## Yevamot Daf 20b

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

מִסְתַּבְּרָא: חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין — תָּפְסִי בְּהוּ קִדּוּשִׁין. חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת — לָא תָּפְסִי בְּהוּ קִדּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: That **stands to reason,** since **betrothal takes effect** with those women who are forbidden and with whom he would be **liable** for the violation of **a prohibition.** That is, if a man betroths a woman who is forbidden to him and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition, then although he violates a prohibition in doing so, the betrothal is valid and cannot be ended without a bill of divorce. Therefore, such a woman also requires *ḥalitza*. In contrast, **betrothal does not take effect** at all with **those** who are forbidden and would be **liable** to receive the punishment of ***karet*,** and therefore in these cases the laws of levirate marriage and *ḥalitza* do not apply at all.


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

מֵתִיב רָבָא: אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה וְאִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה, בָּא עָלֶיהָ אוֹ חָלַץ לָהּ — נִפְטְרָה צָרָתָהּ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לַחֲלִיצָה רַמְיָא, לְיִיבּוּם לָא רַמְיָא, כִּי בָּא עָלֶיהָ — אַמַּאי נִפְטְרָה צָרָתָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection** to the explanation of Rav: It is taught in a *baraita* with regard to **a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva and a prohibition** stemming from **sanctity** that if **he engages in intercourse with** such a woman **or performs *ḥalitza* with her, her rival wife is exempt,** even though it was prohibited for him to have engaged in intercourse with her in the first place. **If it enters your mind** that women who are forbidden, as he would be **liable** for the violation of **a prohibition, require *ḥalitza* by Torah** law **but do not require levirate marriage,** then **when he engages in intercourse with** his *yevama* **why is her rival wife exempt?** If there is no biblical mitzva to engage in intercourse with her, his action would carry no halakhic validity and the rival wife should not be exempt.


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

הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: לִצְדָדִין קָתָנֵי. בָּא עָלֶיהָ — אַאִיסּוּר מִצְוָה. חָלַץ לָהּ — אַאִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **raised the objection and he resolved it:** The *baraita* **teaches it disjunctively;** it did not all deal with the same case. When the *baraita* says: **Engages in intercourse with her,** it is referring **to a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva.** If one engages in intercourse with a *yevama* prohibited to him by rabbinic law, since by Torah law levirate marriage with her is valid, then although his act involved the transgression of a rabbinic decree, he nevertheless fulfilled the Torah mitzva and the rival wife is thereby exempt. When the *baraita* says: **Performs *ḥalitza* with her,** it **is referring to a prohibition** stemming from **sanctity,** and by Torah law there is no option of levirate marriage because of the prohibited relation; therefore, only *ḥalitza* exempts her rival wife.


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

מֵתִיב רָבָא: פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא, וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה, סְרִיס אָדָם, וְהַזָּקֵן — אוֹ חוֹלְצִין אוֹ מְיַיבְּמִין. כֵּיצַד? מֵתוּ, וְלָהֶם אַחִים וְלָהֶם נָשִׁים, וְעָמְדוּ אַחִין וְעָשׂוּ מַאֲמָר בִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן, וְנָתְנוּ גֵּט, וְחָלְצוּ — מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ עָשׂוּ. וְאִם בָּעֲלוּ — קָנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection** from that which was taught in the *Tosefta* (*Yevamot* 11:3): **A man with crushed testicles** or with other wounds to his genitals **or one whose penis has been severed, one who is a eunuch** caused **by man** and not from birth or by disease, or **an elderly man,** all of whom are incapable of fathering children, **one either performs *ḥalitza* or levirate marriage. How so?** If any of these infertile men **died, and they had brothers and they** also **had wives,** and they then died childless, **and the brothers proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed *ḥalitza*, whatever they did is done;** i.e., their act was effective. **And if** any one of the brothers **engaged in intercourse** with the widow of one of those infertile men, he thereby **acquired** the woman as a wife according to the laws of levirate marriage.


