משנה: אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת. מֵתוּ אֶת הַנְּשׂוּאִין אֶת הָאֲחָיוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְייַבְּמוֹת. וְאִם קָֽדְמוּ וְכָֽנְסוּ יוֹצִיאוּ. רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים יְקַייֵמוּ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים יוֹצִיאוּ. MISHNAH: There are four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters. If those married to the sisters died1One possible explanation is that they died childless at the same time; then each of the sisters is a candidate for levirate for either one of the surviving brothers, i. e., each is a sister of a sister-in-law and potentially forbidden., [the sisters] have ḥalîṣah but not levirate. If [the remaining brothers] jumped the gun and married, they must divorce them. Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them2According to him the House of Shammai must hold that candidacy has no other legal consequences (cf. Note 19). Therefore, if they married the sisters against the rules, no biblical precept has been violated. In contrast, cf. Halakhah 5., but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce.
הלכה: אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כול׳. אִילּוּ אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי נָכְרִיּוֹת שֶׁמָּא אֵינָן מִתְייַבְּמוֹת. שַׁנְייָא הִיא הָכָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אִיסּוּר אֲחָיוֹת. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יְהוּ צְרִיכוֹת הִימֶּינּוּ חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. עַל יְדֵי זִיקָה. וְאֵין בּוֹ אִיסּוּר אֲחָיוֹת בְּרוּרוֹת. HALAKHAH: “Four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters,” etc. If there were four brothers, two of whom are married to unrelatedwomen, would they not be subject to levirate? There is a difference, since here there is the prohibition of sisters. In that case, they should not need ḥalîṣah from them! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is because of candidacy and the prohibition of sisters is not clear3It is not clear whether the fact that the sisters become candidates for levirate at the same time makes them forbidden; cf. Chapter 2, Notes 27–29..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ אָחִיו אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ. מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן בָּתֵירָה אָֽמְרוּ. אוֹמֵר לוֹ. הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. חָֽלְצוּ אַחִים אוֹ כָֽנְסוּ (…) מֵת הַיָּבָם מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא מֵתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. אֲבָל מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אָסוּר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. [אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זוֹ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתָּר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. מֵתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ.] אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטַל הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטַל הָאִיסּוּר. וּדְרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. אֲפִילוּ בָּטַל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. 6Mishnah 4:10. There, we have stated: “If a brother gave qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir7After the death of the brother, when the sister-in-law’s sister was prohibited to him since the widow is a candidate for levirate with any one of the brothers., they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If [one of the] brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife8Since the candidacy obstacle to marriage was removed. The same holds if the widow dies.. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.9Only if he is the only remaining brother. Then he is forbidden to marry his betrothed and has to divorce her. The widow becomes the sister of a woman divorced by him and cannot be married.” It says only: If the sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him. But if his wife died, his sister-in-law is forbidden to him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer10The source of the argument is Mishnah 13:6. In the tradition of the Babli, the author is R. Eleazar (ben Arakh, the Tanna). The Babli disagrees (41a) and holds that both opinions are compatible with the position of the Sages who in this case might agree with R. Eleazar that a woman whom a brother could not marry for one moment is permanently forbidden to him.. But the Sages say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him. Rebbi Joḥanan said11In Chapter 1 (Note 71), this is a statement of R. Eleazar (the Amora) in the name of R. Abun. In the Babli, 27b, R. Joḥanan disagrees and holds that any sister-in-law who cannot be married in levirate at the moment of death of her husband can never be a party to levirate., the Sages hold that for anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for Rebbi Eliezer, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. מֵתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתָּר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ טַעַם אֲחָיוֹת מָה הֵן. רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ טַעַם אֲחָיוֹת יְבָמוֹת מַה הֵן. רִבִּי הִילָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא דוֹמֶה אִיסּוּר אֲחָיוֹת יְבָמוֹת לְאִיסּוּר אֲחָיוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן יְבָמוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנָּפַל הַבַּיִת עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בָּעֵי. אִם בְּשֶׁנָּפַל הַבַּיִת עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת בְּדָא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵינִי יוֹדֵע טַעַם אֲחָיוֹת יְבָמוֹת [מָהֵן]. