Talmud - Yevamot 27a יבמות כ״ז א׳

In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to several women, including two sisters, and the two married brothers later died, and their wives happened before the yavam for levirate marriage, if the yavam performed ḥalitza with the sisters who were among the wives, the rival wives are not thereby exempt. One can deduce from here that since the yavam cannot consummate the levirate marriage with the sisters, as each is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond, then the act of ḥalitza is invalid, and invalid ḥalitza is ineffective in exempting their rival wives. It is concluded from here that even Shmuel requires valid ḥalitza, i.e., ḥalitza that occurs when there is a possibility of consummating the levirate marriage. According to this rationale, however, Shmuel’s ruling in the above case is difficult: With regard to the second sister, when there exists the possibility for Shimon’s ḥalitza, i.e., the ḥalitza of the second brother who did not yet perform ḥalitza, to be a valid ḥalitza, would it be allowed for Reuven, the brother who already did ḥalitza with one sister, to perform invalid ḥalitza with her?

The Gemara resolves this difficulty by reinterpreting Shmuel’s statement. What does it mean that it says: One performs ḥalitza with each of them, that Shmuel stated? Shmuel says that with regard to the middle one, i.e., the third sister, one of the two brothers performs ḥalitza with her. The Gemara asks: But didn’t he say: Each of them, indicating that one brother performs ḥalitza with all of the sisters? The Gemara answers: Since the brother who performed ḥalitza with one sister repeats the act with another, it turns out that most of the acts of ḥalitza are performed with him, and this is called: With each of them. And if you wish, say a different answer: When Shmuel said we require a full-fledged ḥalitza, this applies only to exempt her rival wife by means of that ḥalitza. But to exempt the woman herself, even invalid ḥalitza would render her exempt. In the case above, since no rival wives are involved, it would be sufficient for one brother to perform ḥalitza with each of the sisters.

§ Apropos of Shmuel’s statement, the Gemara examines the matter itself. Shmuel said: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to several women, including two sisters, and the two married brothers later died, and their wives happened before the yavam for levirate marriage, if the yavam performed ḥalitza with the sisters, the rival wives are not thereby exempt. But if he performed ḥalitza with the rival wives, the sisters are exempt. Similarly, if he gave a bill of divorce to one of these women, whereby he would no longer be permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with them due to a rabbinic decree, and he then performed ḥalitza with the woman who received a bill of divorce, the rival wife is not thereby exempt. Since he was unable to consummate the levirate marriage with her, the ḥalitza performed with her was invalid, and invalid ḥalitza does not exempt the rival wife. If he performed the act of ḥalitza with the rival wife, then the woman who received a bill of divorce is exempt.

The ruling is similar with regard to the case where the yavam performed ma’amar, i.e., levirate betrothal, to one of the wives. If he then performed ḥalitza with the woman who received his levirate betrothal then the rival wife is not exempt. Indeed, this ḥalitza is invalid as well, for once the yavam performed levirate betrothal, this act can be rescinded only by means of a bill of divorce. Because the woman needs to receive a bill of divorce in addition to the ḥalitza in order to exempt her from her bond, the ḥalitza is considered invalid and is not sufficient to exempt the rival wife. But if the yavam performed ḥalitza with the rival wife, then she who received his levirate betrothal is exempt from ḥalitza and requires only a bill of divorce.

The Gemara asks: What is different in the two cases? Why, if he performed ḥalitza with the sisters, are the rival wives not exempt? This is because the sister is related to him as the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. Since, under these circumstances he would not be permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with her, her ḥalitza is then considered invalid ḥalitza. However, if that is so, when he performed ḥalitza with the rival wives, the sisters should not be exempt either, as the rival wives are related to him as rival wives of the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. If the woman is forbidden to him due to a relationship created by the levirate bond, then her rival wife is forbidden to him in the same way, and her ḥalitza would be invalid as well. The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds that the levirate bond is not substantial, and therefore the levirate bond does not create a relationship between the yavam and the sisters such that the prohibition would be extended to the rival wives as well.

The Gemara challenges: But didn’t Shmuel say explicitly that the levirate bond is substantial? The Gemara responds: He stated this halakha in accordance with the statement of those who say that the levirate bond is not substantial, although he himself maintains the opposite.

The Gemara asks: If that is indeed so, that he stated this ruling in accordance with the opinion that the levirate bond is not substantial, then when the yavam performed ḥalitza with the sisters, why were their rival wives not exempt? Granted, Rachel’s rival wife, i.e., the rival wife of the second sister, would not be exempt, for once he performed ḥalitza with Leah, the first sister, and then later performed ḥalitza with Rachel, it turns out that Rachel’s ḥalitza was invalid ḥalitza, as he could not consummate the levirate marriage with Rachel because she is the sister of a woman with whom he performed ḥalitza, and invalid ḥalitza does not exempt a rival wife. However, the rival wife of Leah should be exempt because if the levirate bond is not substantial, the ḥalitza with the first sister would have been completely valid.

