יבמות א׳Yevamot 1

Mishnah

משנה: חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּבּוּם עַד סוֹף העוֹלָם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנוֹ בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו אֲחוֹתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ.

MISHNAH: Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever. They are the following: one’s daughter, his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter and her daughter‘s daughter and her son’s daughter, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister and his maternat aunt and his wife’s sister, his maternal halfbrother’s wife, the wife of his brother who did not live in his world, and his daughter-in-law.

Halakhah

הלכה: חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן כול׳. כְּתִיב מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה.

HALAKHAH: “Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives”, etc. It is written “unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted and then forbidden, when it became permitted again should one think it returned to its prior permission? The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted and then forbidden, when she became permitted again should one think she returned to her prior permission? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָה. מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישָׁהּ. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל אוֹכֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְנֶאֶסְרָה קָרַב קוּמְצָהּ וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל אוֹכֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס כּוֹנֵס. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ כוֹנֵס. נִשֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וְנֶאֶסְרָה וּמֵת אָחִיו בְּלֹא בָנִים חָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס כּוֹנֵס. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ כוֹנֵס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה.

Rebbi Yose explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat. When he dedicated it became forbidden. When the fistful was brought it became permitted again; should one think it returned to its prior permission? If he wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat? The verse states “unleavened it must be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

רִבִּי הוּנָא פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵירָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישָׁהּ. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל חָמֵץ אוֹכֵל. מַצָּה אוֹכֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס לְשֵׁם תּוֹאָר כּוֹנֵס. לְשֵׁם מָמוֹן כּוֹנֵס. נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וְנֶאֶסְרָה. מֵת אָחִיו בְּלֹא בָנִים חָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס לְשֵׁם תּוֹאָר כּוֹנֵס. לְשֵׁם מָמוֹן כּוֹנֵס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה.

Rebbi Huna explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it leavened, he eats it, unleavened, he eats it. The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her brother-in-law shall come upon her” as commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

אַתְיָא דְרִבִּי חוּנָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. דְּתַנָּא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ לְשׁוּם נוֹי אוֹ לְשׁוּם דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעִילַת זְנוּת וְקָרוֹב לִהְיוֹת הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר.

It turns out that Rebbi Ḥuna follows Abba Shaul, as we have stated: “Abba Shaul says, one who brings his sister-in-law into his house because of beauty or another reason commits intercourse of prostitution and the child is close to be a bastard.”

מַה אַבָּא שָׁאוּל כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בִיבָמָה. מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בִּיבָמָה שֶׁזִּינָת. מַה דְאָמַר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. אַתְיָא כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲלַפְתָּה. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא יִיבֶּם אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. חָמֵשׁ חֲרִישׁוֹת חָרַשׁ וְחָמֵשׁ נְטִיעוֹת נָטַע וְדֶרֶךְ סַדִּין בָּעַל. אֵילּוּ הֵן. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי מְנַחֵם בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי אֵבְדִּימוֹס בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי.

Does Abba Shaul hold with Rebbi Aqiba? Since Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! What Rebbi Aqiba said refers to a sister-in-law who whored. What Abba Shaul said refers to his sister-in-law. It comes like Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta since Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta contracted a levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He ploughed five times and planted five saplings and had intercourse using a bedsheet. These are they: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eudaimon ben Rebbi Yose.

כְּתִיב עֶרוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה. מַשְׁמַע הוּא בֵין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁהָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. בֵּין לְחַיִּים בֶּין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָנִים בִּין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָנִים. הוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. יָכוֹל לְכָל דָּבָר. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּיו. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר עֲבָדֶיךָ אַחִים אֲנַחְנוּ. מַה אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אַף אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב.

It is written: “The genitals of your brother’s wife you may not uncover.” One understands both his paternal and his maternal brothers’ wives, both the wife of a brother who lived concurrently with him or onewho did not live concurrently with him, whether he had children or did not have children. She became permitted, excluded from this set, by levirate. Should I think unconditionally? It is said here: “When brothers live together”; and it is said there: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers.” Since the “brothers” mentioned there are paternal brothers, so the “brothers” mentioned here must be paternal brothers.

יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן. הֵן בַּחַיִּים. אֲפִילוּ גֵּירְשָׁהּ וּמֶת זוּ פְטוּרָה. וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵן פְּטוּרָה.

“Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. “And one of them died”, of those who lived. Even if he divorced her and then died? This one is exempted. “Without child”. Therefore, if he has a child she is exempted.

כְּתִיב כִּי אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֶל וְנִכְרָת. וַהֲלֹא אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בִּכְלָל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הַוָות וְהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. יָכוֹל אַף שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלָלָן עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. עָלֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. יִבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בַּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בַּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

It is written: “For anyone who is acting out any of these abominations will be extirpated”. Was not the brother’s wife in the set of all incest prohibitions and was removed from this set by the levirate? Could one say that all other incest prohibitions were removed from this set by levirate? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “upon her”, “upon her”: “her levir shall come upon her.” Since with respect to “upon her” which was said there, the verse speaks about paternal brothers, so with respect to “upon her” which was said here, the verse speaks about paternal brothers.

רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִן בַּר גִּידַל וְרִבִּי אָחָא הֲווּ יָתְבִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא הָדָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִן בַּר גִּידַל. אוֹ מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָחָא. הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בִּיבָמָה וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ [רִבִּי] בִּנְיָמִן בַּר גִּידַל. הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר בִּיבָמָה. ואִיקְפִּיד רִבִּי אָחָא לְקוֹבְּלֵיהּ. אַמָר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא דְרִבִּי אָחָא פַּלִּיג אֶלָּא דְהוּא מַקְפֵּד עַל לִישְׁנָא דְשָׁמַע מִן רַבֵּיהּ. מַה כְדוֹן. יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּ(שֶׁאֵינָה) יְבָמָה. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן אֲפִילוּ יְבִמְתּוֹ.

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here, does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here is even about a brother’s widow.

אָמְרָה תוֹרָה וְאִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ לֹא תִקַּח. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הִיא. צָרָתָהּ מְנַיִין. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר לִצְרוֹר. לֹא לְצָרָתָהּ וְלֹא לְצָרַת צָרָתָהּ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת מְנַיִין. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בַּר חֲנִינָה. קַל וַחוֹמֶר. מַה אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְיוּחֶדֶת עֶרְוָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ הֲרֵי הִוא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָן לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. מַה זוֹ עֶרְוָה פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ אַף שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה.

The Torah said: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister”. Not only her, her co-wife from where? The verse says “to ‘bundle’ together”, not her co-wife nor her co-wife’s co-wife. Not only his wife’s sister, all other incest prohibition from where? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: A conclusion de minore ad majus. Since his wife’s sister, who is under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed, nevertheless is prohibited from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions which cannot be lifted after being imposed not much more so! Since in the first case the incest prohibition exempts the prohibited co-wife, all other incest prohibitions also exempt their co-wives. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.

כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. קַל וַחוֹמֶר. מַה אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְיוּחֶדֶת עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. אַף כָּל עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם.

Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated an argument de minore ad majus. Since his wife’s sister is particular being under incest prohibition for whose violation one is punished if intentional by extirpation, if in error by an obligation to bring a purification offering, and is barred from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions for whose violation one is sanctioned if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation to bring a purification offering, should be barred from the levirate.

מַה נִפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. מָאן דָּמַר עֶרְוָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ. זוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. מָאן דָּמַר עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת הֲרֵי זֶה אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. זֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין חַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת תְּהֵא מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִתְיַיבֶּם.

What is the difference between them? A widow for the High Priest. For him who says, a woman under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed, this one, not being permitted after being prohibited, should be barred from the levirate. For him who says, a woman under an incest prohibition for which one is punished if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation to bring a purification offering, is barred from the levirate, in this case since one is not sanctioned if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation of a purification offering, should be permitted for the levirate.

