## Yevamot Daf 12a

###### Yevamot 12a:1
[Yevamot 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:1)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הָיְתָה אַחַת כְּשֵׁרָה וְאַחַת פְּסוּלָה, אִם הָיָה חוֹלֵץ — חוֹלֵץ לַפְּסוּלָה, וְאִם הָיָה מְיַיבֵּם — מְיַיבֵּם לַכְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ וּמַאי ״פְּסוּלָה״? אִילֵּימָא ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ — כְּשֵׁרָה לְעָלְמָא, ״פְּסוּלָה״ — פְּסוּלָה לְעָלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּלְדִידֵיהּ חַזְיָא — מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ami **said to** Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: **We learned it** in the same *baraita*: In a case where **one** of the women **was fit and the other disqualified, if he would** like to **perform *ḥalitza* he performs *ḥalitza* with the disqualified** woman, **and if he would** like to **enter into levirate marriage, he enters into levirate marriage with the fit** woman. **What is fit and what is disqualified? If we say** that **fit** means **fit to all** men, and **disqualified** means **disqualified to all** men, **since for him she is suitable, what difference does it make for him** whether she is disqualified from or fit for marriage to others?


###### Yevamot 12a:2
[Yevamot 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:2)

אֶלָּא לָאו: ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ — כְּשֵׁרָה לֵיהּ, ״פְּסוּלָה״ — פְּסוּלָה לֵיהּ. וּמַאי נִיהוּ — מַחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ. וְקָתָנֵי: אִם הָיָה מְיַיבֵּם — מְיַיבֵּם לַכְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** the case that **fit** means **fit for him,** and **disqualified** means **disqualified for him? And what is that** case in which a woman is fit or disqualified only with regard to him but not to any other man? This is referring to the case of **one who remarries his divorcée. And it is taught** that **if he would** like to **enter into levirate marriage, he enters into levirate marriage with the fit** woman. This answers Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question.


###### Yevamot 12a:3
[Yevamot 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:3)

לָא: כְּשֵׁרָה לְעָלְמָא, פְּסוּלָה לְעָלְמָא. וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, כֵּיוָן דִּלְדִידֵיהּ חַזְיָא, מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ — מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי לֹא יִשְׁפּוֹךְ אָדָם מֵי בוֹרוֹ וַאֲחֵרִים צְרִיכִים לָהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **No; actually, fit** means **fit to all** men, and **disqualified** means **disqualified in general,** e.g., a woman who had already been divorced is disqualified from marrying any priest. **And that which you said: Since for him she is suitable, what difference does it make for him,** this is significant **because of** that statement **of Rav Yosef. As Rav Yosef said: Here Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **taught** a valuable moral lesson, that **a person should not pour the water from his well when others are in need of it.**


###### Yevamot 12a:4
[Yevamot 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּחְזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּיסֵּת — הִיא וְצָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת. הִיא וְצָרָתָהּ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אוֹ הִיא אוֹ צָרָתָהּ! וְלָאו תָּרוֹצֵי קָא מְתָרְצַתְּ לַהּ? תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: הִיא — חוֹלֶצֶת, צָרָתָהּ — אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a different *baraita*: With regard to **one who remarries his divorcée after she had married another, she and her rival wife must perform *ḥalitza*.** Can it **enter your mind** that both **she and her rival wife** must perform *ḥalitza*? **Rather, say: Either she or her rival wife.** This indicates that both women are unfit for levirate marriage. The Gemara rejects this claim: **And did you not** already **resolve** a difficulty **in** the *baraita*? If so, **answer as follows: She performs *ḥalitza*,** while **her rival wife either performs *ḥalitza* or enters into levirate marriage.** If so, this *baraita* provides no conclusive proof that might resolve Rabbi Yoḥanan’s dilemma.