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁמֵּתוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מַה צְרִיכָה לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵתָה הַשְּׁנִייָה לָמָּה אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֲבָל אִם מֵתָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה יְהֵא אָסוּר בַּשְּׁנִייָה. אָמַר רִבִּי [יוּדָן]. הִיא דָא הִיא דָא. צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. וְלֵית זִיקָה כְּלוּם. אִילּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין. שְׁנַיִם מֵאָב וְלֹא מֵאֵם. שְׁנַיִם מֵאֵם וְלֹא מֵאָב. מֵת בְּנוֹ שֶׁלָּאָב תְּחִילָּה. לֹא הִסְפִּיק הַשֵּׁינִי לְהַחֲלִיץ וּלְייַבֵּם עַד שֶׁמֵּת וְנָֽפְלָה לִפְנֵי אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר בָּהּ. אִין מַאֲמָר זִיקָה כְּלוּם. יְהֵא אָסוּר בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Here13Mishnah 4:10., you say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him, and here14Mishnah 3:1. If one of the brothers performs ḥalîṣah with the woman who became a widow later, the sister who first became a widow should be permitted to the other brother by the rule spelled out by R. Joḥanan; see below. you say so? He said to him, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters15In the Babli, 27b, R. Joḥanan is quoted as saying that he does not know the author of Mishnah 3:1. This means he is unable to analyze the hidden premisses on which the ruling is based.. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law16He spelled out that his criticism refers to Mishnah 3:1, not 4:10.. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law cannot be compared to the prohibition of sisters who are not sisters-in-law. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it that the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time17Cf. Note 1. In that case, we do not know which of the two brothers died first; there are no discernible first and second widows to apply the rule of Mishnah 4:10. A similar argument in the Babli, 28a.. Rebbi Yose asked, did Rebbi Joḥanan say, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law if the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time? Only if they died one after the other. They wanted to say, what was the problem of Rebbi Joḥanan? If the second one died, why should the first one not be permitted to him? But if the first one died, the second should be forbidden to him. Rebbi Yudan said, both cases are the same problem for him. And candidacy counts for nothing since if there are three brothers,two of them paternal but not maternal halfbrothers, and two maternal but not paternal halfbrothers. If the paternal halfbrother died first18Brother 2 is paternal halfbrother of brother 1 and maternal halfbrother of brother 3. There is no relationship between 1 and 3. If 1 dies childless, his widow becomes a candidate for levirate with 2. and the second brother had no time to perform ḥalîṣah or levirate before he died, and she became eligible for his maternal halfbrother, may he not take her19If candidacy had given her some status comparable a wife of 2, she would be forbidden to 3. Since this case is never mentioned, one has to conclude that for 3 she is the widow of an unrelated man. In the Babli, Nedarim 74a, this position is ascribed to R. Aqiba, but not accepted by the other Sages.? This shows that candidacy is nothing, [otherwise] she should be forbidden as the maternal halfbrother’s wife.
מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ צָרָה. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲבִינָא. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אִם אָחוֹת חֲלוּצָתוֹ [שֶׁהִיא] מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם נָֽתְנוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים צָרָה. כָּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן אִיסּוּר אֲחָיוֹת לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. בִּתּוֹ פְּשִׁיטָא לָךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ צָרָה. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲבִינָא. תַּנֵּי תַמָּן. חָֽלְצוּ הַצָּרוֹת נִפְטְרוּ הָאֲחָיוֹת. (לא) חָֽלְצוּ אֲחָיוֹת לֹא נִפְטְרוּ הַצָּרוֹת. וּכְמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר. חָֽלְצוּ הַצָּרוֹת נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת. וְדִכְװָתָהּ אֲפִילוּ חָֽלְצוּ אֲחָיוֹת יִפְטְרוּ צָרוֹת. אֶלָּא כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָָן בֶּן נוּרִי. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר. בּוֹאוּ וּנְתַקֵּן שֶׁיְּהוּ צָרוֹת חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְייַבְּמוֹת. וְהִתְקִינוּ. לֹּא כֵן תַּנֵּי. לֹא הִסְפִּיקוּ לְהַתְקִין עַד שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה הַשָּׁעָה. אֶלָּא כְבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי מִתִּירִין אֶת הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִין. אָמַר רִבִּי פִינְחָס קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִין כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי (אלא) אֲפִילוּ חָֽלְצוּ הַצָּרוֹת לֹא נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת. וְתַנִּינָן. רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר אָמַר. מִשּׁוּם בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. יְקַייֵמוּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. יוֹצִיאוּ. הֲווּ תְּרֵין תַּנָּאִין אִינּוּן עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. חַד אָמַר. חָֽלְצוּ צָרוֹת נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. חָֽלְצוּ צָרוֹת לֹא נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת. What if there is a co-wife23Since none of the sisters can be married (Mishnah 3:1), could any co-wife of one of them be married?? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman with whom one performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic24The imputation of the status of divorcee to any woman having performed ḥalîṣah is purely rabbinic. Therefore, the prohibition of the sister of a woman with whom he had performed ḥalîṣah and her co-wives is not biblical., here, where there is the prohibition of sisters25Lev. 18:18., not so much more? It is obvious that the rule of co-wives applies to his daughter26Since this is a case of Mishnah 1:1, the sentence is superfluous. It is missing in ms. A.. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Avina: One has stated there27A baraita referring to the case of Mishnah 3:1, partially quoted in Babli, 27a., “if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed; if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives were not freed.” But as you say, if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, so it should be that even if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives should be freed28Since the House of Hillel hold that a woman forbidden for levirate gives the same status to her co-wives, it seems illogical to give the co-wives a status different from that of the sisters.. But it must follow Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah without being admitted to levirate29Chapter 1, Notes 200–204.. Did they institute that? Was it not stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. But it must follow the House of Shammai30Same conclusion in Babli, 27a. since the House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. Rebbi Phineas said to Rebbi Yose: If it follows the House of Shammai, even if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sistersshould not be freed31If ḥalîṣah of the sisters is worthless for the co-wives then ḥalîṣah of the co-wives should be worthless for the sisters since the House of Shammai validate a marriage of the sisters.! But we have stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce. There are two Tannaïm interpreting the House of Shammai, one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, the other one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were not freed.
תַּנֵּי. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. קוּל הֲװֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה. מַה. לִגְנַאי. לִשְׁבָח. מְלִיזִים. מַה אִיסּוּר יֵשׁ כָּאן. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אִם קָֽדְמוּ וְכָֽנְסוּ יְקַייֵמוּ. וְהֵן שֶׁבָּעֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל מוּתָּר לִבְעוֹל כַּתְּחִילָּה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְהוּא שֶׁעָבַר וּבָעַל. כָּנַס הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבָעַל אוֹמֵר לַשֵּׁינִי שֶׁיִּבְעוֹל. לֹא בָעַל הַרִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר לִבְעוֹל בְּעִילָה שְׁנִייָה. שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְנִמְצָא כְבָא עַל אַחוֹת יְבִמְתּוֹ. תַּנֵּי מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי הָרִאשׁוֹן מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה אֲפִילוּ מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי. לֹא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַשְּׁנִייָה מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. קִייַמְתִּיהָ. כָּל־יְבָמָה שֶׁנִּרְאֵית לָצֵאת בַּחֲלִיצָה אֵינָה מוּתֶּרֶת בְּלֹא חֲלִיצָה. It was stated33Tosephta 5:1, quoted in Babli 28a.: “Abba Shaul says, the House of Hillel made this easy34In his opinion, the House of Hillel permit the sisters to the brothers without problems, not only if they married without asking; they are more lenient than the House of Shammai..” Is that a criticism? It is a praise, since people were saying, what is the prohibition here35If candidacy without “bespeaking” has no influence, there is no reason why the two brothers should not marry the two sisters in levirate since no biblical precept could be violated.? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon33Tosephta 5:1, quoted in Babli 28a.: “If they jumped the gun and married, they should keep them.” But that is only if they had intercourse at the same time36Since levirate is valid only through intercourse (Mishnah 6:1), and R. Simeon has doubts whether “bespeaking” makes the woman a wife (Halakhah 2:1), he will require to do away with “bespeaking” and marriage ceremony. If each brother has intercourse with the corresponding sister at the same time, they both become wives of the respective brothers and neither of them is an impediment to the other’s marriage.. In the opinion of Abba Shaul it is permitted to have intercourse without asking. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon only if he transgressed and had intercourse. If the first [brother] married and had intercourse, he tells the second also to have intercourse. If that one did not have intercourse, the first [brother] is forbidden to have intercourse a second time37Which does not fulfill the biblical requirement to marry the widow of the childless brother.; maybe one of them will die and it turns out that he had intercourse with the sister of his38The one who from the start was a candidate to be taken by him in levirate. Then both of them are forbidden to him. sister-in-law. It was stated: If the second [brother] died, the first one had to divorce his wife with a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥalîṣah39The wife of the first brother becomes forbidden as the sister of a woman who is a candidate for levirate with him. This Tanna holds that since the levirate of the first sister was illegal, it does not exclude the second sister from becoming a candidate. The expression “his brother’s wife” means “his brother’s potential wife”. If the second brother had taken the second sister in levirate, the problems would have disappeared and when he died childless, his widow would be free of levirate or ḥalîṣah without problems.. Even if the second one died? Does this not follow Rebbi Simeon? But Rebbi Simeon frees the second [sister] from ḥalîṣah and levirate40Mishnah 3:4. The second sister should be able to marry outside the family without any formality.! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I confirmed this: Any sister-in-law who was to be freed by ḥalîṣah will never be permitted without ḥalîṣah41Since both sisters did require ḥalîṣah when they became widows, the intervening incomplete action by one of the brothers cannot remove that requirement..