רִבִּי אַיְיבוּ בַּר נַגָּרִי קְרִיסִפּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. זוֹ אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא זָרָה לוֹ. אָמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה. לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אֲפִילוּ מִצְוָה. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. יְבִמְתּוֹ יְבִמְתּוֹ. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּחֲלִיצָה. אִי יְבִמְתּוֹ יְבִמְתּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּיִיבּוּם. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מָאֵן יַבְּמִי. זוֹ שֶׁמִּיאֵן יַבְּמִי. לֹא שֶׁמֵּיאֵינוֹ שָׁמַיִם. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. הֲוֵוי צוֹרְכָה לְהֵין דְאָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. יְבִמְתּוֹ יְבִמְתּוֹ. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּחֲלִיצָה.

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari, Crispus, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “The dead man’s wife should not be outside, to a strange man.” That is a wife who is a stranger to him. The Torah said, she should not be his wife even in case of a commandment. That being, she should not need ḥalîṣah! Rebbi Jeremiah said: “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah! If from “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, did the Torah not increase the cases of levirate? Rebbi Ismael stated: “My levir refuses”. That is, my levir refused, not that Heaven refused for him. In that case, she should not need ḥalîṣah! That means, the statement of Rebbi Jeremiah is needed, “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah!

רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֶיפְשַׁר לוֹמַר קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי אַיילוֹנִית קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי אַיילוֹנִית מִטַּעַם אַחֵר הוּצֵאתָה. אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד. יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת.

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a widow need ḥalîṣah? He said to him, is it possible to say that her qiddushin are legally recognized and you say she may not need ḥalîṣah? He answered him: But qiddushin of a she-ram are legally recognized and one says that she does not need ḥalîṣah! He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children.

עַד שֶׁאַתְּ לָמֵד כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת מֵאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ לְאִיסּוּר. לְמַד כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת מֵאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לְהֵיתֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לְמֵידִין שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין מִשְּׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין. וְאֵין לְמֵידִין שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין מֵאִיסּוּר אֶחָד. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אָבוּן. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטֶל הָאִיסּוּר. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וּמַה אִית לָךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. כְּגוֹן אֵילּוּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. בִּתּוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו אֲסוּרָה לוֹ. נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו מוּתֶּרֶת לוֹ.

Instead of inferring from his wife’s sister that all women under incest prohibitions remain prohibited, deduce from his brother’s wife that all women under incest prohibitions become permitted! Rebbi Mana said,one infers two prohibitions from two prohibitions but one does not infer two prohibitions from one prohibition. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun: For anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for anything not induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. What is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, e. g., those fifteen categories of women. That you should not say that his daughter is forbidden to him before she is married to his brother; once she is married to his brother she is permitted to him.

לֵוִי בַּר סוּסַיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי. נִיתְנֵי שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. אִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ. נִיכַּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מוֹחַ בְּקָדְקֳדוֹ. וְלָמָּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וּבִמְפוּתַּת אָבִיו. וְלֹא מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם קִידְּשָׁהּ שֶׁתָּפְסוּ בָהּ קִידֻּשִׁין. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנִּינָן שֵׁשׁ עֲרָיוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת מֵאֵילּוּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נְשׂוּאוֹת לָאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כֵן. אִם יְכוֹלוֹת לְהִינָּשֵׂא לְאָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא בַעֲבֵירָה צָרוֹתֵיהֶן פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם. וּמִכּוּלָּם אֵין לָךְ אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. לָמָּה לֹא תַנִּיתָהּ. בְּגִין דְּתַנִּיתָהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה לֹא נִיתְנִינָהּ. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְנִינָהּ. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְתַנִּינָן. אֲחוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתָּהּ אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתִיַיבֶּמֶת. וְאַתְּ מִשְׁכַּח בְּכוּלְּהוֹן אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתּוֹ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. חוּץ מֵאִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו.