The Gemara explains: What does it mean that it says: The rival wives are not exempt, that Shmuel stated? It is referring only to the rival wife of Rachel, the second sister, who is not exempt. The Gemara challenges: But he said rival wives in the plural, seeming to refer to both rival wives? The Gemara answers: He spoke of rival wives in general. In other words, this is a general halakha, and for that reason it was stated in the plural. However, it does not mean that both the rival wife of the first sister and the rival wife of the second sister are not exempt.

The Gemara challenges this: If that is so, that when Shmuel chose to speak in the plural he was referring only to the rival wife of Rachel, there arises a difficulty with the second half of the statement: If he performed ḥalitza with the rival wives, the sisters are exempt. But would Rachel become exempt by ḥalitza performed with her rival wife? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: A man is forbidden to marry the rival wife of a close relative of his ḥalutza? Once the yavam performs ḥalitza with one sister, Leah, then her sister’s rival wife, i.e., Rachel’s rival wife, would be considered the rival wife of the sister of a woman with whom he performed ḥalitza. Being as she is forbidden to him, her ḥalitza is invalid and should not exempt Rachel.

The Gemara answers: Shmuel also meant to distinguish between a case where he began and the case where he did not begin. This is how his statement should be understood: If he began by performing ḥalitza with one of the sisters, he may not finish by performing a second act of ḥalitza with any one of the rival wives, as we learned in a mishna (40b): A man is forbidden to marry the rival wife of a close relative of his ḥalutza. Due to this prohibition, ḥalitza performed with the second rival wife is invalid ḥalitza and would not exempt the second sister. If, however, he began with the rival wives and performed the first ḥalitza with the rival wife of Leah, he may finish with the sisters as well and perform the second ḥalitza with Leah, as we learned in a mishna (40b): A man is permitted to marry the close relative of the rival wife of his ḥalutza. Therefore, if he performed ḥalitza with Leah’s rival wife, then Rachel, who is the sister of the rival wife of his ḥalutza, is permitted to him. He can therefore perform a completely valid ḥalitza with her and thereby exempt her rival wife.

Rav Ashi said: Actually, Shmuel’s statement should be interpreted as you originally said, that Shmuel’s rationale for these halakhot accords with his opinion that the levirate bond is substantial. As for the objection that was raised as to why the sisters would be exempted by ḥalitza performed with the rival wives if these rival wives were considered the rival wife of the sister of a woman with whom the yavam had a levirate bond, this can be resolved as follows: This is because the levirate bond is not so strong as to render the status of a rival wife like an actual forbidden relative. The levirate bond is sufficient to prohibit levirate marriage with the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond, but not sufficient to prohibit their rival wives to the yavam.

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi: If he performed ḥalitza with the sisters, the rival wives are not exempt from levirate marriage. From here one can deduce: Consequently, if he performed ḥalitza with the rival wives, the sisters are exempt. What is the reason for this? Is it not because this tanna held that the levirate bond is substantial, and therefore the rival wives were not rendered exempt by the ḥalitza of the sisters, but nevertheless the levirate bond is not so strong as to render the rival wife equivalent to a forbidden relative? Therefore, the prohibition with regard to the rival wives in this case is less severe than the prohibition concerning the sisters themselves, and when they perform ḥalitza, the ḥalitza is valid and the sisters are exempt.

Rabbi Abba bar Memel rejected this explanation and said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as we learned in a mishna: Beit Shammai permitted the rival wives to marry the brothers; even if they are the rival wives of his actual relatives, they are permitted to enter into levirate marriage. In the case above, where they are merely rival wives of the sister with whom he has a levirate bond, all the more so they are permitted to enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara objects: If that is so, if this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that the rival wives are permitted, then the rival wife should enter into levirate marriage as well. Why does it speak here only of ḥalitza but not of the possibility of entering levirate marriage?

The Gemara answers: The ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who said: Come and let us establish a ruling that the rival wives must perform ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage, thereby circumventing the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Although Beit Shammai permitted the rival wives to perform levirate betrothal, they should perform ḥalitza instead in order to conform to Beit Hillel’s opinion as well. The Gemara objects: But didn’t the Master say that they did not succeed in finalizing the matter and establishing Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s amendment before the times of trouble came in the form of the anti-Jewish decrees, and so this ruling was never actually established? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: After his time, other Sages returned to this issue and established this amendment in accordance with his opinion.

§ Apropos of the statement of Shmuel with regard to a woman who received a bill of divorce and a woman who received levirate betrothal, a dilemma was raised before the Sages:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Yevamot 27a examines levirate marriage and ḥalitza involving sisters married to brothers, questioning when such ḥalitza validly exempts rival wives.