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

מֵתוּ אַחִים, וְעָמְדוּ הֵם, וְעָשׂוּ מַאֲמָר בִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן, וְנָתְנוּ גֵּט אוֹ שֶׁחָלְצוּ — מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ עָשׂוּ. וְאִם בָּעֲלוּ — קָנוּ, וְאָסוּר לְקַיְּימָן, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יָבֹא פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא״. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לַחֲלִיצָה רַמְיָא, לְיִיבּוּם לָא רַמְיָא, אִם בָּעֲלוּ — אַמַּאי קָנוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The inverse is also true: If **the brothers died** childless, **and** the infertile men **proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives,** or **gave a bill of divorce, or performed *ḥalitza*, whatever they did is done** and took effect. **And if they engaged in intercourse** with their *yevama*, **they** thereby **acquired** the *yevama* as their wife. However, **it is forbidden to maintain them,** i.e., allow them to continue to live as husband and wife, **because it is stated: “One with crushed testicles** or whose penis has been severed shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2); they are prohibited from entering the congregation, i.e., marrying a Jew. **And if it enters your mind** that women who are forbidden, as he would be **liable** for the violation of **a prohibition, require *ḥalitza* by Torah** law **but do not require levirate marriage, then** one could ask: **if they engaged in intercourse why are they acquired** as wives even though there would be no mitzva of levirate marriage because the men are prohibited from marrying them?


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אַלְמָנָה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין נָמֵי, עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה הוּא — דִּכְתִיב: ״קְדוֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rav’s opinion is rejected, and **Rava said** an alternative explanation: The reason why a High Priest does not take **a widow from betrothal** in levirate marriage is because that relationship is **also** a violation of both **a positive mitzva and a prohibition** and therefore a different positive mitzva does not override it. How so? **As it is written: “They shall be sacred to their God”** (Leviticus 21:6), which teaches that there is a positive mitzva of sanctity associated with all prohibitions applying to priests. Therefore, any such prohibition contains both a positive and a negative mitzva.


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

מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? כְּתִיב: ״וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This resolves the issue of priestly prohibitions, but **what is there to say** about **a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [*mamzeret*] or a Gibeonite woman,** who are prohibited from entering the congregation due to considerations of sanctity? They too may not enter into levirate marriage despite the positive mitzva, which would ordinarily override a prohibition. The Gemara answers: **It is written** with regard to all of the mitzvot: **“Sanctify yourselves,** therefore, and be sacred” (Leviticus 11:44). This teaches that in addition to the prohibition, there is the positive mitzva of sanctity.


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

אִי הָכִי, כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ נָמֵי עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: גְּזֵירָה אַלְמָנָה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין אַטּוּ אַלְמָנָה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **If so,** then every single prohibition in **the entire Torah** contains both **a positive mitzva and a prohibition, as it is written: “Sanctify yourselves”** (Leviticus 11:44). **Rather,** this reasoning must be rejected, and **Rava stated** a different reason: While in essence the mitzva of levirate marriage does apply here, nevertheless, **a widow from betrothal** is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with the High Priest **by** rabbinic **decree, due to** the case of **a widow from marriage.**


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

מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר! גְּזֵירָה בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה אַטּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is there to say** about the case of **a *mamzeret* or a Gibeonite woman?** There appears to be no reason for a rabbinic decree in such cases. The Gemara answers: There, one must say that intercourse with a *mamzeret* even **when the mitzva** of levirate marriage **applies** was prohibited by rabbinic **decree due to** cases **when the mitzva** of levirate marriage **does not apply.** The decree was issued lest one come to think that since in the case of levirate marriage a *mamzeret* is permitted, even in cases when there is no levirate marriage a *mamzeret* is similarly permitted.


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

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו לֹא תִּתְיַיבֵּם, גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ! יִיבּוּם בְּנַחֲלָה תְּלָא רַחְמָנָא, מִידָּע יְדִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **However, if** that is **so,** and the levirate marriage is prohibited lest it become confused with another case, then **the wife of a paternal brother should not enter into levirate marriage;** i.e., by the same logic, although the Torah allowed it, the Sages should have established a **rabbinic decree** requiring that she perform *ḥalitza* **due to** the case of **the wife of a maternal brother,** who always remains prohibited as a brother’s wife. The Gemara answers: **The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon inheritance,** and it **is well known** by everyone that only patrilineal relatives inherit, so there is no likelihood of confusion.


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

אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ בָּנִים לֹא תִּתְיַיבֵּם, גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים! בְּבָנִים תְּלָא רַחְמָנָא, מִידָּע יְדִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects further: Then **a childless woman should not enter into levirate marriage** even though the mitzva applies to her; there should be a rabbinic **decree due to** the case of **a woman who has children.** The Gemara answers: **The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon children;** it **is well known** by everyone that the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to establish one’s brother’s name and that levirate marriage applies only when there are no children. Here, too, there is no likelihood of error.