Levi bar Sisi asked before Rebbi: Should we not state “sixteen women”? One’s mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. He said to him, it is evident that this person has no brain in his head. And why? He said to him, because of Rebbi Jehudah, because Rebbi Jehudah forbids the one who was raped or seduced by his father. Does Rebbi Jehudah not agree that if [the halfbrother] gave her qiddushin, the preliminary marriage is legally recognized? But because we have stated: “Six incest prohibitions more severe than these; because they are married to others their co-wives are free.” And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thereupon: “If they may marry his brother without sin their co-wives are freed from ḥalîṣah and levirate.” And among all of them there is only his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. Why did we not state this? Because Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it, should we not state it? Certainly we should state it! But because we have stated: “Her sister who also is her sister-in-law either takes ḥalîṣah or accepts the levirate.” We find in all cases that her sister who also is her sister-in-law accepts the levirate except for his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother.

יִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַיָיה אָמַר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי. נִיתְנֵי. שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. חֲלִיצָה פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמַיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָתָהּ. בְּגִין רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בַּחֲלוּצָה. נִיתְנִינָהּ עַל דְּרַבָּנִן. לֹא אָתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא מִילִין דְּכָל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי בְהוֹן. אַתְיָיא דְּיִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַיָיא כְּרִבִּי אִמִּי. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְהָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. בֵּין הוּא וּבֵין אַחִים חַיָיבִין עַל הַצָּרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בֵּין הוּא בֵין אַחִין אֵינָן חַיָיבִין לֹא עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְלֹא עַל הַצָּרָה. רִבִּי אִימִּי מַחֲלִיף שְׁמוּעָתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְהָא רִבִּי אִימִּי מַחֲלִיף שְׁמוּעָתָא. אֶלָּא דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילוּ תֹאמַר. דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לְרִבִּי יוֹחָָנָן. דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּיִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַיָיא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי אִמִּי וּמִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן מְסַיְיעִין לְרִבִּי יָסָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי בָּא תְּרֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּצָרָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. מַה פְלִיגִין. בַּחֲלוּצָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְהָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. חֲלוּצָה פְטוֹר. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה בֵין חוֹלֵץ מַה בֵין מְגָרֵשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּחוֹלֵץ אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל מֵת.

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.”

רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעָא. כְּמַה דְּאָמַר. בֵּין הוּא בֵין אַחִין אֵין חַיָיבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עַל הַצָּרָה. נִיחָא הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. שֶׁכְּבָר נִרְאֶה לִפְטוֹר בָּהּ. וְחַיָיב עַל הַצָּרָה. שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאֶה לִפְטוֹר בָּהּ. אַחִין מַה בֵּין חֲלוּצָה אֶצְלוֹ מַה בֵּין צָרָה אֶצְלוֹ. חָזַר וְאָמַר. אֵין אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ מִשֵּׁם מַה אַתְּ מְחַיְיבוֹ. אִי מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּחוֹלֵץ אִי מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּחוֹלֵץ אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁלַּמֵת.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got ḥalîṣah since he was cleared to have her freely. He is guilty about the co-wife since he was never cleared to have her freely. What is the difference for one of the brothers between the woman who got ḥalîṣah and the co-wife? He turned around and said, you do not know under which head to declare him guilty, whether as wife of the one performing ḥalîṣah or wife of the deceased. Rebbi Yose said, do you think 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”.

רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּצָרָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. קִידֵּשׁ אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן וּבָא הַיָּבָם וְחָלַץ לָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. וּפָקְעוּ מִמֶּנָּה קִידּוּשִׁין. חָלַץ לַחֲבֵירָתָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. לְמַפְרֵיעָה חָלוּ עֲלֶיהָ קִידּוּשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. נִמְנוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וְכַמָּה זְקֵינִים. מְנַיִין שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בִּיבָמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לָהּ הֲוָיָיה אֵצֶל אַחֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָה הִיא. אוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּחֲלוֹץ לֵיךְ יַבְּמֵיךְ. אֵינֶהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְהָיָה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְקַלֶּס לָהּ. הַזָּלִים זָהָב מִכִּיס. בְּנִי אַל יַלִּיזוּ מֵעֵינֶיךָ. חֲכַם בְּנִי וְשַׂמַּח לִבִּי. תֵּן לְחָכָם וְיֶחְכַּם עוֹד. יִשְׁמַע חָכָם וְיוֹסֵף לֶקַח. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּתַר כָּל אִילֵּין קִילּוּסַיָיא יְכוֹל (הוא) אֲנָא פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בִּיבָמָה. אֶלָּא תַּמָּן יְבָמָה אַחַת וְהָכָא שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא אִיסּוּר יְבָמָה אַחַת שַׁנְיָיא הִיא אִיסּוּר שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says that everybody agrees about the co-wife that he is guilty, if somebody from the market gave qiddushin to one of them and then the levir came and performed ḥalîṣah with her or had intercourse with her, did the qiddushin become invalid? If he performed ḥalîṣah with her companion but then had intercourse with her, were qiddushin validated retroactively? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! But there is one sister-in-law, here are two sisters-in-law. The prohibition of a single sister-in-law is different from that of two sisters-in-law!

רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעָא. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלִיצָה אֲבָל חַיָיב הוּא עַל הַצָּרָה. חֲלִיצָה פְּטוֹר. בִּיאָה פְּטוֹר. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר. חָלַץ לָהּ נֶאֶסְרָה לָאַחִין. וְדִכְוָותָהּ בָּא עָלֶיהָ נֶאֶסְרָה לָאַחִין. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. מֵת הָרִאשׁוֹן יְיַבֵּם הַשֵּׁינִי. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי יְיַבֵּם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה אַתְּ סָבַר. הִיא חֲלִיצָה הִיא בִּיאָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָלַץ לָהּ נֶעֶקְרָה הִימֶּינָּה זִיקַת הַמֵּת לְמַפְרֵיעָה. לְמַפְרֵיעָה חָל עָלֶיהָ אִיסּוּרוֹ שֶׁלְּמֵת אֵצֶל הָאַחִין. אֲבָל אִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. מֵת הָרִאשׁוֹן יְיַבֵּם הַשֵּׁינִי. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי יְיַבֵּם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but he is guilty for the co-wife, ḥalîṣah is freeing; is intercourse freeing? As you say, if he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate! Rebbi Yose said, what do you think? That ḥalîṣah is the same as intercourse? Once he performed ḥalîṣah, the claim of the dead is removed from her retroactively. Retroactively fell on her the prohibition of the dead man regarding the brothers. But if he had intercourse with her, she is his wife. On that did Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate.

אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ. נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ. גְּבַר וּבְרֵיהּ נָסְבִין תַּרְתֵּין אַחֲוָון. אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. תְּרֵין אַחִין נְסִיבִין לְתַרְתֵּין אַחֲוָון.

“His maternal halfsister,” married to his paternal halfbrother. “His mother’s sister,” a man and his son married two sisters. “His wife’s sister,” two brothers being married to two sisters.

וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אַחֲוָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר עֲבָדֶיךָ אַחִים אֲנַחְנוּ. מַה אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אַף אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן יְשִׁיבָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן יְשִׁיבָה. וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בָּהּ. מַה יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ יְרוּשָּׁה. אַף יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ יְרוּשָּׁה. רִבִּי אָבוּן בַּר בִּיסנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן דְּבֵית גּוּבְרִין. יָשְׁבוּ. אֶת שֶׁיְּשִׁיבָתָן בְּבַיִת אֶחָד. יָצְאוּ אַחִים מִן הָאֵם שֶׁזֶּה הוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיו וְזֶה הוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיו.

