## Yevamot Daf 20a

###### Yevamot 20a:1
[Yevamot 20a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:1)

שֶׁמְּגָרְשָׁה בְּגֵט, וּמַחְזִירָהּ. הָתָם נָמֵי, לֵימָא ״וְיִבְּמָהּ״ — עֲדַיִין יִבּוּמִין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עָלֶיהָ, וְתִיבְעֵי חֲלִיצָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that he must divorce** his *yevama* **with a bill of divorce** and she does not also require *ḥalitza*. **And he may remarry her,** if he wishes, after the divorce; as the *halakha* is not ruled in accordance with the opinion that after he performs the mitzva she is once more forbidden to him as his brother’s wife. Why? **There, too, let** the *halakha* **say** that the verse states: **“And consummate the levirate marriage [*veyibbema*],”** as explained above, meaning that **the first levirate bond is still upon her and she should** also **require *ḥalitza*.**


###### Yevamot 20a:2
[Yevamot 20a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:2)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ — נַעֲשֵׂית כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכׇל דָּבָר. אִי הָכִי הָכָא נָמֵי! הָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְיִבְּמָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is different there, as the verse states: “And take her to him to be his wife”** (Deuteronomy 25:5) to teach that **once he has taken her,** her legal status is **that of his wife in every sense.** The Gemara objects: **If so, here too,** in the case of a brother born after the levirate marriage, according to the opinion of the Rabbis this same principle should apply. The Gemara answers that **The Merciful One states: “And consummate the levirate marriage [*veyibbema*],”** that is, even after the marriage she is still considered to be the wife of the deceased brother [*yevama*] with respect to any brothers who are born later.


###### Yevamot 20a:3
[Yevamot 20a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:3)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא שְׁדִי הֶיתֵּירָא אַהֶיתֵּירָא, וּשְׁדִי אִיסּוּרָא אַאִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What did you see** to distinguish in this way and say that once she is married the levirate obligation is totally abrogated with regard to *ḥalitza*, but that she remains prohibited as the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist with respect to any brothers born in the future? The Gemara answers: **It stands to reason** to say: **Toss that which is permitted on that which is permitted, and toss that which is prohibited on that which is prohibited.** In other words, in cases where the woman becomes permitted to her *yavam* through levirate marriage, it stands to reason that this permitted state is absolute, but with regard to the prohibition against taking the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist, it stands to reason that the verse comes to teach that she retains her prohibited status with respect to any brothers born in the future.


###### Yevamot 20a:4
[Yevamot 20a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:4)

וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּהֶיתֵּר וְלֹא עָמְדָה עָלָיו שָׁעָה אַחַת בְּאִיסּוּר, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׂאָהּ אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד אָח, וָמֵת — תִּתְיַיבֵּם, הוֹאִיל וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּהֶיתֵּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **But according to Rabbi Shimon, who said** that **since he came and found her in a permitted state** a brother born subsequently may perform levirate marriage **since she was never for a single moment prohibited to him; however, if** that is **so,** consider the case of **one’s maternal** half **sister,** who **married his paternal** half **brother;** their marriage was fully permissible since the husband and wife were in no way related to each other. **And then his brother was born and** the married brother **died;** in that case, **let** the sister **enter into levirate marriage** with her newly born half brother for the same reason, i.e., **since he came and found her in a permitted state,** as when he was born she was already his brother’s wife.


###### Yevamot 20a:5
[Yevamot 20a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:5)

אִיסּוּר אֲחוֹתוֹ לְהֵיכָן אֲזַל?! הָכָא נָמֵי: אִיסּוּר אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בָּעוֹלָם לְהֵיכָן אֲזַל? הַאי אִיסּוּרָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ הֶיתֵּירָא, הַאי אִיסּוּרָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ הֶיתֵּירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this suggestion: How can you say that? What happened to **the prohibition against** marrying **his sister, to where did it go?** This widow is the maternal sister of the newly born brother and is therefore forbidden to him. The Gemara objects: If so, **here too,** one could have said: What happened to **the prohibition** against marrying the wife of **a brother with whom one did not coexist, to where did it go?** In this case as well, the prohibition against marrying the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist already applied from the first brother, so why does Rabbi Shimon see this as abrogated by marriage? The Gemara answers that the comparison is unsound. **This prohibition** against marrying one’s sister **has no** case where it is **permitted** and so in this case is also not canceled, whereas **that prohibition** against marrying a brother’s wife **has** a case where it is **permitted,** when the mitzva of levirate marriage applies to a second brother and is therefore removed completely before the third brother is born.