###### Yevamot 12a:5
[Yevamot 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:5)

אָמַר רַב לֵילֵי בַּר מֶמֶל, אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צָרַת מְמָאֶנֶת אֲסוּרָה. לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לָאַחִים: הַשְׁתָּא הִיא גּוּפַהּ שַׁרְיָא, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מֵיאֲנָה בָּזֶה מוּתֶּרֶת בָּזֶה — צָרָתָהּ מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another discussion concerning women who are forbidden in levirate marriage. **Rav Lili bar Memel said** that **Mar Ukva said** that **Shmuel said:** The **rival wife of** a girl **who performed refusal is forbidden.** If the deceased brother had two wives, one of whom was a minor who refused the brother who sought to be her *yavam*, not only is she forbidden in levirate marriage, but so too is her rival wife. The Gemara asks: **To whom** is she forbidden? **If we say** that she is forbidden **to** the other **brothers,** this cannot be the case, as **now** that **she herself,** the girl who actually performed refusal, **is permitted** to them, **as Shmuel said:** A minor *yevama* who **refused this** brother **is permitted to that** other brother of the deceased husband, **is** it **necessary** to state that **her rival wife** is likewise permitted?


###### Yevamot 12a:6
[Yevamot 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:6)

אֶלָּא לְדִידֵיהּ, וּמַאי שְׁנָא מְמָאֶנֶת דְּשַׁרְיָא לְאַחִין — דְּלָא עָבְדָא בְּהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה? צָרָה נָמֵי לָא עָבְדָא בְּהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it means that she is forbidden **to him,** i.e., as she refused a specific brother, both she and her rival wife are forbidden to him. The Gemara clarifies: **And** in **what** way **is** this *halakha* of the rival wife **different from** that of **one who performed refusal, who is permitted to the** other **brothers?** If the reason is **that she did not perform any act** of refusal **with them** that might nullify the obligation of levirate marriage, **her rival wife did not perform any act with them either,** and therefore she should be permitted to all of the brothers.


###### Yevamot 12a:7
[Yevamot 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:7)

גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם צָרַת בִּתּוֹ מְמָאֶנֶת. וְצָרַת בִּתּוֹ מְמָאֶנֶת מִי אֲסִירָא? וְהָתְנַן: וְכוּלָּן אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֲנוּ — צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is a rabbinic **decree** imposed **due to** the case of **a rival wife of one’s daughter who performed refusal.** If the girl who refused was his daughter or any other forbidden relative, her rival wife would be forbidden as the rival wife of one’s daughter. Therefore, the Sages rendered forbidden the rival wives of other women who performed refusal, not only his daughter. The Gemara asks: **And is the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal** actually **forbidden? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: **And** with regard to **all of these** women, **if they died or performed refusal** with their husbands, **their rival wives are permitted.**


###### Yevamot 12a:8
[Yevamot 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:8)

דְּמֵיאֲנָה בְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּמֵיאֲנָה בְּבַעַל, הַיְינוּ גְּרוּשָׁה! אֶלָּא לָאו — בְּיָבָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this statement: **Whom did** this girl **refuse? If we say that she refused the husband,** i.e., the deceased brother before he passed away, **this is** exactly the same as the case of **a divorcée,** and the mishna explicitly states that if one’s relative who had been married to his deceased brother died, or refused her husband, or was divorced, no prohibition applies to her rival wife. What is the difference between refusal and divorce? **Rather, is it not** referring to a case where she refused **the *yavam*?** If she refuses the *yavam*, her levirate bond is broken and her rival wife is no longer considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative. Consequently, the rival wife is fit for levirate marriage. This shows that no prohibition applies to the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal.


###### Yevamot 12a:9
[Yevamot 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:9)

לָא: לְעוֹלָם בְּבַעַל, וּתְרֵי גַּוְונֵי גֵּירוּשִׁין. וּמַאי שְׁנָא כִּי מֵיאֲנָה בְּבַעַל — דַּעֲקַרְ[תִּ]ינְהוּ לְנִשּׂוּאִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No; actually,** it means **that** she refused **the husband, and two types of divorce** are listed in the mishna: Divorce by Torah law and refusal, which is a form of divorce that applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: **And what is different** between the two cases? Since refusal is not actually divorce but is a form of annulment that nullifies the matrimonial bond retroactively, **when she refuses her husband** it must be said **that she uproots the marriage,** and therefore the rival wife is rendered permitted.


###### Yevamot 12a:10
[Yevamot 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:10)

כִּי מֵיאֲנָה בְּיָבָם נָמֵי — נִשּׂוּאִין קַמָּאֵי קָא עָקְרָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **when she refuses the *yavam*,** one should **also** say that **she uproots the first marriage.** The reasoning is that she cannot actually refuse the *yavam*, as she was never married to him. Rather, it must be that she annuls her first marriage, and the bond with the *yavam* is canceled automatically. Consequently, it is as though she were not married at all, and there was never a rival wife.