“His maternal halfbrother’s wife.” It mentions here brotherhood and it is said there: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers.” Since the “brothers” mentioned there are paternal brothers, so the “brothers” mentioned here must be paternal brothers. Rebbi Jonathan said, it is said here dwelling and it says there dwelling. “You will inherit and dwell there.” Since with “dwelling” mentioned there, inheritance is connected. so with “dwelling” mentioned here, inheritance is connected. Rebbi Abun bar Bisna in the name of Rebbi Jonathan from Bet Gubrin: “they dwell”. Those whose dwelling is in one house. This excludes maternal halfbrothers where one goes to his own father’s house and the other one goes to his own father’s house.

יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה אָמַר. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. אַיילוֹנִית וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ הָיוּ בְפָרָשָׁה. מֶה חָמִית מֵימַר. אַיילוֹנִית צָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ צָרָתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַיילוֹנִית מִטַּעַם אַחֵר הוּצֵאתָה. אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד. יָצָאת זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת. לא דַיֵיךְ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתְּ מְבַקֵּשׁ לֶאֱסוֹר צָרָתָהּ. אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ עֶרְוָה הִיא וְעֵרְוָה פוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. אַסִּי אָמַר. צָרַת אַיילוֹנִית אֲסוּרָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל אַסִּי. וְכוּלָּן אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. מַה דָמַר אַסִּי כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. כֹּל שֶׁאֵין אַתְּ מְיַיבְּמֵינִי אֵין אַתְּ מְיַיבֵּם צָרָתִי.

“Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: The she-ram and the wife of his brother who did not live in his world were in the paragraph. Why do you see fit to say that the co-wife of the she-ram is permitted but the co-wife of the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is forbidden? He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children. Is it not enough that she cannot be eligible for the levirate but you also want to forbid her co-wife? But the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is under an incest prohibition and any incest prohibition frees the co-wife. Assi said, the co-wife of a she-ram is forbidden. The Mishnah disagrees with Assi: “All of these, if they died, or refused, or were divorced, or turned out to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Assi follows Rebbi Meїr since Rebbi Meїr said, in any case where you cannot take me in levirate you cannot take my co-wife.

וְכַלָּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁמּוּתָּר לָאָדָם לִישָּׂא אֶת אֵשֶׁת בֶּן אָחִיו.

“And his daughter-in-law.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man is permitted to marry his brother’s son’s wife.

Mishnah

משנה: הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם. וְכוּלָּם אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֵנוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. וְאֵי אַתְּ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בַּחֲמוֹתוֹ וּבְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת אוֹ שֶׁמֵּיאֵינוּ.

MISHNAH: All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever. And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted. But you cannot say about his mother-in-law or his mother-in-law’s mother that they were found to be she-rams or that they had repudiated.

Halakhah

הלכה: הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְמֵאֵנֶת הִיא בְּיָבָם לַעֲקוֹר זִיקַת הַמֵּת לְהַתִּיר צָרָה לְאָבִיהָ וְכַלָּה לְחָמִיהָ. רַב וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. אֵינָהּ מְמֵאֵנֶת בְּיָבָם לַעֲקוֹר זִיקַת הַמֵּת וּלְהַתִּיר צָרָה לְאָבִיהָ וְכַלָּה לְחָמִיהָ. רַב וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים בְּבַעַל. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי לֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵיךְ וְלֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵי אָחִיךְ. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהִיא עוֹקֶרֵת. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵיפְשִׁי בְנִישּׂוּאִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי לֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵיךְ וְלֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵי אָחִיךְ. רַב וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בְנִישּׂוּאֵיךְ אֲבָל בְּנִישּׂוּאֵי אָחִיךְ רוֹצָה אֲנִי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְכוּלָּן אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ וְלֹא הִימֶּינּוּ. וְדִכְוָותָהּ מֵיאֵינוּ הִימֶּינּוּ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כֵן. אִם מֵיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ בְחַיֵי הַבַּעַל צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל צָרוֹתֵיהֶן חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת.

