## Yevamot Daf 13a

###### Yevamot 13a:1
[Yevamot 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:1)

וְרַב זְבִיד אָמַר: אֵין בָּנִים בְּלֹא סִימָנִים. וְנִבְדּוֹק! חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא נָשְׁרוּ. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חוֹשְׁשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And Rav Zevid said: There are no children without signs** of puberty. In other words, if a girl gives birth, she definitely possesses the signs of puberty. The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **let us examine** to see whether these physical signs are present, so that there is no need to depend on a presumption. The Gemara answers: **We are concerned lest** the hairs that constitute the sign **have fallen off.** The Gemara comments: **This** works out **well according to the one who said** that in general **we are concerned** lest signs fall off, i.e., that there are cases in which she is in fact mature but the hairs have come off.


###### Yevamot 13a:2
[Yevamot 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:2)

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין — מִשּׁוּם צַעַר לֵידָה חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, according to the one who said** that if there are in fact hairs they will certainly be found, and **we are not concerned** that they may have fallen out, **what is there to say?** The Gemara answers: **Even according to the one who said** that in ordinary circumstances **we are not concerned** that the hairs may have fallen out, in this case, **due to the pain of childbirth we are concerned** that they might have fallen out, and therefore it is impossible to examine the matter conclusively.


###### Yevamot 13a:3
[Yevamot 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:3)

כֵּיצַד פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לִצְרוֹר״ — הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְּתָה צָרוֹת הַרְבֵּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the mishna: **How do they exempt their rival wives** and the rival wives of their rival wives? The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters,** that not only is a rival wife exempt but the rival wife of a rival wife is exempt as well, **derived? Rav Yehuda said** that this is **as the verse states:** “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, **to be a rival [*litzror*]** to her” (Leviticus 18:18). The term *litzror* is written, with the letter *reish* appearing twice, rather than *latzor*, with a single *reish*, which means that **the Torah amplified** and included **many rival wives.** In other words, this verse includes not only the rival wife of a forbidden relative, but also the rival wife of a rival wife.


###### Yevamot 13a:4
[Yevamot 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:4)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, סְבָרָא הִיא: צָרָה מַאי טַעְמָא אֲסִירָא — דְּבִמְקוֹם עֶרְוָה קָיְימָא, צָרַת צָרָה נָמֵי — בִּמְקוֹם עֶרְוָה קַיְימָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: It is a logical inference,** which does not require a source from the Torah. **What is the reason** that **a rival wife** of a forbidden relative **is prohibited?** The reason is **that she stands in place of a forbidden relative.** Since the forbidden relative caused her exemption from levirate marriage, she too is considered a forbidden relative who remains categorized as a brother’s wife. Therefore, **the rival wife of a rival wife also stands in place of a forbidden relative,** as she is like the rival wife of a forbidden relative and is therefore forbidden herself.


###### Yevamot 13a:5
[Yevamot 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:5)

כֵּיצַד אִם מֵתוּ הֵן כּוּ׳. וַאֲפִילּוּ כָּנַס וּלְבַסּוֹף גֵּירַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: **How so? If** the forbidden relative **died,** performed refusal, or was divorced, from that moment onward their rival wives are no longer considered the rival wives of a forbidden relative and are permitted. The Gemara remarks: This legal ruling with regard to a divorce is presented as a general principle **and** is therefore correct **even** if at the time that the deceased brother **married** the rival wife he was married to the forbidden relative, **and ultimately divorced** the relative, which means that for a period of time the women were rival wives. Even under these circumstances the prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relative does not apply, and she is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 13a:6
[Yevamot 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:6)

וּרְמִינְהוּ: שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִים, שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִים שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וְאֶחָד נָשׂוּי נׇכְרִית, גֵּירַשׁ אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי אֲחָיוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּמֵת הַנָּשׂוּי נׇכְרִית וּכְנָסָהּ הַמְגָרֵשׁ, וָמֵת, זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ: שֶׁאִם מֵתוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ — צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a different mishna (30a), which discusses **three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters and one is married to an unrelated woman. One of the husbands of the sisters** subsequently **divorced his wife, and the one who was married to the unrelated woman died, and the one who divorced** his wife **married** the *yevama* by levirate marriage **and** afterward **died** as well, which means that this *yevama* once again came for levirate marriage before the remaining brother, who was married to one of the sisters. **It is with** regard to **this** case **that they said that if they died or were divorced their rival wives are permitted.** This concludes the mishna.


###### Yevamot 13a:7
[Yevamot 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:7)

טַעְמָא דְּגֵירַשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּנַס, אֲבָל כָּנַס וְאַחַר כָּךְ גֵּירַשׁ — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from this mishna: **The reason** she is permitted is **that** the *yavam* first **divorced** the sister **and** only **afterward married** the unrelated woman. In this case, the unrelated woman was never actually the rival wife of a sister, despite the fact that they were, at different times, married to the same man. **However,** if the *yavam* first **married** the unrelated woman **and afterward divorced** the sister, she would **not** be permitted to enter into levirate marriage because for a period of time she had been the rival wife of a forbidden relative.


###### Yevamot 13a:8
[Yevamot 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: תַּבְרָא, מִי שֶׁשָּׁנָה זוֹ לֹא שָׁנָה זוֹ. הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר — מִיתָה מַפֶּלֶת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
These two *mishnayot* apparently contradict each other. **Rabbi Yirmeya said:** This mishna is **disjointed,** i.e., the *mishnayot* are truly incompatible, and the *tanna* **who taught this** *halakha* **did not teach that** *halakha*. The reason for the difference in opinions is that **this *tanna*,** of the mishna here, **maintains** that **death causes** her to **come before** him for levirate marriage. In other words, the decisive moment that determines the obligation in or exemption from levirate marriage is the moment of the childless brother’s death. Since in the case of the mishna here she was not the rival wife of a forbidden relative at the time of his death, the prohibition does not apply to her.


