daughter [of the daughter] of the son of his wife, and the daughter [of the daughter] of his wife’s daughter, and the mother of the mother of his father’s wife, and the mother of [the mother] of his wife’s mother, and the father of the mother of his wife’s mother, and the mother of the father of his father’s wife.

Introduction Mishnah four defines the two categories mentioned in section two of mishnah three.

A “prohibition due to a commandment” [refers to] the secondary incest prohibitions forbidden by the scribes. “A prohibition due to holiness” [refers to the following forbidden relationships]: a widow to a high priest; a divorced woman, or one that had performed halitzah to a regular priest; a mamzereth or a netinah to an Israelite; and an Israelite woman to a natin or a mamzer. Women who are not themselves forbidden because of incest laws, but the scribes (rabbis) decreed that they were nevertheless prohibited are called “secondary incest prohibitions”. Some examples of “secondary incest prohibitions” are one’s grandmother and one’s son’s or daughter’s daughter-in-law. The reason that the rabbis prohibited these women is to keep people away from potential sin. That is to say, if it became permitted to have relations with your son’s daughter-in-law, you might think that relations with one’s own daughter-in-law are also prohibited. These prohibitions are called “prohibitions due to commandments” due to the commandment to obey the words of the sages.

גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט – such as, for example, that he (i.e., as a Kohen) transgressed his dead brother and had married a divorcee or a woman who had undergone Halitzah, and when he died, she needs Halitzah for Kiddushin/betrothal takes effect in those liable for violating negative commandments, but not levirate marriage, for she is prohibited to him, but to exempt/free her without anything is impossible, for it is not strong to release her, for we derive “her” from the wife’s sister, which is punishable by extirpation.

“Prohibitions due to holiness” are prohibitions that are not due to incest (or adultery) but rather to the sanctity of the priests (see Leviticus 21:6-7) or the sanctity of the people of Israel. A widow to a high priest: If a widow becomes liable for yibbum to a high priest, he must perform halitzah for her. He cannot have yibbum with her because she is prohibited to him (Leviticus 21:14). A divorced woman or one that had performed halitzah to a regular priest: If a previously divorced woman or a woman who had halitzath, should become liable for yibbum with a regular priest, she must perform halitzah and cannot have yibbum, since she is prohibited to him (Leviticus 21:7). Note that this situation will usually not happen because a divorced woman or one who had halitzah cannot marry a priest, and therefore, she should not have married the yavam’s (who is a priest) brother, who is also a priest. Nevertheless, if the brother transgressed and did marry a divorcee (marriage between a priest and a divorcee is prohibited but valid), and then died, the divorcee (who is now also a widow) has halitzah with the brother but not yibbum. A mamzereth or a netinah to an Israelite and an Israelite woman to a natin or a mamzer: A mamzer (or mamzereth, a female mamzer) is the child of a forbidden union (Deuteronomy 23:3. The definition of a mamzer appears in chapter 4:13). A natin (or a netinah, a female natin) is a descendent of a tribe of foreigners who converted through trickery in the days of Joshua and were declared temple slaves (Joshua 9:27). Neither of these categories of men or women can marry full Israelites. Therefore, if one of these people becomes liable to have yibbum with an Israelite, or if an Israelite becomes liable to have yibbum with one of them, they have halitzah and not yibbum.

אח מכל מקום – even a Mamzer/illegitimate child (see Talmud Yevamot 22a)

Introduction A wife of a deceased husband is liable for yibbum only if her husband had a brother and no sons. Our mishnah defines what types of brothers cause the woman to be obligated for yibbum and what types of sons exempt them.

אחיו לכל דבר – to inherit him and to become defiled to him.

If one has any kind of brother, [that brother] requires his brother’s wife to have yibbum, and he is his brother in every respect, except for a brother born from a female slave or a non-Jewish woman. If one has any kind of son, [that son] exempts his father’s wife from yibbum, and he is liable for striking or cursing [his father], and he is his son in every respect, except for the son of a female slave or a non-Jewish woman. Any kind of brother, even a mamzer, requires the brother’s wife to have yibbum or halitzah. This brother is his brother in every respect. For instance, if his brother is a mamzer, his brother is still eligible to inherit from him. If one brother is a priest and his brother is a mamzer, for instance his father was a priest and had an adulterous affair with a married woman and they had a child, the priest is still allowed to become impure to help bury his mamzer brother. [Priests can only become impure for their seven immediate relatives.] The only exception to this rule is his brother from a slave or non-Jew. Since the child of a slave or a non-Jewish woman is not considered to be related to his father, for the child is not Jewish, the child is not considered to be related to his paternal father.