HALAKHAH: “All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates. But we hold in case she says “I cannot stand marriage”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְּרִבִּי מַתָּנְיָת. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁמֵּתוּ וְלֹא מֵיאֵנוּ. דְּמַתְנִיתָא. כָּל הַיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵינָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. כֵּן מַתְנִיתָא. כָּל הַיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵנָה וּמֵתָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר בְּקַיֶימֶת. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁאֵין שָׁם יָבָם אַחֵר אֶלָּא אָבִיהָ.

Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died without having repudiated since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” So is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not dies, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if her father is the only levir.

רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. בִּלְבַד מִן הָאֵירוּסִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. אַף מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. בְּמַחֲזֵירָה תִנְיָנָא חָזַר בּוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי פִּינְחָס. לֹא כֵן אִלְּפָן רִבִּי. מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהִיא קְבוּעָה גַּבָּךְ כְּמַסְמֵרָא.

Rebbi Jonah said, only after qiddushin. Rebbi Yose said, even after final marriage. In the second repetition, Rebbi Yose changed his mind. Rebbi Phineas said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us “after final marriage”? He answered him, is that fixed in you like a nail?

אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. יֵאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עַד לֹא יַחֲזוֹר בָּהּ. אִילּוּ בִתּוֹ מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין בְּלֹא אַיילוֹנִית צָרָתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּיתּוֹסַף לָהּ אַיילוֹנִית צָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַיילוֹנִית כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּעוֹלָם. אִילּוּ שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת אַחַת אַיילוֹנִית וְאַחַת שֶׁאֵינָהּ אַיילוֹנִית וּבָא הַיָּבָם וְחָלַץ לָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. שֶׁמָּא פָטַר בַּחֲבֵרָתָהּ כְּלוּם. הֲוֵי אַיילוֹנִית כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּעוֹלָם.

Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, did not Rebbi Yose say correctly before he changed his mind? Once a man’s daughter is married without being a she-ram, her co-wife is forbidden. If in addition she is a she-ram, does her co-wife become permitted? He said to him, the she-ram is as if non-existent. If there are two sisters-in-law, one a she-ram and one not a she-ram, if the levir comes and performs ḥalîṣah or has intercourse with the first, did he free her companion of anything? That shows that the she-ram is as if non-existent.

בִּתּוֹ. וּבִתּוֹ מְמֵאֶנֶת. וְלֹא כְנִישּׂוּאֵי תוֹרָה הִיא. אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה. רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תִּיפְתָּר בִּקְטַנָּה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ וְנִתְגָּרְשָה. שֶׁהִיא כִיתוֹמָה בְחַיֵי אָבִיהָ.

“His daughter”. How can his daughter repudiate, is she not married by Torah standards, “my daughter I gave to this man”? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Explain it by a minor, who was married off by her father and divorced, who is like an orphan while her father is alive.

רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאֵין קְטַנָּה יוֹלֶדֶת. דִּלֹא כֵן תַּמְתִּין עַד שֶׁתַּגְדִיל וּתְמֵאֵן בְּבַעֲלָהּ וְתַתִּיר צָרָתָהּ לְחַתְנָהּ. כַּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מֵיאֵנָה וּבְנָהּ עַל כְּתֵיפָהּ. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. תַּנֵּי. עַד אֵימָתַי הַבַּת מְמֵאֶנֶת. עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחוֹר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁתִּתְפַּשֵּׁט הַכַּף. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. עַד שֶׁתִּתְפַּשֵּׁט הַכַּף וִיהֵא הַשָּׁחוֹר רָבָה עַל הַלָּבָן.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This means that a minor cannot give birth; because otherwise she could wait until she grew up, repudiate her husband, and permit her co-wife to her son-in-law. The daughter-in-law of Rebbi Ismael repudiated while her son was on her shoulder. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Ismael said the same. It was stated: Until when may the daughter repudiate? Until she grows two pubic hairs, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Judah says until the black covers most. Rebbi Simeon says until the hill of Venus expands. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Until the mons Veneris enlarges and the black be more than the white.