###### Yevamot 13a:9
[Yevamot 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:9)

וְהַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר — נִשּׂוּאִין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מַפִּילִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And that *tanna*** of the mishna dealing with three brothers **maintains** that **the first marriage causes** her to **come before** him for levirate marriage. In other words, the levirate bond is established at the time of the marriage, and since the second wife was the rival wife of a forbidden relative for at least a brief period, her exemption from levirate marriage was determined then.


###### Yevamot 13a:10
[Yevamot 13a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:10)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם חַד תַּנָּא הוּא, וְזוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר זוֹ קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Actually,** both *mishnayot* represent the opinion of **a single *tanna*, but he teaches** the mishna employing the style: **This and it is unnecessary to say that.** In other words, the mishna here is referring to a case where he first married and later divorced, while the mishna that deals with three brothers is speaking of a simpler, more obvious case, in which he first divorced and later married the second wife. In that case she is certainly permitted. Accordingly, there is no real contradiction here between the *mishnayot*, as they utilize different styles of teaching.


###### Yevamot 13a:11
[Yevamot 13a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:11)

וְכֹל שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן. וּתְמָאֵן הַשְׁתָּא, וְתִתְיַיבֵּם! לֵימָא מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: **And** if **any** of these forbidden relatives was a minor **who could refuse** her husband, then even if she did not refuse him, her rival wife performs *ḥalitza* and does not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: **And let** the minor **perform refusal now,** thereby annulling the marriage retroactively after the death of her husband, **and let her** rival wife **enter into levirate marriage.** Since this option is not accepted, **let us say that it supports** the opinion **of Rabbi Oshaya.**


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

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מְמָאֶנֶת לְמַאֲמָרוֹ, וְאֵינָהּ מְמָאֶנֶת לְזִיקָּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Oshaya said:** A *yevama* who is a minor can **refuse the levirate betrothal of** the *yavam*. In other words, if he betrothed her she is free to say that she does not desire to marry him, a declaration that severs any connection between them. **But she cannot refuse his bond.** Provided that he has not performed a levirate betrothal, this minor *yevama* cannot annul the ties between them by a refusal, as theirs is not a bond of marriage, and the institution of refusal was established only with regard to marriage. According to this opinion, it is evident that a minor *yevama* who is a forbidden relative cannot perform refusal so as to enable her rival wife to enter levirate marriage.


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

לָא, צָרַת עֶרְוָה שָׁאנֵי. דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: מֵיאֲנָה בַּבַּעַל — מוּתֶּרֶת לְאָבִיו. מֵיאֲנָה בְּיָבָם — אֲסוּרָה לְאָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No;** it is possible that a minor *yevama* can indeed refuse a levirate bond, but **the rival wife of a forbidden relative is different,** as she is not permitted in levirate marriage even if the forbidden relative herself can perform refusal. Why? **As Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught** in a *baraita*: If **she refused the husband,** thereby annulling the marriage, **she is permitted to his father,** as the marriage bond was entirely nullified retroactively and she is not considered his daughter-in-law at all. If, however, **she refused** only **the *yavam*, she is forbidden to his father.**


###### Yevamot 13a:14
[Yevamot 13a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:14)

אַלְמָא: מִשְּׁעַת נְפִילָה נִרְאֵית כְּכַלָּתוֹ. הָכָא נָמֵי: מִשְּׁעַת נְפִילָה נִרְאֵית כְּצָרַת בִּתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Apparently,** the reason is that **at the moment** of her **coming before** him for levirate marriage **she had the appearance of his daughter-in-law.** Since people will think she is his daughter-in-law, she is forbidden to the father. **Here, too, at the moment** of her **coming before** him for levirate marriage **she had the appearance of his daughter’s rival wife.** Consequently, the Sages did not permit her to enter into levirate marriage even if the other wife refuses the husband.


###### Yevamot 13a:15
[Yevamot 13a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** שֵׁשׁ עֲרָיוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת מֵאֵלּוּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנְּשׂוּאוֹת לַאֲחֵרִים — צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Six** women **with whom relations are forbidden** who were not enumerated in the first mishna **are** forbidden by prohibitions that are **more severe than those** listed in that mishna **because they may be married** only **to others** and may never be married to any of the brothers, due to the closeness of their relationship. However, this stringency entails a corresponding leniency: Since the *halakha* of levirate marriage is entirely inapplicable in these cases, **their rival wives are permitted.** The rival wife of a forbidden relative is forbidden herself only if the mitzva of levirate marriage is applicable, but where it is not in effect she is permitted.


###### Yevamot 13a:16
[Yevamot 13a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:16)

אִמּוֹ, וְאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו, וַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו, אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו, וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The six women with whom relations are forbidden are as follows: **His mother, and his father’s wife, and his father’s sister, and his paternal** half **sister, and the wife of his father’s brother, and the wife of his paternal** half **brother.** Each of these women with whom relations are forbidden is forbidden equally to all of the brothers, and the mitzva of levirate marriage is inapplicable. Therefore, her rival wife is permitted.


###### Yevamot 13a:17
[Yevamot 13a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/13a:17)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַתִּירִין הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Up to this point, the discussions were based on the assumption that not only may a forbidden relative not enter into levirate marriage, but her rival wife is also exempt. However, this issue is subject to a long-standing dispute. **Beit Shammai permit the rival wives to the brothers,** as they did not accept the interpretation of the verses that indicates that rival wives are prohibited. **And Beit Hillel forbid** them. The previous *mishnayot* are in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.