###### Yevamot 20a:6
[Yevamot 20a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** כְּלָל אָמְרוּ בִּיבָמָה: כֹּל שֶׁהִיא אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה — לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה וְאִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה — חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The Sages **stated a principle about a *yevama*: Whoever is** forbidden **by a prohibition of forbidden relations** to her *yavam* **neither performs *ḥalitza* nor enters into levirate marriage** and is completely exempt. If she is forbidden by **a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva** or by **a prohibition** stemming from **sanctity,** as will be explained later, then since in these cases the obligation of levirate marriage is not fundamentally nullified **she performs *ḥalitza*** in order to become free of the levirate bond, **and** due to her prohibition **she does not enter into levirate marriage.**


###### Yevamot 20a:7
[Yevamot 20a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:7)

אֲחוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתָּהּ — חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages stated another principle: If two sisters who had been married to two brothers who subsequently died happened before the third brother for levirate marriage, and one of those sisters is a close relation to this third brother and is therefore forbidden to him, she is exempt from levirate marriage. But the other, **her sister who is her *yevama*,** i.e., her sister-in-law, **performs *ḥalitza* or enters into levirate marriage.** In this case, they are not ruled to be two sisters who happened before him simultaneously for levirate marriage, since one of them is prohibited to him as a forbidden relation, and therefore she never actually happened before him at all.


###### Yevamot 20a:8
[Yevamot 20a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:8)

אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה — שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. אִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה — אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּמַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna explains: **A prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva** is referring to **secondary** forbidden **relationships,** which are prohibited **by rabbinic law.** The Sages prohibited marriage to certain women who were not forbidden by the Torah but were nevertheless deemed forbidden incestuous relations. **A prohibition** stemming from **sanctity** is referring to marriage of **a widow to a High Priest, a divorcée or a woman who has performed *ḥalitza* [*ḥalutza*] to a common priest, a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [*mamzeret*]** or a **Gibeonite woman to an Israelite, and** also **an Israelite woman to a Gibeonite or** to **a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [*mamzer*].**


###### Yevamot 20a:9
[Yevamot 20a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** כְּלָל — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַפְרָם בַּר פָּפָּא: לְאֵתוֹיֵי צָרַת אַיְלוֹנִית, וְכִדְרַב אַסִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: This **principle** stated in the mishna about *yevamot*, **what** other cases does it **add?** Since the entire list of cases involving a forbidden relation was already detailed in the first chapter, what is this mishna adding? **Rafram bar Pappa said: It comes to include the** case of a **rival wife of a sexually underdeveloped woman [*aylonit*],** who is incapable of bearing children. Not only does an *aylonit* herself not enter into levirate marriage, since she is unable to give birth, but her rival wife is exempt as well. **And** this is **like** the principle **of Rav Asi,** who said that the rival wife of an *aylonit* is forbidden because the *aylonit* herself remains prohibited to the *yavam* as the wife of his brother, as she was never rendered permitted by the obligation of levirate marriage. Therefore, her rival wife is the rival wife of someone prohibited as a forbidden relation.