שפחה נכרית – her offspring we got after her, as it is written regarding the maidservant (Exodus 21:4): “[If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children,] the wife and her children shall belong to the master, [and he shall leave alone],” but regarding a heathen woman, it is written (Deuteronomy 7:4): “For they (literally, “he) will turn your children away from Me [to worship other gods],” since it is not written, “for you will turn [your children] away,” we learn from it - this is what he said (Deuteronomy 7:4): “Do not give your daughters to their sons” – for the husband of your daughter will turn aside the son that your daughter will give birth to him away from Me. But regarding “or take their daughters for your sons” (Deuteronomy 7:3), we are not zealous in religious observance, for a child that comes from the heathen woman is not called your son, but rather, her son.

This section basically teaches the same law with regard to a son. Any son exempts a wife from yibbum or halitzah, even a mamzer son. For instance, if a man had an adulterous affair and a child was born, and then the man subsequently married another woman and died without any more children, his wife is exempt from yibbum, because he already has a child. This child is considered his in all legal matters. For instance if he strikes or curses his father he is liable for the death penalty (see Exodus 21:15, 17). He inherits his father, and if his father is a priest his father may become impure in order to bury him. Again, the only exception is the son of a female slave or non-Jew, who is not considered to be related to his father.

ואינו יודע איזו קדש – and he is prohibited to both of them because each one of them is able to say, this is the wife’s sister.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with the situation where a man has married one of two sisters but does not know which one he has married. The Mishnah mentions situations such as these quite frequently, not because they were realistic, but because they are useful for teaching law. In order to understand the mishnah, we need to know that a man cannot have relations with a sister of a woman with whom he is liable to have yibbum or halitzah. A woman with whom he is liable to have yibbum or halitzah is called his “z’kukah”. He can’t have relations with the sister of his z’kukah, just as he can’t have relations with the sister of his wife.

חולץ לשתיהן – because she is the sister of the woman engaged in Halitzah, and she is prohibited to him [during her lifetime] according to the Rabbis, but also not to perform levirate marriage in the first clause. For perhaps this is not his widow of the deceased husband who died without issue, and when he came in contact with the sister of his levirate relation, it is like she is his wife.

If a man betrothed one of two sisters and does not know which of them he has betrothed, he must give a get (a bill of to this one and a get to this one. If he died, and he had a brother, the brother must perform halitzah for both of them. If he had two brothers, one is to perform halitzah and the other may have yibbum. If they both preempted and married them they do not take [the women] away from them. If a man betrothed one of two sisters and does not know which he betrothed, he must divorce both. He cannot divorce one and marry the other because it is forbidden to marry your wife’s sister, even after you have divorced your wife. In other words, if he divorces one and marries the other, he may have divorced the one that he betrothed and therefore it would be forbidden for him to marry the other.

היו לו שנים אחד חולץ – at first to the first [woman] and the second, if he wants to engage in levirate marriage with the second, he does so, for if this [one] is his deceased brother’s widow, fine, and if she is her sister, he did not approach the sister of his levirate relation because Halitzah for that one removes her from being a levirate relation.

If he dies, both sisters become liable for yibbum or halitzah to his brothers. If he has one brother, that brother cannot have yibbum with either because it is forbidden to have relations with the sister of a woman with whom you are liable to have yibbum (z’kukah). In other words, if he were to have yibbum with one of them, it could be that the other was the one who was really betrothed. Therefore, he must perform halitzah for both.

קדמו וכנסו – prior to the Jewish court took counsel.

If there are two brothers, the first brother performs halitzah for one of the women and then the second brother can have yibbum with the other sister. The first brother should do halitzah because if he were to have yibbum he might be having relations with the sister who was not betrothed, and therefore he is having relations with the sister of his z’kukah (as in the above situation). However, after the first brother has halitzah with one of the sisters, there can be no problem for the second brother to have yibbum with the second sister. If she is the one who was betrothed to the dead brother, then he has yibbum with her, which is perfectly okay. If the other woman was the one betrothed, she has already had halitzah, and her ties to the brother are severed. Therefore, this woman is not the sister of his z’kukah.