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי לָעֲזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָן. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יַסָּא. אָמַר. אֵיזְלוֹן לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ דְּאִית לֵיהּ אוּלְפָן. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אֲנָן לֵית לָן אוּלְפָן. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְצִיפּוֹרַיָיא. אַתּוּן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. וְלֵית הִיא כֵן. מַאי כְדוֹן. חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מוֹדֵיי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם נִבְעֲלָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מוֹדֵיי רִבִּי יוּדָה שֶׁאִם נִתְקַדְּשָׁה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָה יְכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָה דְאָמַר. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה מִשֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת. הָא אִם נִתְקַדְּשָׁה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת וְנִבְעֲלָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְּׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְמָאֵן. נִיחָא. עַל דַעְתִּין דַּחֲבֵרַיָּא דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. נִבְעֲלָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת. הָא אִם נִבְעֲלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְמָאֵן.

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. A case came before Rebbi Yasa; he said, go to Rebbi Abbahu since he has learned that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah; we did not learn that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said to the Sepphoreans, you say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, but it is not so. How is it? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if she had intercourse after she grew two hairs, she cannot repudiate. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if she received qiddushin after she grew two hairs, she cannot repudiate. According to Rebbi Ze‘ira who said “she received qiddushin after she grew two hairs”, it follows that if she received qiddushin before she grew two hairs and had intercourse after she grew two hairs, she can repudiate. That fits. According to the colleagues who say “she had intercourse after she grew two hairs”, it follows that if she had intercourse before she grew two hairs, she can repudiate.

וְזֶה אֵימָתַי. עִיבֵּרָה וְיָלְדָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת. וְחָיָה הִיא. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי רְדִיפָא רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. אִיתָא. עִיבֵּרָה וְיָלְדָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת הִיא וּבְנָהּ מֵתִים. מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת הִיא וּבְנָהּ חַיִים. עִיבֵּרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת וְיָלְדָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת הִיא חָיָה וּבְנָהּ מַת. מַאי כְדוֹן. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה שָׁחוֹר כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. עַל תְּנַאי קִידּוּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבָעַל. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּאָמְרֵי. בַּסִּימָנִין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דּוּ אָמַר. לִכְשֶׁיּוֹסִיף בָּהּ קִינְיָין אֶחָד. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ גְדוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. וְכֵינִי. אֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפָּרְצוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּזִימָּה.

When was it? She became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs. Could she have lived? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Rebbi Ismael follows RebbiJehudah, until the black covers most [and] Rebbi Simeon, that intercourse occurred with the idea of the prior qiddushin. Following the opinions of Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Jehudah who say that her status depends on the signs of development, it fits. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon who says, if he adds another act of acquisition, then even if she is an adult! Rebbi Isaac said, that is so. Only that the daughters of Israel should not be unbridled in breaking tabus.

אַתְיָיא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר יִבְדְקוֹ דַדֶּיהָ. מַה. כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה שָׁחוֹר. וְהוּא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֵין בֵּין יְמוֹת הַנַּעֲרוּת לִימוֹת הַבַּגְרוּת אֶלָּא שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִים בִּלְבַד. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין עוֹשִׂין מַעֲשֶׂה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמָן. אֲבָל לְאַחַר הַזְּמַן עוֹשִׂין מַעֲשֶׂה. בְּרַם הָכָא סָפֵיק רָבָה שָׁחוֹר סָפֵק לֹא רָבָה שָׁחוֹר כּוֹפוֹ אֲנִי לִיתֵּן גֵט. רָבָה הַשָּׁחוֹר אֵינוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בַּגֵּט.

There came a case before Rebbi Yose. He said: One should examine her breasts. How? Following Rebbi Jehudah! Since Rebbi Jehudah said, until the black covers most. Is not that what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, between maidenhood and adulthood thare are only six months, and Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one does not act on this? This means during that period. But after that period one acts. But in this case where there was a doubt whether the black covered most or the black did not cover most, I force him to give a bill of divorce. When the black covers most one does not touch a bill of divorce.