Jeśli ktoś był żonaty z dwoma sierotami-nieletnimi i umarł —jeśli yavam mieszkał razem z pierwszym, a potem z drugim, lub jeśli jego brat mieszkał razem z drugim, pierwszy nie jest uznawany za niezdolnego. [Bo ich współżycie jest równe. Jeśli ta pierwsza zostanie nabyta (przez nią), jest ona jego żoną, a współżycie drugiego jest z'nuth. A jeśli jej nie nabytą, obaj są mu obcy, gdyż (podobnie) nie zostali pozyskani przez jego brata. I zachowuje pierwszą, bo nie była mu niezdolna. Ale nie zachowuje drugiego, bo być może zostały nabyte, tak że po tym, jak zamieszkał z pierwszym, drugi był mu zabroniony z powodu „dwóch domów”]. To samo dotyczy dwóch głuchoniemych. Nieletni i głuchoniemi—jeśli yavam mieszkał razem z nieletnim, a następnie z głuchoniemym, lub jeśli jego brat mieszkał razem z głuchoniemym, nieletni nie jest dla niego niezdolny. Jeśli yavam mieszkał razem z głuchoniemym, a następnie z nieletnim, lub jeśli jego brat mieszkał razem z nieletnim, głuchoniemy jest dla niego niezdolny. [Albowiem może się zdarzyć, że nieletni jest całkowicie nabyty, a głuchoniemy częściowo, tak że (zakaz) „dwóch domów” uzyskuje. W ten sposób dochodzimy do wniosku w gemara, że nieletnia jest albo całkowicie nabyta, że nadaje się do wspólnego pożycia w przyszłości—lub w ogóle nie zostały nabyte. A głuchoniemego zostaje nabyty i „pozostawiony”; to znaczy częściowo i nie absolutnie nabyte. I nawet jeśli mieszkał z głuchoniemym po konkubinacie z małoletnim, nie czyni małoletniego niezdolnym w każdym przypadku, a mianowicie: jeśli małoletni jest całkowicie nabyty, nabył ją, a późniejsze wspólne zamieszkanie z głuchoniemi nie ma tu znaczenia. A jeśli w ogóle jej nie nabył, to też nie został nabyty przez jego brata, więc jest obca. Ale jeśli mieszkał najpierw z głuchoniemym, a potem z nieletnim, czyni głuchoniemego niezdolnym. Może się bowiem zdarzyć, że nieletni został całkowicie nabyty, w takim przypadku nabycie głuchoniemego, które jest tylko częściowe, zostaje unieważnione. (Niektóre wersje brzmią tak: jeśli mieszkał z nieletnim, a następnie z głuchoniemym, czyni nieletniego niezdolnym do siebie, co jest dekretem w sprawie jego współżycia z głuchoniemym, a następnie z nieletnim). ]
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
לא פסל את הראשונה – for their acts of sexual intercourse are equivalent, and if the first one is acquired, she is his wife, and the sexual intercourse of the latter is fornication. But, if she is not acquired, both of hem are considered as foreigners to him for they were not acquired to his brother and he sustains the first who was not invalidated to him but not the latter one, for perhaps they were acquired, and when he comes upon the first one, he fulfills that one upon her through the prohibition of two houses.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
Introduction
This mishnah deals with a case where a man has intercourse with both of his brother’s widows, or he has intercourse with one and his brother has intercourse with the other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
פסל את החרשת – for perhaps the younger was acquired completely, and the acquisition of the deaf-mute woman is leftover, and he has two homes, and we reach the conclusion in the Gemara (Tractate Yevamot 111a) that a minor girl that there is a doubt if she is acquired completely for since she is worthy of sexual intercourse after a time and there is doubt if she is not acquired at all. And a woman who is a deaf-mute is acquired and she is left over, meaning to say, that she is acquired partially and is not acquired in a complete manner but nevertheless, if he comes upon a deaf-mute after he came upon a minor, he did not invalidate the minor, whichever way you turn, if the minor woman is acquired completely, he has acquired her, and the sexual act with the deaf-mute comes after that is not anything, and if she is not acquired at all, even to his brother, she was not acquired, and she is a foreigner (i.e., not related to him), but if he came first upon the deaf-mute and afterwards upon the minor, he invalidate the deaf-mute, for perhaps the acquisition of the minor was a complete acquisition, and he invalidated the acquisition of the deaf-mute which is an acquisition with something leftover. But there are books that have the reading – if he comes upon the minor girl, for we decree that because of when he came upon the deaf-mute girl and afterwards came upon the minor.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
If a man who was married to two orphans who were minors died, and the yavam had intercourse with one, and then he also had intercourse with the other, or his [the yavam’s] brother had intercourse with the other, he has not thereby disqualified the first [for him]; In this case the man had intercourse with both minor wives, or he had intercourse with one and his brother had intercourse with the other. In any case, the first minor widow is still permitted to the first yavam. This is because there is a doubt whether or not yibbum is truly effective in “acquiring” a minor as a wife. If it is effective, than the first act of yibbum makes her fully his wife, and the second act of intercourse is illicit but does not effect the first wife’s status. If it is ineffective, then he didn’t need to have yibbum with either minor widow, because they were not biblically married to his brother. In either case, he may remain married to the first one. He cannot stay with the second lest intercourse is effective for acquiring a minor and he has already acquired her rival wife.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
And the same is true with regard to two deaf women. The same rule is true where both wives were deaf-mutes.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
[If one was] a minor and the other deaf, and the yavam had intercourse with the minor and then he had intercourse with the deaf widow, or a brother of his had intercourse with the deaf widow, he has not disqualified the minor [for him]. In this case one widow was a deaf-mute and the other a minor. If the yavam had relations first with the minor and then with the deaf-mute, or the yavam’s brother had relations with the deaf-mute, the minor may remain married to the first yavam. This is for the same reasons that we explained above: if yibbum is effective in acquiring the minor, then she is married to the yavam and the intercourse with the deaf-mute wife is licentious, but does not effect the first wife’s status. If it is ineffective, then she was never liable for yibbum with him, because she was not married to his brother.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
If the yavam had intercourse with the deaf widow and then he also had intercourse with the minor, or a brother of his had intercourse with the minor, he has disqualified the deaf widow [for him]. In this case, the yavam first has relations with the deaf-mute and then he or his brother has relations with the minor widow. In this case the deaf-mute wife becomes forbidden to him. This is because the “acquisition” of the deaf-mute is certainly valid, but is not a complete “acquisition”. The “acquisition” of the minor is doubtful, as we explained above, but if it does acquire it does so fully. If the acquisition of the minor was fully valid, then it disqualifies the deaf-mute, whose acquisition was only partially valid.