אין מוציאין אותן מידם – that we don’t remove them from their hands because each one said I am best to marry; alternatively, it is the opposite, that the first who performed a levirate marriage, married the sister of his levirate relation, at that hour he performed a prohibited action and when his brother came and performed a levirate marriage with the second, who is the widow of the deceased brother who died without issue, her levirate relationship has ceased retroactively from the other one.

If both brothers have yibbum with the two sisters, the court does not force them to separate, even though the first brother should have had halitzah. Although the brother who first performed yibbum may have originally had yibbum with the sister of his z’kukah, since her sister has now had yibbum, her ties to the other brother have been severed and neither brother is currently married to the sister of his z’kukah.

שנים שקדשו שתי אחיות – two strangers (i.e., not related to each other).

Introduction This mishnah continues to provides scenarios whereby two men betroth two women, but neither know who betrothed whom. For the sake of clarity I will use names in explaining this complex mishnah. There are two families of men in the mishnah. The first family I will call Reuven, Shimon and Levi, who are all brothers. The second family of men I will call George, Bill and Ron, again all brothers. The two sisters in the mishnah I will again call Rachel and Leah. This should make the mishnah somewhat easier.

זה חולץ לשתיהן כו' – because each of them is prohibited to perform levirate marriages for perhaps eah one of them came in contact with the sister of his levirate connection.

If two men betrothed two sisters and one does not know whom he betrothed and the other does not know whom he betrothed, this one gives two bills of divorce and the other gives two bills of divorce. If they died and this one has a brother and this one has a brother, this brother performs halitzah for both widows and this brother performs halitzah for both widows. If one has one brother and the other has two brothers, one brother performs halitzah for both widows and [as regards] the two, one performs halitzah and the other may perform yibbum. If they both preempted and married they do not take [the women] away from them. If this one had two brothers and the other had two brothers, one brother of one performs halitzah for one widow and one brother of the other performs halitzah with the other widow, [and then the other] brother of the first may have yibbum with the halutzah of the second and [the other] brother of the second may have yibbum with the halutzah of the first. If both preempted and performed halitzah, the [other] two must not perform yibbum, rather one must perform halitzah and the other may then have yibbum. If they both preempted and married they do not take [the women] away from them. Reuven and George betroth Rachel and Leah but neither knows who betrothed whom. They both must then divorce both women in order for the women to go marry other men.

היחיד חולץ לשתיהן – for it is impossible for him to perform levirate marriage not prior to the Halitzah of the second because of [the prohibition of] the sister of his levirate relation, but not after Halitzah because of the sister of the woman undergoing Halitzah; therefore, since it is prohibited to perform levirate marriage, he should perform Halitzah to both of them in order to remove her [i.e., the woman] who is his Yevamah /widow of her deceased husband who died without issue from the prohibition of a woman who is the widow of a deceased husband who died without issue from the general public.

If Reuven and George die, and each has only one brother (Shimon and Bill), Shimon must perform halitzah with both women and Bill must perform halitzah with both women. Neither can have yibbum with either women because each woman might be the sister of the woman with whom he is truly liable to have yibbum, the z’kukah (because we don’t know who betrothed whom).

והשנים אחד חולץ – to cause a release of the levirate relation from his brother, if this woman is his Yevama/widow of his dead brother who died without issue, and permit her sister to the second [brother] whatever you want, if she is his sister-in-law/Yevamah, fine, and if she is her sister, you have released the levirate relation of the sister-in-law from him through the ac of Halitzah by his brother.

If Reuven has two brothers, Shimon and Levi and George still only has Bill as a brother, Bill must have halitzah with both Rachel and Leah. With regard to Shimon and Levi, one brother must have halitzah with both women but the other brother can have yibbum. This rule was explained in the above mishnah as well. The second brother can have yibbum with either women because if she was truly the woman who Reuven betrothed, then yibbum is proper. If Reuven betrothed the other sister, then the sister with whom this brother now has yibbum is no longer the sister of his z’kukah, because this other sister has already received halitzah from his other brother.

אחיו של זה מייבם חלוצתו של זה – whatever you want if this is his sister-in-law, he marries her and it is well and good, for his brother did not perform Halitzah on that one but rather on her sister, who was not his sister-in-law and is not anything [to him] and if she is not his sister-in-law , he has done well by marrying a stranger (i.e., unconnected woman), for if it were because she is the sister of the levirate relation, it is nothing, since his brother performed on Halitzah with her sister who is his sister-in-law/Yevamah, and the levirate relation of the sister-in-law has been released, but if it was because it was an entrance to the open marketplace, this one has performed Halitzah with the brothers of her husband.