###### Yevamot 20a:10
[Yevamot 20a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:10)

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כׇּל שֶׁאִיסּוּרָהּ אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה, הוּא דַּאֲסִירָא צָרָתַהּ, הָא לָא אִיסּוּרָהּ אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה — צָרָתַהּ לָא אֲסִירָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי — אָמַר רַפְרָם: לְמַעוֹטֵי צָרַת אַיְלוֹנִית, וּדְלָא כְּרַב אַסִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** that Rafram bar Pappa’s statement was made in a different context. It was taught in the mishna: **Whoever is forbidden** to her *yavam* **by a prohibition of forbidden relations** is completely exempt, which implies that **it is** specifically in such a case **that her rival wife is forbidden. But** any case when one wife **is not forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden relations** but is instead forbidden for some other reason, then **her rival wife is not forbidden.** This case comes **to exclude what? Rafram said: It excludes the rival wife of an *aylonit*,** who requires levirate marriage or *ḥalitza* because the *aylonit* is not prohibited as a forbidden relation. **And** this statement is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Asi.**


###### Yevamot 20a:11
[Yevamot 20a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:11)

אֲחוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתָּהּ. אֲחוֹתָהּ דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּאִיסּוּר מִצְוָה, כֵּיוָן דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא רַמְיָא קַמֵּיהּ, פָּגַע בַּאֲחוֹת זְקוּקָתוֹ! אֶלָּא אֲחוֹתָהּ דְּאִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **Her sister who is her *yevama*** performs *ḥalitza* or enters into levirate marriage. The Gemara clarifies this: **Whose sister? If we say** it is the sister of one **who is** forbidden due to **a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva, since by Torah** law **she is cast before him** for levirate marriage, then this would in fact simply be a case of two sisters who fell simultaneously before him, both requiring levirate marriage, since according to Torah law there is no prohibition against entering into levirate marriage with such a woman. If so, it turns out that **he encounters the sister of the woman with whom he has** a levirate **bond; but** that case has already been taught. **Rather,** it must refer to **the sister of** a woman who is forbidden to him by a **prohibition of forbidden relations,** and since he may not enter into levirate marriage with a forbidden relation, her sister is not considered to be the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. Therefore, the sister may be taken in levirate marriage.


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

אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה — שְׁנִיּוֹת. אַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה? אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִצְוָה לִשְׁמוֹעַ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states that **a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva** is referring to **secondary** forbidden **relationships,** which are prohibited by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: **Why is this called a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva? Abaye said:** This is because **it is a mitzva to listen to** and obey **the words of the Sages.**


###### Yevamot 20a:13
[Yevamot 20a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:13)

אִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה — אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לְהוּ אִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה — דִּכְתִיב: ״קְדוֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **A prohibition** stemming from **sanctity** is referring to a marriage of **a widow to a High Priest,** or **a divorcée or a *ḥalutza* to a common priest.** The Gemara asks: **Why are these called a prohibition** stemming from **sanctity? As it is written** with regard to the priests: **“They shall be sacred to their God…**they shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman divorced by her husband” (Leviticus 21:6–7).


###### Yevamot 20a:14
[Yevamot 20a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:14)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַחְלִיף: אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה — אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda switches** the terms: **A prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva** is referring to **a widow to the High Priest,** or **a divorcée or a *ḥalutza* to a common priest. And why is this called a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva? As it is written** in summarization at the end of Leviticus: **“These are the *mitzvot*** that the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai” (Leviticus 27:34).


###### Yevamot 20a:15
[Yevamot 20a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:15)

אִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה — שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כׇּל הַמְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים נִקְרָא קָדוֹשׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, קָדוֹשׁ הוּא דְּלָא מִיקְּרֵי, רָשָׁע נָמֵי לָא מִיקְּרֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קַדֵּשׁ עַצְמְךָ בַּמּוּתָּר לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A prohibition** stemming from **sanctity** is referring to **secondary relationships** forbidden **by rabbinic law. And why is this called a prohibition** stemming from **sanctity? Abaye said: Whoever fulfills the words of the Sages is called sacred. Rava said to him:** The language you use is not precise, since if so, **whoever does not fulfill the words of the Sages is not called sacred,** which implies that **he is also not called wicked.** However, anyone who transgresses the words of the Sages is in fact referred to as wicked. **Rather, Rava said** that the reason why this is called a prohibition stemming from sanctity is that the term sanctity indicates differentiation or separation, and there is a principle that **you must sanctify yourself** by refraining from that **which is permitted to you** by Torah law. The Sages decreed against secondary forbidden relations so that one would not eventually come to transgress Torah law.


