Commentary for Yevamot 9:9

יש מותרות. כהן הדיוט שנשא אלמנה – and the same law applies for a virgin, for when he (i.e., her husband) dies, she becomes a widow. But it (i.e., the Mishnah) took [the term] "אלמנה" /widow – because it needed to teach the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] regarding a High Priest who married a widow.

Introduction The first two mishnayoth of this chapter list variations of women who are either permitted or forbidden to their husbands and to their yevamim (their husband’s brothers). This chapter does not really teach new laws that were unknown from other places in the Yevamoth. Rather it organizes them in a different manner.

Some women are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamim, Others are permitted to their yevamim and forbidden to their husbands, Others are permitted to both, Others are forbidden to both.
[In all these cases the women] are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamim. This section is an introduction to this mishnah and the next. The different combinations will be explained as we proceed. Note how formulaic it is and how easy it must have been to remember.

These are the women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamim: An ordinary priest married a widow and had a brother who was a high priest; A halal married a woman who was fit and had a brother of legitimate status; An Israelite married the daughter of an Israelite and had a brother who was a mamzer, A mamzer married a mamzeret and had a brother who was an Israelite. The following cases are ones in which a woman is married to a man to whom she is permitted but should her husband die without children she would not be permitted to have yibbum with the yavam. An ordinary priest who married a widow and had a brother who was a high priest: An ordinary priest is allowed to marry a widow but the high priest may not. A halal who married a woman who was fit [to marry a priest] had a brother of legitimate status: A halal is the child of a priest and a woman who is forbidden to a priest (such as a divorcee). A halal may marry anyone. However, once a woman has relations with a halal, she also becomes a halalah. A halal may have a brother who was not a halal, if, for instance, his father was a priest and his mother was a divorcee and his brother’s mother was fit to marry a priest. In such a case the halal’s wife may not have yibbum with his brother because she is a halalah, and a priest cannot marry a halalah. An Israelite who married the daughter of an Israelite had a brother who was a mamzer: A mamzer may not marry the daughter of an Israelite. Therefore, the mamzer brother of an Israelite may not have yibbum with his dead brother’s wife. An Israelite might have a brother who is a mamzer if, for instance, his father had an affair with another woman while she was married. A mamzer married a mamzeret had a brother who was an Israelite: This is the reverse situation as that which we saw in the previous section.

כהן גדול שקידש את האלמנה – but if he married [a widow], she is profaned/desecrated through his coition and she is forbidden to the husband and to the levir.

The following are permitted to their yevamim and forbidden to their husbands:
A high priest who betrothed a widow and has a brother who is an ordinary priest;
A fit [priest] who married a halalah and has a brother who is a halal;
An Israelite who married a mamzeret and has a brother who is a mamzeret;
A mamzer who married the daughter of an Israelite and has a brother who is an Israelite. [In these cases the women] are permitted to their yevamim and forbidden to their husbands.
The following are forbidden to both;
A high priest who married a widow has a brother who is a high priest, or who is an ordinary priest;
A fir [priest] who married a halalah and has a brother who was a fit [priest];
An Israelite who married a mamzeret and has a brother who is Israelite;
A mamzer who married the daughter of an Israelite and has a brother who is a mamzer, [In these cases the women] are forbidden to both [the husband and the yavam]. All other women are permitted to both their husbands and their yevamim.
This mishnah continues to list types of women who are either forbidden to their husbands or to their yevamim.
Section one: A high priest is not allowed to marry a widow. If he betroths a widow and then dies, his brother, the ordinary priest, may have yibbum with her. However, if he married her, she would fall into the category of a halalah, that is a woman who has been disqualified from the priesthood. She would then be forbidden to the yavam brother as well.
Section two: A priest may not marry a halalah. However, if he has a brother who is a halal (for instance they have different mothers), then the brother may have yibbum with her.
Section three: An Israelite may not marry a mamzeret. However, if he has a brother who is a mamzer (they have different mothers), then the brother may have yibbum with her.
Section four: The opposite situation of that in section three.
Section five: The mishnah now begins to list women who are forbidden both to their husbands and, should the husbands die, to the yavam as well.
If a high priest marries a widow and dies and his brother is also a high priest, just as the first marriage was prohibited, so too is yibbum. Furthermore, since the first marriage was consummated (and did not remain only a betrothal, as in section one above), the woman became a halalah and is therefore prohibited to his brother even if he is only an ordinary priest.
Section six: If a fit priest marries a halalah, who is forbidden to him, she may not have yibbum with his brother who is also a fit priest.
Section seven: Just as the mamzereth was forbidden to the first husband, who was an ordinary Israelite, so too she is forbidden to his brother, if he is an ordinary Israelite.
Section eight: Just as the Israelite woman was forbidden to her first husband, who was a mamzer, so too she is forbidden to his mamzer brother.