As we learned above in mishnah six, if both brothers preemptively marry both sisters, they are not forced to have a divorce. Certainly the second marriage is okay, and even the first marriage was only problematic in the beginning, before the second sister had yibbum. Even though the woman whom he married may have once been the sister of his z’kukah, after she has had yibbum the other sister is no longer a z’kukah. For further explanation see mishnah six.

קדמו שני אחין – of one of them and they performed Halitzah with both of them (i.e., the women) to his a

If both Reuven and George have two brothers, one brother of each dead brother has halitzah with both sisters. Let’s say that Shimon and Bill have halitzah with both sisters. Now Levi can have yibbum with the sister who had halitzah with George and Ron can have yibbum with the sister who had halitzah with Shimon. This is permitted because if this sister was the one whom his brother had betrothed than yibbum is proper. If she is not the correct sister, then his other brother has already had halitzah with the other woman and she is no longer a z’kukah. The reason that Levi cannot have yibbum with the sister who had halitzah with Shimon and that Ron can’t have yibbum with the sister who had halitzah with Bill is that it is forbidden to marry a woman with whom your brother had halitzah.

לא ייבמו – the two [other] brothers, one with this [woman] and that one (i.e., brother) with the other [woman] because the first one that marries, is able to say, this woman is the sister of his levirate relation, but rather, one [brother] performs Halitzah first to one of

If Shimon and Levi preemptively perform halitzah with both Rachel and Leah, the other two, Bill and Ron, cannot both have yibbum with Rachel and Leah, because the first to do yibbum might do so with the sister of his z’kukah. Rather one (either Bill or Ron) should do halitzah and then the other may have yibbum.

ואחד מיבם – and the other [brother] performs levirate marriage with the second, whatever you want, if he is sister-in-law, fine, and if not, he has not come in contact with the sister of his levirate relation for his brother performed Halitzah and a sister-in-law in the free market does not happen, for she underwent Halitzah from the brothers of her husband.

Again, if Bill and Ron both do yibbum, after Shimon and Levi both performed halitzah, neither are forced to divorce them. This is the same ruling as in section four and in the previous mishnah.

ואם קדמו – these latter two [brothers] and married after the Halitzah of the two other [women] and they did not come to take council with the Jewish court, we don’t remove them from their hands as we have explained, for here is nothing here other than a doubtful prohibition of the sister of one’s levirate relation om the first marriage, and one can state that the first that married his sister-in-law and it is well tha the married, and the latter, also did well by marrying strange (i.e., unattached) woman, or alternatively, if if they married in reverse, that the father-in-law came in contact with the sister of his levirate relation and since he second [brother] came and performed levirate marriage, her levirate connection has been severed from his brother and she is permitted to him as his wife, but the prohibition that he performed was performed.

מצוה בגדול ליבם – for we expound (Deuteronomy 25:5-6): “he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty. The first son/והיה הבכור that she bears [shall be accounted to the dead brother [that his name may not be blotted out in Israel],” that the person who performs the levirate marriage should be a first-born, “that she bears” and that sister-in-law should be worthy to give birth, excluding a barren woman; יקום/shall be accounted – the first born who performs as the levir in the name of his brother to cause him to inherit and not that his brothers divide it with him.

Introduction Our mishnah gives a general rule about yibbum and then begins to discuss a different issue, namely one who is suspected of having relations with a woman who is forbidden to him.

הנטען על אשת איש – who is suspected of [having a sexual relationship with] a married woman

The commandment to perform yibbum is upon the oldest brother. If a younger brother preempted him [by performing yibbum], he has acquired [a wife]. If a man is suspected of [having relations] with a slave and then she was freed, or with a non-Jewish woman who then converted, he must not marry her. If, however, he did marry her they do not take her away from him. If a man is suspected of [having relations] with a married woman, and then [in consequence] she was taken away from her husband, even though he married her, he must divorce her. Any brother of the deceased husband may perform yibbum or halitzah. However, the first option is supposed to go to the oldest remaining brother. If, contrary to what is supposed to happen, a younger brother does perform yibbum, the yibbum is valid and she is his wife. We will learn more about this in chapter four, mishnah five.

והוציאוה – and the Jewish court removed her from under her husband, for that reason that she is prohibited to him and this one went and married her.