###### Yevamot 12a:11
[Yevamot 12a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:11)

מִשּׁוּם דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל. דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: מֵיאֲנָה בַּבַּעַל — מוּתֶּרֶת לְאָבִיו, בַּיָּבָם — אֲסוּרָה לְאָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Shmuel’s reasoning is **due to** the statement **that Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught** in a *baraita* **as Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught:** If a minor **refused her husband, she is permitted** in marriage even **to his father,** as refusal completely nullifies the marriage, and it is as though there had never been any earlier marriage with the son. However, if she refused **the *yavam*,** not her husband, **she is forbidden to his father.**


###### Yevamot 12a:12
[Yevamot 12a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:12)

אַלְמָא, מִשְּׁעַת נְפִילָה נִרְאֵית כְּכַלָּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Apparently, from** the moment **when she came before** the *yavam* for levirate marriage **she appears to be** his father’s **daughter-in-law.** Since at the time of the husband’s death she had not yet performed refusal, to all appearances she was the father’s daughter-in-law. Consequently, although the marriage of this minor was not valid by Torah law, any observer would have assumed it was a proper marriage. Therefore, the Sages rendered a girl who refused her *yavam* forbidden to his father, so that people not take lightly the prohibition of those with whom relations are forbidden.


###### Yevamot 12a:13
[Yevamot 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:13)

הָכָא נָמֵי, מִשְּׁעַת נְפִילָה נִרְאֵית כְּצָרַת בִּתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Here, too,** the same reasoning applies: **From** the moment **when** the other wife **came before** the *yavam* for levirate marriage **she appears to be the rival wife of** his father’s **daughter.** For this reason she is forbidden, despite the fact that she is permitted by Torah law. Shmuel’s ruling that the rival wife of a girl who performed refusal is forbidden is therefore a decree due to the case of the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal.


###### Yevamot 12a:14
[Yevamot 12a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:14)

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: צָרַת אַיְלוֹנִית אֲסוּרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד״ — פְּרָט לָאַיְלוֹנִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to discuss various cases of forbidden women. **Rav Asi said: The rival wife of a sexually underdeveloped woman [*aylonit*] is forbidden.** In other words, if one of the wives of the deceased brother was an *aylonit*, who is incapable of giving birth, the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply. **As it is stated** with regard to a woman who requires levirate marriage: **“The firstborn that she bears”** (Deuteronomy 25:6), which comes **to exclude an *aylonit*, who cannot give birth.** Since the *halakhot* of levirate marriage do not apply to an *aylonit*, she retains her status as a brother’s wife who is forbidden, and therefore her rival wife is also exempt from levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 12a:15
[Yevamot 12a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:15)

מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין נְשׂוּאִין שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים נׇכְרִיּוֹת, וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶם, וְעָשָׂה בָּהּ שֵׁנִי מַאֲמָר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet raised an objection** to this from a mishna: **Three brothers are married to three unrelated women, and one of** the brothers **died, and a second** brother **performed levirate betrothal with** the *yevama*. A levirate betrothal does not have the legal status of a regular betrothal, as the levirate bond between *yavam* and *yevama* is not dependent upon betrothal; rather, it represents a kind of continuation of the previous marriage with her deceased husband. Full marriage with a *yevama* is effected by sexual intercourse alone. However, for reasons of modesty, the Sages instituted that the act of betrothal should apply to a *yevama* as well.


###### Yevamot 12a:16
[Yevamot 12a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:16)

וּמֵת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶם יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ״, מִי שֶׁעָלֶיהָ זִיקַת יָבָם אֶחָד, וְלֹא זִיקַת שְׁנֵי יְבָמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this brother who performed the levirate betrothal **died** before consummation of the marriage. In this case, both of **these,** the wife of the first brother, who had already come before the second brother for levirate marriage, and the wife of the second brother, **perform *ḥalitza* and may not enter into levirate marriage. As it is stated: “And one of them dies** and he has no child, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin; **her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her”** (Deuteronomy 25:5). This implies that the option of levirate marriage applies only to **one who is subject to** the levirate **bond of one *yavam*,** for only one deceased brother, **and not** the **bond of two *yevamin*.** Since it is considered as though the first widow has two levirate duties to fulfill, neither she nor her rival wife may enter into levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 12a:17
[Yevamot 12a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:17)

וְקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: זוֹ הִיא צָרַת אֵשֶׁת אָח מֵאָב, שֶׁאִיסּוּר נְפִילָה גָּרַם לָהּ. שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ כְּגוֹן זֹאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught with regard to this** issue that **Rav Yosef said: This is** an example of **a rival wife of a paternal** half **brother’s wife,** i.e., a fully fit *yevama*, **for whom coming before** the *yavam* for levirate marriage **caused her to be forbidden.** In other words, she was fully fit for levirate marriage by Torah law, as all conditions of the mitzva are present in her case. The reason for her prohibition has nothing to do with her particular status but is the result of her having come before a *yavam* for levirate marriage once already. **We have not found in the entire Torah an example** like **this,** where the fact that she was obligated in a mitzva she was unable to fulfill means that not only she, but her rival wife as well, are both rendered forbidden.


###### Yevamot 12a:18
[Yevamot 12a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:18)

״זוֹ הִיא״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי צָרַת אַיְלוֹנִית, דְּשַׁרְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes Rav Yosef’s statement: The emphasis of: **This is,** which indicates that it applies to this case and no other, comes **to exclude what? Doesn’t** it come **to exclude the rival wife of an *aylonit*,** which would mean **that** she **is permitted?** Although an *aylonit* herself may marry any man, she is not suitable for levirate marriage. If so, Rav Yosef’s comment indicates that only a woman subject to a double levirate bond, not any other case, renders her rival wife forbidden merely by coming before the *yavam* for levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 12a:19
[Yevamot 12a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:19)

לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי צָרַת אַיְלוֹנִית, דַּאֲסִירָא. וּמַאי ״זוֹ הִיא״ — זוֹ הִיא, דְּאִיסּוּר נְפִילָה גָּרַם לָהּ — צָרָתַהּ בָּעֲיָא חֲלִיצָה, אַיְלוֹנִית — אֲפִילּוּ חֲלִיצָה לָא בָּעֲיָא. מַאי טַעְמָא: הָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, הָא דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No,** Rav Yosef’s statement was meant **to exclude the rival wife of an *aylonit*, that** she **is forbidden. And what is** the meaning of: **This is?** It means that **this is the one for whom coming before** the *yavam* for levirate marriage **caused her to be forbidden,** and therefore **her rival wife requires *ḥalitza*** and is not entirely exempt. In contrast, in the case of the rival wife of an ***aylonit*,** she does **not even require *ḥalitza*. What is the reason** for this difference between the two cases? **This** one, an *aylonit*, is exempt from levirate marriage **by Torah** law, while **this one,** who was betrothed by levirate betrothal to the other brother, is forbidden **by rabbinic** law, and she therefore must perform *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 12a:20
[Yevamot 12a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:20)

תְּנַן: וְכוּלָּן אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֲנוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיְלוֹנִית — צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן שֶׁהִכִּיר בָּהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another relevant source. **We learned** in the mishna: **And** with regard to **all of these** women with whom relations are forbidden, **if they died, or they refused** their husbands, **or were divorced, or were found to be *aylonit*, their rival wives are permitted** in levirate marriage. This ruling apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Asi that the rival wife of an *aylonit* is forbidden. The Gemara responds: This is **not difficult. Here,** Rav Asi is referring to a situation in **which** her husband **knew** that **she** was an *aylonit* prior to marriage, and as he married her regardless of her condition their marriage is fully valid. Since the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply to her because she cannot give birth, her rival wife is also exempt.


###### Yevamot 12a:21
[Yevamot 12a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:21)

כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא הִכִּיר בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There,** in the mishna, it is referring to a case **where he did not know** that **she** was an *aylonit* at the time of marriage, but only at a later stage. Since in this case it can be said that he would not choose to marry an *aylonit*, hers was a mistaken betrothal, and it is therefore nullified. Consequently, her rival wife is permitted.


###### Yevamot 12a:22
[Yevamot 12a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/12a:22)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״שֶׁהָיוּ״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. אָמַר רָבָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna **is also precise, as it teaches: Were found to be** an *aylonit*, **and it does not teach: Were** an *aylonit*. This indicates that her condition was not known to the husband at the time of marriage but was discovered by him only later. The Gemara summarizes: **Conclude from this** that this is the correct interpretation of the mishna. Consequently, the mishna does not contradict the opinion of Rav Asi. **Rava said:**