שניה לבעל ולא שניה ליבם – if the husband’s mother and not of the levir, such as for example, brothers from the father bu not from the mother.

Introduction In mishnah 2:4, we learned that there are secondary incest prohibitions that were instituted by the scribes.

אין לה כתובה – a Maneh (i.e., 100 Dinar or 25 shekels) and Two-Hundred, which are the essence of the Ketubah and she does not have [anything] from the secondary relationship (which are prohibited as incestuous by rabbinic decree), but she does have the supplement.

[Concerning] relatives of the second degree [of incest laws who are forbidden] by the words of the scribes:
[A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the husband but not a second degree of kinship to the yavam, is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam; A woman could be a second degree of kinship to her husband but not to her yavam if she was the husband’s grandmother, and her husband had a brother with the same father but not the same mother. The mishnah teaches that although the marriage was forbidden, she may still have yibbum. This is because the prohibition of second degree kinship is only of rabbinic origin.

ולא פירות – he doesn’t pay her the usufruct of the wife’s estate of which the husband has the fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration that he consumed which are hers, [and even though] that the usufruct, the Rabbis instituted (see Talmud Ketubot 47b) [the duty of support as an equivalent for her handiwork], and that of redemption as an equivalent for the privilege of usufruct [of her property], but he is not liable to redeem her, for we do not call her ואותבינך לי לאינתו /and I will make you to be my wife, and therefore, it was appropriate that he would pay her what he had consumed from the usufruct of her estate, even so, the Rabbis fined her that she should not collect from him the usufruct that he consumed as conditions of the Ketubah. For just as they fined her that she should not collect from him the essence of the Ketubah, for the conditions of the Ketubah are like the Ketubah itself.

[A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the yavam but not a second degree of kinship to the husband is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband; The same is true in the opposite case, if she is a second degree of kinship to her yavam but not to her husband. As we learned above in 2:3-4, in such a case she must have halitzah and not yibbum.

ולא מזונות – it is not necessary to state that he is not obligated to support her while she is still under him, for but surely, it is his duty to divorce her (literally: “he stands under the charge to get up and make her go out” – how, then, could he be expected to maintain her? ). But rather, even if he went abroad and he and he lent her and consumed from her [property], he does not pay, for if we were dealing with a fit woman, if he borrowed from her and consumed from her [property], the husband would be obligated to pay [her back]. For the loan claims her what he lent to her and she makes a claim to her husband. And especially for someone who supported her not through the matter of a loan, we state in Ketubot (see Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 13, Mishnah 2) that the Halakha is like Hanan, as he stated: He who went overseas and someone went and supported his wife, he left his money on the horn of a deer for since it was for her support from her husband, and he did not lend her anything – whom can he make a claim? She did not borrow and he husband did not request from him that he should support her, therefore, it was Mitzvah that he did, but if he lent her, the husband is liable to pay if she is fit, and if she is from one of the relationships of the second degree (i.e., of the second generation), he is not liable to pay.

[A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the one and to the other is forbidden to the one as well as to the other. If she was a second degree to both, she is forbidden to both.

ולא בלאות – if the husband used her usufruct until they wore out, he is not liable to pay for you might think I would say, for since she lacks a Ketubah, but the husband ate from her usufruct, he is liable to pay what was lost and worn out, it comes to tell us that the Rabbis fined her so that the husband would not pay for worn clothes (i.e.., and indemnity for clothes which have completely worn out), but what he finds from them existing, she takes them.

She cannot claim her ketubah or usufruct or support money, or her worn clothes. The child is fit [to marry a priest], but the husband is compelled to divorce her. If a couple transgressed the rabbinic prohibition and the man married a woman who was a second degree of kinship, there are serious economic consequences for the woman. The woman does not receive her ketubah (marriage payment), nor does she receive in return the usufruct, meaning the profit that the husband accrued from the use of her property while they were married. She does not receive support (food, clothing or shelter), nor does she receive in return the reduction in the value of her things that he has used while married. However, the status of the child is not effected, since the level of prohibition was only derabbanan. He is forced to divorce her. In summary, the consequences of this forbidden marriage are mostly economic and they are mostly upon the woman.