The three parts of this section all deal with a man who is suspected of having relations with a woman who is forbidden to him. In the first part, he is suspected of having relations with either a slave or a non-Jew. Both of these women are prohibited to him. Subsequently, the slave is freed (thereby becoming a fully Jewish woman) and the non-Jewish woman converts to Judaism. In their current state both women are permitted to him. Nevertheless, he is not allowed to marry them. There are two reasons given for this. One, so that people will not confirm the original rumor that he had relations with a woman forbidden to him. Two, so that people won’t say that she only converted in order to marry him. In contrast, if he is suspected of having an affair with a married woman, and then she is forced to separate from her husband, and the suspected adulterer marries her, the court imposes a divorce. Adultery is a much more serious crime than relations with non-Jews and therefore just a suspicion that he had adultery with her, rules out all future marriages. Note that this rule is ultimately meant to protect marriages. A man whose wife has had adultery can no longer remained married to her. To prevent a situation whereby she sets her eyes on another man and forces her husband to divorce her by committing adultery, the rabbis permanently forbade her to the adulterer. .

יוציא – that from the Torah, she is forbidden also to him, as she is forbidden to the husband, as we expounded, that once she is defiled, she is defiled twice – once to the husband and the other time to the person engaged in sexual relations wither. And specifically one who is suspected [of having intercourse] with a married woman, but one who is suspected [of having intercourse] with a free/unattached woman, it appears that it is Mitzvah to marry [her] as we find concerning rape (Deuteronomy 22:19): “Moreover, she shall remain is wife; [he shall never have the right to divorce her].”

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does section two follow section one? What is the connection, if any, between the two laws?

המביא גט ממדינת הים – he must state, “in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed,” and the reason is explained in [Tractate] Gittin (see Bartenura commentary to Chapter 1, Mishnah 1) for [according to] one Master, because they are not expert in [writing the Jewish bill of divorce] for her sake, and to the [other] Master, because witnesses are not found to attest to it.

Introduction The second part of mishnah eight dealt with men who are suspected of having relations with women prohibited to them. Mishnah nine deals with men who are suspected of lying in order to free a woman of her husband so that they could marry her.

לא ישא את אשתו – because we rely upon his word.

A man who brings a bill of divorce from a country beyond the sea and states, “it was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”, must not marry the [divorcer’s] wife. [Similarly, if one states] “he died”, “I killed him”, or “We killed him”, he must not marry his wife. Rabbi Judah said: [If he says], “ I killed him”, the woman may not marry [any one]; [If, he states], “We killed him”, the woman may marry. A messenger who brings a bill of divorce from overseas must state “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence”. This is to ensure that the divorce document was done properly and that the husband actually requested that it be given (we will learn these laws in tractate Gittin). Our mishnah teaches that the messenger is not allowed to marry the divorcer’s wife, lest the messenger fake the get in order to marry her. His participation in “freeing” her of her husband, disqualifies him from subsequently marrying her.

מת הרגתיו וכו' – since it was upon his testimony that she married, and it is possible to slander, lest his eyes were upon her and he made a false testimony about her but she could marry to another, for a woman can be married [upon the testimony] of one witness.

Similarly, if a man testifies that a woman’s husband is dead, he may not marry her. Jewish law generally does not allow testimony with less than two witnesses. However, in the case of testimony about the death of a man, testimony that will allow her to remarry as a widow, only one witness is required. Since this man is our sole means of knowing that she is a widow, he cannot marry her, lest he lie in order to marry her. Even if he says “I killed him” or “We killed him” he cannot marry her.

ר"י אומר הרגתיו לא תנשא אשתו – through his testimony even to another because he is a wicked person, and the Torah stated (Exodus 23:1): “You shall not join hands with the guilty [to act as a malicious] witness,” but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda, for we hold that a person does not incriminate himself (i.e., his testimony against himself has no legal effect -see Tractate Sanhedrin 9b), for a person is considered a relative regarding himself, and we believe him that that he was killed, but we don’t believe him regarding what he said that he killed him, and therefore, even if he said that he killed him, you can marry his wife.”

A murderer is forbidden from testifying in a court of law. Therefore, according to Rabbi Judah, if one testifies that he murdered a woman’s husband, his testimony is disqualified and it turns out that there is no testimony to her husband’s death. Therefore, she cannot remarry. However, if he says, “We killed him” he may mean to say, “I was there when other people killed him”. Since he does not definitively say that he is a murderer, his testimony about the death of the woman’s husband is valid, and she may remarry.