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

אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁהָיָה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ לֹא תִּתְיַיבֵּם, גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ! בִּישִׁיבָה תְּלָא רַחְמָנָא, מִידָּע יְדִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges further: **The wife of a brother with whom one did coexist should not enter into levirate marriage;** there should be a rabbinic **decree due to** the case of **the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist.** The Gemara responds: **The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon** a common **dwelling** together and coexistence of brothers, and this **is well known** by everyone since the matter is explicit in the Torah.


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

כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים לֹא תִּתְיַיבֵּמְנָה, גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם אַיְלוֹנִית! לָא שְׁכִיחָא. מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה נָמֵי לָא שְׁכִיחָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to object: **No woman should enter into levirate marriage;** there should be a rabbinic **decree due to** the case of **an *aylonit*.** Since an *aylonit* may not enter into levirate marriage, all other women should be prohibited by rabbinic decree from doing so to avoid confusion. The Gemara answers: The case of an *aylonit* is **not commonplace,** and the Sages did not institute rabbinic decrees on matters that are not common. The Gemara asks: If so, **neither a *mamzeret* nor a Gibeonite woman is commonplace either.** Therefore, since the likelihood of taking a *mamzeret* in levirate marriage is so small, there is no danger that one might think it is permitted to marry a *mamzeret* even where the mitzva does not apply.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: גְּזֵרָה בִּיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אַטּוּ בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that it is necessary to reject the previous suggestion and to offer a different reason: **The first** act of **intercourse** is prohibited by rabbinic **decree due to** the likelihood of **a second** act of **intercourse.** Although intercourse the first time with the *yevama* is the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, which does override the prohibition, once the mitzva is fulfilled with that act there is no longer any positive mitzva involved. Afterward, this *yevama* becomes prohibited because there is no longer a positive mitzva to override the prohibition. Therefore, due to the possibility that one might engage in intercourse a second time with this woman, the Sages decreed that even the first act is prohibited.


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

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אִם בָּעֲלוּ — קָנוּ בְּבִיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְאָסוּר לְקַיְּימָן בְּבִיאָה שְׁנִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This is also taught** in a *baraita*: **If** one of those *yevamin* who may not marry their *yevama* due to a prohibition **engaged in intercourse** with her, **he acquired** her **with the first** act of **intercourse; however, it is prohibited to retain** her **for a second act of intercourse.**


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

הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵיהֶם — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו, יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הָכָא נָמֵי אֶפְשָׁר בַּחֲלִיצָה, דִּמְקַיֵּים עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues with a retraction from Rava: **Rava then said, and some say** it was actually **Rav Ashi** who said: **That which I said,** that the reason for the rabbinic decree was to prevent a second act of intercourse, **is not correct,** as there is a simpler explanation. **As Reish Lakish said** about the same matter: **In every place that you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition** applying to the same matter, **if you can fulfill both of them** together, **this is best,** and the positive mitzva does not override the prohibition. **And if** there is **not** any possibility of fulfilling both, then **let the positive mitzva come and override the prohibition. Here, too,** in the case of levirate marriage, **it is possible, by way of *ḥalitza*, to fulfill the positive mitzva and** not to transgress **the prohibition** prohibiting marriage to these women.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: וְאִם בָּעֲלוּ קָנוּ. תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to this last statement by Rava from that which is taught in a *baraita*: **And if** one of those *yevamin* **engaged in intercourse, he acquired** her as a wife. This shows that although it is possible to perform the mitzva by way of *ḥalitza*, if he nevertheless performs levirate marriage then the positive mitzva overrides the prohibition and the *yevama* is thereby acquired as his wife. The Gemara concludes: This is **a conclusive refutation,** and Rava’s last explanation is rejected. The previous explanation is the correct one: The prohibition is due to rabbinic decree.


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

אִיתְּמַר: בִּיאַת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, חַד אָמַר: אֵינָהּ פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ, וְחַד אָמַר: פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ On the same subject, **it was stated** with regard to the case of **a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow** who was his *yevama* requiring levirate marriage that the *amora’im* **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar** disputed the matter. **One said** that intercourse **does not exempt her rival wife** who had also been married to the High Priest’s brother, since the act was prohibited, **and one said** that it does **exempt her rival wife**, because although intercourse was forbidden, it is nevertheless a valid enactment of levirate marriage, and so her rival wife is thereby exempt.