הָֽיְתָה לָרִאשׁוֹנָה צָרָה חָלַץ לָהּ. נִפְטְרָה צָרָתָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. בִּיאַת אִיסּוּר הִיא וְלֹא נִפְטְרָה צָרָתָהּ. חָלַץ לָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. אִם בַּחֲלִיצָה הִיא תַּתִּיר. אִם בְּבִיאָה הִיא תַתִּיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. קִייַמְּתִּי כְהָדָא. הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ וְנִמְצֵאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן. צָרָתָהּ לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתֵּדַע בְּמַה הִיא נִיתֶּרֶת אִם בְּעוּבָּר אִם בְּבִיאָה. אַף הָכָא צָרָתָהּ לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתֵּדַע בְּמַה הִיא נִיתֶּרֶת אִם בַּחֲלִיצָה אִם בְּבִיאָה. If the first [sister] had a co-wife, one [of the brothers] performs ḥalîṣah, the co-wife is freed. If then he had intercourse with her43The sister who had ḥalîṣah., this is forbidden intercourse and the co-wife is not freed44Even for R. Simeon.. If he performed ḥalîṣah and then had intercourse with her, as you look at it, either ḥalîṣah should free or intercourse should free45If ḥalîṣah was valid, then the intercourse is sinful but otherwise without consequence; if ḥalîṣah was not valid, then the intercourse makes the sister a wife and the co-wife is automatically freed.! Rebbi Yudan said, I confirmed it following “If somebody married his sister-in-law and she turns out to be pregnant46Cf. Mishnah 4:2.”, as you say there, the co-wife should not marry until she knows by which means she is permitted, whether through the fetus or through intercourse47The same statement appears in Halakhah 4:1. The only parallel is in Tosephta 6:3: If somebody “bespeaks” his sister-in-law and she turns out to have been pregnant (from the deceased husband), her co-wife should not marry until it will be known that the fetus has developed into a viable child since no child frees unless it came into the air. That version must be Babylonian since it does not support R. Yudan.; so here also the co-wife should not marry until she knows by which means she is permitted, whether through ḥalîṣah or through intercourse48That would require the decision of a court of law..
הָיָה לַשְּׁנִייָה צָרָה. כוֹנֵס אֶת הַצָּרָה וּמְקַייֵם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁנִייָה. הָדָא הִיא מוּתָּר הוּא אָדָם בַּאֲחוֹת צָרַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. וִיהֵא אָסוּר בַּצָּרָה מִשּׁוּם צָרַת אֲחוֹת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. אִילּוּ בִיקֵּשׁ לִבְעוֹל אֶת הַצָּרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא כָנַס שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר בָּהּ. כַּתְּחִילָּה הוּא מוּתָּר בָּהּ וּבְסוֹף הוּא אָסוּר. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאתָה עוֹשֶׂה צָרָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה. וְאֵין צָרָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה. If the first [sister] had a co-wife, he can marry the co-wife, keep his wife, but the second [sister] is forbidden to him49This still refers to the case of the Mishnah where the first brother performed levirate with the first sister but the second brother did nothing with respect to the second sister.. That is “the sister of the co-wife of one for whom he performed ḥalîah is permitted to a person.50In Mishnah 4:7: “The relative of the co-wife of one for whom he performed ḥalîṣah”.” Should the co-wife not be forbidden to him as co-wife of the sister51In ms. A: “relative”, cf. Note 50. of one for whom he performed ḥalîṣah? Rebbi Yudan said, if he wanted to have intercourse with the co-wife before he married52Take her in levirate. This would be the easiest solution since then the second sister is eliminated as co-wife of one married in levirate and the first sister is permitted to the remaining brother., would he not have been permitted? At the start, he is permitted; at the end, he is prohibited? If you say so, you are making a co-wife after death53By treating candidacy as equivalent of marriage, the co-wife of the second sister would become co-wife of the first, an impossible proposition. and there can be no co-wife after death.
הָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה אַחִין שְׁלֹשָׁה מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין לְשָׁלֹשׁ אֲחָיוֹת וָמֵתוּ. רַב אָמַר זֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת וְזֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית חוֹלֶצֶת מֵאֵי זֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. זֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת וְזֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית חוֹלֶצֶת מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן. רַב אוֹמֵר חֲלִיצָה קִינְייָן. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר. חֲלִיצָה קִינְייָן. רִבִּי הִילָא אָמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה בֵין חוֹלֵץ וּמַה בֵין מְגָרֵשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְייָן. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּחוֹלֵץ אֲבָל חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַמֵּת. לֵוִי אָמַר. זִיקָה קִנְייָן. וְכָל־אַחַת וְאַחַת צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן. If there were five brothers of whom three married three sisters and died55All childless. The text here and the parallel one in the Babli, 26b, are totally incompatible (as noted by Rashba, חידוּשי יבמוֹת, מוֹסד הרב קוק, ירוּשלים תשמט, ע׳ קסז) since the Babli attributes to Rav the statement given here to Samuel and then bases everything on candidacy which has been proven to be irrelevant (Note 19).: Rav said, each one [of the remaining brothers] performs ḥalîṣah for one of them, and the third [sister] performs ḥalîṣah with whom she wants56As explained here, Rav holds that ḥalîṣah is acquisition, i. e., it is as if the brother had married the sister-in-law and immediately divorced her. The third sister should be freed automatically were it not for the argument that no obligation of ḥalîṣah can vanish into thin air.. Samuel says, each one [of the remaining brothers] performs ḥalîṣah for one of them, and the third performs ḥalîṣah with both of them57Samuel holds that ḥalîṣah is freeing; the third sister has to obtain ḥalîṣah from both brothers since she is equally forbidden to both of them. The Babli (26b, 51b, 53a) states that an impossible ḥalîṣah, like that of the third sister, necessitates ḥalîṣah from all brothers. This is not found in the Yerushalmi.. Rav said that ḥalîṣah is acquisition. Samuel said that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Rebbi Ze‘ira said that ḥalîṣah is acquisition. Rebbi Hila said that ḥalîṣah is freeing. 58This paragraph was explained in Chapter 1, Notes 89–91. The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”. Levi said, candidacy is acquisition and each [sister] has to perform ḥalîṣah with both [brothers]59Levi holds that each sister became a forbidden quasi-wife of each of the surviving brothers at the death of each husband and therefore needs freeing from each of them. This statement is not discussed since its premiss had been rejected..
מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל שְׁמוּאֵל. הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ הוּא אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה בִקְרוֹבָיו. שַׁנְייָא הִיא הָכָא שֶׁכְּבָר נִרְאֶה לִפְטוֹר בָּהּ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ וְנָשָׂא אָחִיו אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ וָמֵת חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְייַבֶּמֶת. הָדָא מְסַייְעָא לְמָאן דְּּאָמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. בְּרַם הָכָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. חֲלִיצָה קִינְייָן. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מִתְכַּוֵּין לִקְנוֹת שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כְּאַחַת. פָּתַר לָהּ. לְאַחַר מִיתָה. אֵין לְאַחַר מִיתָה יִיבּוּם. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. אֲף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְאֶחָד מוּפְנֶה. מֵת אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֶי אֲחָיוֹת וְעָשָׂה בָהּ הַמּוּפְנֶה מַאֲמָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָחִיו הַשֵּׁינִי. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ וְהַלֵּזוּ תֵצֵא מִשּׁוּם אַחוֹת אִשָּׁה. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט [וּבַחֲלִיצָה] וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה. הָדָא מְסַייְעָא לְמָאן דְּאָמַר. חֲלִיצָה קִנְייָן. [בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּּאָמַר חֲלִיצָה קִנְייָן.] וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מִתְכַּוֵּין לִקְנוֹת שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כְּאַחַת. פָּתַר לָהּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. וְאֵין לְאַחַר מִיתָה יִיבּוּם. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ אָחִיו אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ. מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן בָּתֵירָה אָֽמְרוּ. אוֹמֵר לוֹ. הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. חָֽלְצוּ אַחִין אוֹ כָֽנְסוּ יַכְנִסוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מֵתָה הַיְּבָמָה יַכְנִיס. מֵת הַיָּבָם מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה. הָדָא מְסַייְעָא לְמָאן דְּאָמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּּאָמַר חֲלִיצָה קִינְייָן. יֵשׁ אָדָם מִתְכַּוֵּין לִקְנוֹת שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כְּאַחַת. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. אֲף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת אָחִיו. חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְייַבֵּם. הָדָא מְסַייְעָא לְמָאן דְּּּאָמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר חֲלִיצָה קִנְייָן. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. עֲבוֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. הָתִיב רִבִּי חָמָא חֲבֵרִין דְּרַבָּנָן. וְהָא מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין. שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת אוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבַת בִּתָּהּ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבַת בְּנָהּ. הֲרֵי אֵילוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְייַבְּמוֹת. שַׁנְייָא הִיא אִיסּוּר אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ בֵּין בַּחַיִּים בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. אִילֵּין תְּרֵין אַחֲרִייָתָא פְלִיגֵי עַל רַב וְלֵית לְהוֹן קִייוּם. 63This paragraph is missing in ms. A and in the text reproduced by Rashba (Note 55). A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: 64Mishnah 4:7.“If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.65All relatives of his wife forbidden to a husband are forbidden to the levir who performs ḥalîṣah. Therefore, it seems that ḥalîṣah turns the widow into an ex-wife.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her66This sentence is unintelligible and none of the commentators has an acceptable explanation. The only sensible way is to translate שכבר נראה not in the singular, “since he already is available”, but “since they (both brothers) are available” and neither has an advantage over the other as participant in ḥalîṣah. The question raised by the text is not answered since the prohibition is clearly rabbinic and independent of the nature of ḥalîṣah.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: 67Mishnah 4:8. The widow is biblically permitted to her levir but rabbinically forbidden; therefore, she needs ḥalîṣah. If ḥalîṣah were acquisition, she would be freed without ceremony.“If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together68Since everybody knows that one cannot be married to two sisters simultaneously.? Explain it, after her69If the first sister died, the second one is permited. Then one does not understand why she cannot have levirate. death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains70If the first widow was alive when the second husband died, the second widow cannot have levirate. If then the first widow died, the situation is not changed for R. Eleazar.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: 71Mishnah 3:5.“Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him72The House of Shammai hold that “bespeaking” acquires like a betrothal; parallel the opinion of R. Eleazar ben Arakh (Halakhah 5, cf. Halakhah 1). Therefore, the first widow is his wife; the second is forbidden to him biblically and leaves the family without formality. and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah73The House of Hillel hold that “bespeaking” is purely rabbinical and that the only legal consequence of “bespeaking” is to forbid the sister-in-law to the other brothers. Therefore, now the “bespoken” and the new widow have conflicting claims on him; he has to give ḥalîṣah to both of them and in addition a rabbinic bill of divorce for the rabbinic betrothal to the first widow.. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]62It is clear that one must read פטור instead of קיניין. The next sentence is missing in ms. L; it is clear that the scribe of ms. L already had the error before him since ms. A also reproduces it. The sentence in brackets is only in ms. A, it is missing in ms. L since its scribe left out a sentence from קיניין to קיניין. It is unlikely that the insertion in A is a deliberate correction.. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: 74Mishnah 4:9, explained in Notes 7–9.“If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: 75Mishnah 6:4. The High Priest may marry only a virgin. The verse (Lev. 21:14) reads: “A widow, a divorcee, a harlot, and a desecrated one he shall not acquire …”. Since marriage is formulated in terms of acquisition, if ḥalîṣah were acquisition, the widow of the High Priest’s brother either should be free without ḥalîṣah or never could be freed.“If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? 76Mishnah 3:4. The second widow has to have ḥalîṣah if the first widow did. If the first was married in levirate, the second goes free without ceremony.“Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.