הרגנוהו תנשא אשתו – it is explained in the Gemara (Tractate Yevamot 25b) when he says: I was with those who killed him, but I did not kill him.

בנדר – she took a vow refusing any benefit/favor from her husband and he did not and he did not invalidate it and she came to a Sage to release her and he did not find an opening for regret for a vow made under misapprehension.

Introduction Mishnah ten is a continuation of mishnah nine.

לא ישאנה – because of suspicion.

A sage who has pronounced a woman forbidden to her husband because of a vow must not marry her himself. If, however, a woman made a declaration of refusal or performed halitzah in his presence, he may marry her, since he [is part of a] court. If any of these had wives who [subsequently] died, [the other women] are permitted to marry them. If [the women] were married to others and were [subsequently] divorced, or widowed, they may be married to these. They are permitted to their sons or brothers. The sage may not marry the woman whom he has declared forbidden to her husband due to a vow. This could happen if the woman vowed to receive no benefit from her husband, and then came in front of the sage to release her vow (we will learn how a vow is released in tractate Nedarim). If the sage could not find an opening to release the vow, then the woman remains forbidden to her husband. The sage may not marry her lest he did not search hard to find a way to release the vow because he wanted to marry the woman himself. However, if a woman performs the declaration of refusal (an annulment of marriage made by a woman upon reaching majority in a case where her marriage was contracted by her brother or mother) or halitzah in front of a sage, that sage may still marry her. In this situation he is part of a court, and we are not suspicious of courts. Furthermore, with a court, if he wanted to illegally accept her declaration of refusal or halitzah just so that he could marry her, he would have to get the rest of the court to agree. Since this would not be so simple, we are not suspicious and he may marry her.

שהוא ב"ד – meaning to say, a woman’s protest against a marriage contracted during her minority and Halitzah – this Sage did not do as an individual because we hold that Halitzah and a woman’s protest against a marriage contracted during her minority [we require a court] of two or three we don’t suspect, but the release from vows [is performed] by an expert individual.

This section places certain limits on the preceding laws in this mishnah and the previous one. If these men, who testified and thereby allowed the woman to be freed from her husband (the one who brought the get, or the one who testified about the husband’s death or the sage who did not release the vow), had other wives at the time, then they may later, after their current wives die, marry these other women. Since at the time of their testimony there is little chance that they would marry the woman about whom they are testifying, they are not suspected of lying. Note that this mishnah assumes that bigamy is not common, even though it is permitted. Furthermore, if these women subsequently marry other men and then are again divorced or widowed, they may marry the men who testified in order to “free” them from their previous marriage. The fact that they married someone else first, means that the original testimony did not directly allow them to marry the one who brought the get, testified about the death or did not release the vow. The step in between gets rid of the suspicion that they were lying. Finally, these women may marry the children or brother of these men. While we suspect that one may lie in order to free a woman for himself, we do not have such suspicions for his son or brother.

וכולן – the Sage and he person bringing a Jewish bill of divorce and a person testifying about a woman to [be allowed] to marry her, as are taught about in the Mishnah, he should not take her in marriage if he had wives at the time of the action but if they died afterwards, they (i.e., the women) are permitted to marry them for now there is no suspicion.

וכולן – these women.

שנישאו לאחרים – that the Sage forbade or to the witness or to the person who brings the Jewish bill of divorce [from abroad].

וכולן מותרות לבניהם ולאחיהן – of these who permit them and they are not forbidden other than to them alone, for a man does not sin for his son or for his brothers, and all those that we mentioned, one should not marry, and if he married, he should not remove/divorce except for the where there is a claim that she I s married woman, for if the Jewish court removed her from her husband with witness and clear proof, even if he married her, he should remove/divorce her. But if witnesses came regarding an ugly matter alone, such as that they saw a man going out and she is wearing [only] a petticoat/breech-cloth (and Ezra, according to Talmud Bava Kamma 82a ordained that a woman must wear such clothing as a matter of chastity), or a man goes out and she is standing on top of the bed and similar kinds of things, if he married her, he cannot remove/divorce her, and if after the witnesses about an ugly matter came and a rumor went out and didn’t cease for the rumor stood for a day-and-a-half, if he married her, he should divorce her, other than if they had children from her, for then, he doesn’t remove her in order to not to cast aspersion upon his children.