משנה: שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְאֶחָד נָשׂוּי נָכְרִית. גֵּירַשׁ אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי אֲחָיוֹת אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמֵת הַנָּשׂוּי נָכְרִית וּכְנָסָהּ הַמְגָרֵשׁ וּמֵת. זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ וְכוּלָּן שֶׁמֵּתוּ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּֽרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַייְלוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. MISHNAH: Of three brothers, two are married to two sisters and one to an unrelated woman. If one of the sisters’ husbands divorced his wife, when the one married to an unrelated woman died and the divorcer married her113The unrelated woman, now his brother’s widow. and then died, that is what they said: Of all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or turned out to be she-rams, the co-wives are permitted114If at the moment of the husband’s death there is no impediment to levirate, anything that happened before is unimportant. Cf. Chapter 1, Note 115.
In the Babli and most Mishnah mss., the text is short “if they died or were divorced” as in the quote in the Halakhah..
הלכה: שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין כול׳. גֵּירַשּׁ. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בְּשֶׁגֵּירַשּׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּנַס. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ כָּנַס וְאַחַר כָּךְ גֵּירַשּׁ. הָדָא הִיא דְּתַנִּינָן שֶׁאִם מֵתוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּֽרְשׁוּ צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. HALAKHAH: “Of three brothers,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, not only if he divorced and after that married, but even if he married and after that divorced115The Babli, 30a/b, considers this only as a possibilty, to be disregarded. That Talmud requires that the two women never were potential co-wives, i. e., if the first brother divorced his wife only after the third brother had died and the unrelated woman was a potential co-wife of the first’s wife, she is permanently forbidden to the second brother.. That is what we had stated: “Of all of these, if they died or were divorced, their co-wives are permitted.116A shortened version, possibly due to Babylonian influence, cf. Note 114.”
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. אַף רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר מוֹדֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְיֵאוּת. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים וּמֵתוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הוּא שֶׁמָּא אֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ זְקוּקָה לְיִיבּוּם. תַּמָּן וְהוּא שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה. וְהָכָא וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא צָרָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה. Rebbi Yudan said, even Rebbi Eliezer117Who holds in Halakhah 1 (Note 10) that a prohibition remains even if its cause has disappeared. agrees. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. Because, if somebody had children but they died before he died, is his widow not a candidate for levirate? There, if he had children at the moment of death. Here, if they were co-wives after his death118Only the status at the moment of the husband’s death counts in matters of levirate. Everybody reads in Deut. 25:5: “one of them died while he left no child.” Only the status at the moment of death counts; the prior history is irrelevant..