###### Yevamot 20a:16
[Yevamot 20a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:16)

אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. קָפָסֵיק וְתָנֵי, לָא שְׁנָא מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין וְלָא שְׁנָא מִן הָאֵירוּסִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states that the levirate bond of **a widow to a High Priest** requires her to perform *ḥalitza*, and she may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara comments: The *halakha* that a widow does not enter into levirate marriage with a High Priest is **taught categorically,** merely in a general manner. **It is no different** whether she is a widow **from marriage or** she is a widow **from betrothal** alone.


###### Yevamot 20a:17
[Yevamot 20a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:17)

בִּשְׁלָמָא מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין — עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה. אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵירוּסִין — לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה גְּרֵידָא הוּא, יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted,** she certainly may not enter into levirate marriage if she is a widow **from marriage,** since she is forbidden to the High Priest by the **positive mitzva** stated in the verse: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13), **and** by the **prohibition** stated in the verse: “A widow, or one divorced…these he shall not take” (Leviticus 21:14). **And a positive mitzva,** levirate marriage, **does not override** both **a prohibition,** not marrying a widow, **and a positive mitzva,** marrying a virgin, together. **However,** if she is a widow **from betrothal,** then **there is only a prohibition,** as she is still a virgin. In that case, why not say that **the positive mitzva** of levirate marriage should **come and override the prohibition** against marrying a widow from betrothal?


###### Yevamot 20a:18
[Yevamot 20a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:18)

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְעָלְתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ הַשַּׁעְרָה״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יְבִמְתּוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יְבִמְתּוֹ״ — יֵשׁ לְךָ יְבָמָה אַחַת שֶׁעוֹלָה לַחֲלִיצָה וְאֵינָהּ עוֹלָה לְיִיבּוּם, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said** in response: **The verse states: “His *yevama* shall ascend to the gate** to the Elders and say: My brother-in-law refused to establish a name for his brother in Israel, he did not wish to consummate the levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:7). **As** there is **no** need for **the verse to state: “His *yevama*,”** since it is clear to whom the verse refers and no new information is added by this word, **what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “His *yevama*”?** It comes to teach that **there is one *yevama* who ascends for *ḥalitza* but may not ascend for levirate marriage,** and her brother-in-law is not given a choice. **Who is this? This is** a woman with whom it is prohibited for her *yavam* to enter into levirate marriage, as he would be **liable** for the violation of **a prohibition,** and the positive mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition.


###### Yevamot 20a:19
[Yevamot 20a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/20a:19)

וְאֵימָא חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם לֹא יַחְפּוֹץ הָאִישׁ לָקַחַת״, הָא חָפֵץ — מְיַיבֵּם. כׇּל הָעוֹלֶה לְיִיבּוּם — עוֹלֶה לַחֲלִיצָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין עוֹלֶה לְיִיבּוּם — אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לַחֲלִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Say** that this is referring to **those** women who are forbidden and would be **liable** to receive the penalty of ***karet*** as well, i.e., that these too may not enter into levirate marriage but nevertheless require *ḥalitza*. The Gemara answers: **The verse states: “And if the man does not wish to take** his *yevama*” (Deuteronomy 25:7). This **implies** that if **he wishes, he takes her in levirate marriage;** it depends upon his wishes. However, **one who is eligible for levirate marriage is eligible for *ḥalitza*. And** conversely, **one who is ineligible for levirate marriage is ineligible for *ḥalitza*** and therefore does not require *ḥalitza* at all. Since those relations that carry a penalty of *karet* have no possibility of entering into levirate marriage, they do not require *ḥalitza* either.


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

אִי הָכִי, חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין נָמֵי! הָא רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״יְבִמְתּוֹ״. וּמָה רָאִיתָ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, those** relations who are forbidden as he would be **liable** for the violation of **a** standard **prohibition** also should not require *ḥalitza*, as they may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: **But the Merciful One included** one category of *yevama* who is eligible for *ḥalitza* alone and not levirate marriage through the term: **“His *yevama*.”** The Gemara asks: **And what did you see** to conclude that the additional term is referring to relations who are forbidden and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition and not those who are liable to receive *karet*?