משנה: כְּלָל אָֽמְרוּ בַּיְבָמָה כָּל־שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְייַבֶּמֶת. אִיסּוּרָהּ אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה וְאִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְייַבֶּמֶת. אֲחוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתָּהּ אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְייַבֶּמֶת. MISHNAH: They formulated a principle about a sister-in-law: Any woman forbidden by an incest prohibition has neither ḥalîṣah nor levirate56Since the rules of Deut. 25:5 do not apply to her.. If she is forbidden by a commandment prohibition57Simple biblical prohibition as well as rabbinic prohibitions, explained in the next Mishnah. or one of sanctity58A woman prohibited to a Cohen by the laws of Lev. 21:1–14. In these two cases, while marriage is sinful, the act of marriage is not void., she has ḥalîṣah but not levirate. Her sister who is also her sister-in-law has either ḥalîṣah or levirate59If two sisters married to two brothers become widows and there is a third brother to whom one of the sisters is forbidden by one of the incest prohibitions, her sister may be married in levirate since the rules of Deut. 25:5 do not apply to the forbidden one; an example is given in the Halakhah..
הלכה: כְּלָל אָֽמְרוּ בַּיְבָמָה כָּל־שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. עַד דַּאֲנָן תַּמָּן אַפְקִינָן אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה מִן דְּעַד אֲחוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתָּהּ מִתְייַבֶּמֶת חוּץ מִבִּתּוֹ. דְּסַלְקִינָן לְהָכָא שְׁמָעִינָן הָכָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. בִּתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו וְלָו אָחוֹת מֵאֵם מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו הַשֵּׁינִי וּמֵת בְּלֹא בָנִים. הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בְּבִתּוֹ וּמוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. הָדָא הִיא אֲחוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתָּהּ מִתְייַבֶּמֶת. HALAKHAH: “They formulated a principle about a sister-in-law: Any woman forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said: When I was still there60In Babylonia., we extracted fourteen cases from “her sister which is also her sister-in-law has levirate”, except his daughter61From the 15 cases of Mishnah 1:1, excluded from the laws of levirate.. When we came up here, we heard what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: His daughter from a woman he raped was married to a paternal halfbrother; she62לו read as לה, as in Tosephta, Chap. 2. The use of the masculine for the feminine is not uncommen in the Yerushalmi; the substitution is most likely not a scribal error. also has a maternal sister from a different father married to a second brother who died childless. His daughter is forbidden to him but her sister, who is her sister-in-law, is permitted to him63Since he never was married to her mother and the prohibition of a woman and her daughter is formulated in terms of “taking”, i. e., marriage. In the Tosephta, Chapter 2, “she either has ḥalîṣah or is taken in levirate”.. That is, “her sister which is also her sister-in-law has levirate”.
פְּשִׁיטָא הָדָא מִילְתָא. אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה וְאִיסּוּר קְדוּשָׁה חָלַץ נִפְטְרָה צָרָתָהּ. וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לֹא נִפְטְרָה צָרָתָהּ. רִבִּי שַׁמַּי מַחְלִף שְׁמוּעָה. מִסְתַּבְּרָא עַל דְּרִבִּי שַׁמַּי דִּבְכָל־אָתָר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר סָמַךְ לְרִבִּי חִייָה רַבָּה. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה אִיסּוּר קְדוּשָׁה חָלַץ לָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ נִפְטְרָה צָרָתָהּ. It is obvious that if somebody had ḥalîṣah with a woman forbidden by a commandment or because of sanctity, the co-widow was freed64Since marriage would be valid, ḥalîṣah must be valid.. When he had intercourse with her? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree; they say the co-widow was not freed65In this interpretation, Rebbis Eleazar and Joḥanan agree with one another but disagree with everybody else (interpretation of פני משה). Another way would be to postulate a lacuna: “R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan disagree, R. Joḥanan said, the co-widow was freed, R. Eleazar said, the co-widow was not freed” (קרבן העדה). The Babli is no help; the Venice text (20b) asserts that R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar disagree in the matter but it is unsure who said what (parallel the Yerushalmi, supporting קרבן העדה), but Tosaphot (fol. 5a, s. v. ואכתי) reads “Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Eleazar”, supporting פני משה.
The people denying that the co-widow was freed must hold that this is a rabbinic ordinance since “commandments” and “sanctity” are treated together. The Babli, 20b/21a, treats only the prohibition of a widow to the High Priest which is simultaneously a prohibition and the transgression of a positive commandment (to marry a virgin) and therefore in a different category.. Rebbi Shammai switches the [names] of this tradition. The position of Rebbi Shammai is reasonable since everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated for women forbidden by a commandment or because of sanctity, if he had ḥalîṣah or intercourse with her, the co-widow was freed66Statement not found in Tosephta..