אלמנה לכהן גדול וכו' – they have a Ketubah and usufruct and the husband pays them (i.e., his wives) for the usufruct that he ate from his wive’s estates of which the husband has fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration and food that they have as they are supported from his property [and especially after] [his] death. But during his lifetime, we don’t force him to support/feed them for we uphold regarding him that it is his duty to divorce her (i.e., literally, he stands under (the charge) to get up and make her go out) and if one of them borrowed her support during the life of her husband, the husband is not liable to pay the lender. And worn out clothing also, there are those who state that he is liable to restore what was worn out and lost from their usufruct, and these words, are when he recognized them, but if he did not recognize them, they have neither a Ketubah, nor usufruct, nor support, nor worn-out clothing, but they do have the supplement and the worn-out clothing that they have in their sight. But second-degree relations do not have a Ketubah, nor usufruct, nor support nor worn-out clothing and a widow [married to] a High Priest, a divorcee and/or a woman who had Halitzah performed to a standard Kohen, ,etc., they have a Ketubah, and usufruct and support and worn out clothing, because these things are from the words of the Scribes and require strengthening. And in the [third chapter of Tractate Makkot}: “Who are they who are flogged?” it is proven that the prohibition of a woman who had undergone Halitzah [is prohibited] to a [High] Priest from the Torah, and even though that [the prohibition] of a woman who had undergone Halitzah [who is married] to a regular Kohen is from the worlds of the Scribes, they made it of Torah law for this law.

A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorcee or halutzah who was married to an ordinary priest, a mamzer or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a natin or a mamzer is entitled to her ketubah. The mishnah now contrasts this type of forbidden marriage, with a marriage that was forbidden according to Torah law, but that was nevertheless an effective marriage. That is to say if a man betrothed one of these women, he has transgressed the prohibition, but she still requires a divorce. In all of these cases the woman receives her ketubah and all of the other rights listed in the mishnah. In the comparison of these two sections, we see that the consequences of marrying a second degree of kinship which is only a rabbinic prohibition are more serious than those of marrying one who is biblically prohibited. The reason is that a rabbinic prohibition needs the extra “strengthening” while the biblical prohibition does not.

לא תאכל בתרומה – as it is taught in the Mishnah of the Chapter “A Widow [Married to] a High Priest” [Tractate Yevamot, Chapter 7, Mishnah 4], the fetus, and the levir and betrothal invalidate [a woman from eating heave offering] but do not validate [her to do so].

Introduction This mishnah discusses whether or not a woman eats terumah or tithe (which the Levites eat) in situations where she might be moving from an Israelite home to a priest’s domain, and whether she loses the right to eat terumah in situations where she might be leaving her priestly or Levite home and going to an Israelite home.

לא תאכל במעשר – all of this Mishnah is Rabbi Meir who stated that First Tithe is prohibited to foreigners (i.e., non-Levites) but it is not the Halakha.

The daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a priest, or who was pregnant from a priest, or was a shomeret yavam to a priest; And similarly, the daughter of a priest [who was in such relationship] with an Israelite, may not eat terumah. The daughter of an Israelite may eat terumah when she is fully married to a priest. She may not eat terumah when she is merely betrothed. If she is pregnant but not married (either he died or she became pregnant before marriage) she may not eat terumah. Finally, if she is a shomeret yavam waiting to for yibbum with a priest, she may not eat terumah. However, if she was the daughter of a priest and the man was an Israelite in one of these situations, she loses the right to eat terumah. These states are in-between states, states where the woman may lose the right to eat terumah but may not gain the right. Note that we have taught exactly this halakhah in 7:4 above: the fetus, the yavam and betrothal disqualify her from eating terumah and cannot allow her to eat terumah.

לא בתרומה ולא במעשר – this is what he said: We don’t distribute Terumah/priest’s due and First Tithe in the granary house neither to the daughter of a Kohen nor to the daughter of a Levite, as a decree because of the case of a divorced woman, the daughter of an Israelite who is prohibited to eat [First] Tithe and if they would distribute [First] Tithe to the wife in the house of the granary, they will come to distribute it to the daughter of an Israelite after she had been divorced from a Levite, for not everyone knows that for her husband, they would distribute it to her. Therefore, Rabbi Meir decreed that you should not distribute in the house of the granary to a woman even if she is the daughter of a Kohen or the daughter of a Levite. But surely, as it is taught in the Mishnah, the daughter of a Levite who is betrothed to a Kohen, etc., they should not consume neither Terumah or [First] Tithe, and the same law applies even if she is married, because the first clause [of the Mishnah] that teaches that the daughter of an Israelite who is betrothed to a Kohen, that there, especially when she is betrothed, for if she was married [to a Kohen], she could consume [Terumah], it is taught also in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] regarding the daughter of a Levite who is betrothed.

The daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a Levite, or who was pregnant from a Levite, or was a shomeret yavam to a Levite; And similarly, the daughter of a Levite [who was in such a relationship] with an Israelite may not eat tithe. This section teaches the exact same laws with regard to tithes, which are eaten by Levites. The Talmud points out that according to the halakhah, a non-Levite may eat tithe (although he is commanded to give it to the Levite). Our mishnah goes according to Rabbi Meir who holds that only Levites can eat tithe.

The daughter of a Levite who was betrothed to a priest, or who was pregnant from a priest, or was a shomeret yavam to a priest; And similarly, the daughter of a priest [who was in such relationship] with a levite, may eat neither terumah nor tithe. The logic of this section is that a woman in one of these situations is not tied enough to the priest to eat terumah, nor does she remain tied enough to her Levite family to continue eating tithe. Note that according to this section, even priests cannot eat tithe.

מת ולה ממנו בן תאכל בתרומה – as it is written (Leviticus 22:11): “and those that are born into his household may eat of his food,” they call him, ‘they shall feed him,” and all the time that her son exists/lives, he provides her with Terumah.

Introduction As with all of the mishnayoth of this chapter, we don’t really learn any new information in this mishnah. What we see is a tightly organized literary structure, describing a situation where one woman moves in and out of the ability to eat terumah and tithe.

נשאת ללוי – after she gave birth from a Kohen,

The daughter of an Israelite married to a priest may eat terumah. If he died and she has a son by him she may continue to eat terumah. If she was [subsequently] married to a Levite, she may eat tithe. If he died and she had a son by him, she may continue to eat tithe. If she was [subsequently] married to an Israelite she may eat neither terumah nor tithe. If he died and she has a son by him, she may eat neither terumah nor tithe. If her son by the Israelite died, she may again eat tithe. If her son by the Levite died she may again eat terumah. If her son by the priest died, she may eat neither terumah nor tithe. When the Israelite woman married the priest, she became able to eat terumah. Once he dies, she can still eat terumah because she has a son from him. When she marries a Levite she loses the ability to eat terumah, but she gains the ability to eat tithe. When he dies, she can still eat tithe because she has a son from him. When she then marries the Israelite, she loses her right to eat both tithe and terumah, because she has a son with him. At this point she has a son from each of her marriages. If her son from the Israelite now dies, she reverts back to her previous status. She can now eat tithe because of her son with the Levite. If this son dies, she now reverts to the previous status, which means she can again eat terumah because of her son with the priest. If he too dies, she goes back to her original Israelite family and can no longer eat tithe or terumah.

אוכלת במעשר – she consumes [First] Tithe and not Terumah, and even though she has a son from a Kohen that was adornment, it would for her a foreigner.

מת ולה ממנו בן אוכלת במעשר – for her son from a Levite, but not Terumah for her son who is from a Kohen, for she has issue from a foreigner (non-Kohen, non-Levite).

Introduction This mishnah says basically the same thing as the previous one, but in a reverse order.

The daughter of a priest who was married to an Israelite may not eat terumah. If he died and she had a son by him she may not eat terumah. If she was [subsequently] married to a Levite she may eat tithe. If he died and she had a son by him she may eat tithe. If she was [subsequently] married to a priest she may eat terumah. If he died and she had a son by him she may eat terumah. If her son by the priest died she may not eat terumah. If her son by the levite died she may not eat tithe. If her son by the Israelite died she returns to the house of her father; And it is concerning such a woman that it is said, “And she returns to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13). This mishnah is the exact reverse of yesterday’s mishnah. The woman starts in a situation where she can eat terumah, but then loses that right when she marries an Israelite. If he dies, and she has had a son with him, she still cannot eat terumah. If she marries a Levite, she may now eat tithe. If he dies, and she has had a son with him, she can still eat tithe. If she now marries a priest, she can eat terumah. . If he dies, and she has had a son with him, she can still eat terumah. If this son dies, she goes back to eating tithe. If this son dies, she goes back to not being able to eat either, because of her son from the Israelite. If this son dies, she goes back to her original situation and she may eat terumah. As the verse says, she goes back to the situation of her father’s house.