## Yevamot Daf 28a

###### Yevamot 28a:1
[Yevamot 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:1)

לְכַתְּחִלָּה קָתָנֵי. וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: גְּזֵירָה דִּלְמָא קְדֵים וַחֲלֵיץ לְרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּרֵישָׁא! ״וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת״ קָתָנֵי, דְּלֵיכָּא דִּין יִבּוּם הָכָא כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
implies that the mishna **teaches** a case in which *ḥalitza* is performed ***ab initio*.** This indicates that this is the first course of action and the only way to resolve the situation. The Gemara asks further: And **let him say to him** the following: The mishna prohibits levirate marriage *ab initio* in this case, due to a rabbinic **decree lest he proceed and perform the *ḥalitza* with the first** sister **first,** whereby it would be prohibited to consummate the levirate marriage with the second. Perhaps for this reason the Sages decreed that it is prohibited to consummate the levirate marriage even if *ḥalitza* was performed with the second sister. The Gemara answers: **It teaches: They may not enter into levirate marriage.** This indicates that **the *halakha* of levirate marriage does not apply here at all.** Accordingly, even after the fact, if he performed *ḥalitza* with the second sister, the *halakha* of levirate marriage would not apply to the first sister.


###### Yevamot 28a:2
[Yevamot 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:2)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת, וְאָסוּר לְבַטֵּל מִצְוַת יְבָמִין! רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְמִיתָה לָא חָיֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let him say to him** a different reason for the ruling of the mishna: It is due to a rabbinic **decree lest** the second brother **die, and it is prohibited to negate the mitzva of levirate marriage.** Perhaps for this reason it would be forbidden to consummate the levirate marriage in the case where two sisters happened before him for levirate marriage, and not due to the prohibition proscribing the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yoḥanan was not concerned over** the possibility of the **death** of a brother, and in his opinion there is no need to make a decree to address such cases.


###### Yevamot 28a:3
[Yevamot 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:3)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָמְדָה עָלָיו שָׁעָה אַחַת בְּאִיסּוּר — נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו עוֹלָמִית. מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let** Rabbi Yoḥanan **say to him** that this mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, who said: Once** the *yevama* **stood before him at one time as forbidden,** even if it was not at the time that she happened before him, **she remains forbidden to him forever.** Perhaps the mishna could be explained according to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion. The Gemara answers: **Since** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar** is cited explicitly **in the latter clause** of the mishna, it can be deduced that **the first clause is not** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar.** Therefore, this ruling cannot be attributed to Rabbi Elazar.


###### Yevamot 28a:4
[Yevamot 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:4)

וְנֵימָא לְהוּ: דִּנְפוּל בְּבַת אַחַת, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם! לָא סְתַם לַן תַּנָּא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let him say to him** that here the reference is to a situation **where** the two brothers died at once, and consequently both of the women **happened before** the *yevamin* for levirate marriage **at the same time. And** this mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: It is possible to be precise.** It is possible to determine that two events occurred at exactly the same moment, where both sisters were forbidden at the time that they happened before the brothers-in-law. The Gemara answers: **The *tanna* did not teach an unattributed** mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.** Any time the mishna is cited in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion, it is always attributed to him explicitly.


###### Yevamot 28a:5
[Yevamot 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:5)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן הֵי נְפוּל בְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let him say to him** a different explanation for the ruling: This mishna is indeed addressing a case where the brothers died one after the other, yet **we do not know which** sister **happened** before the *yevamin* for levirate marriage **first.** In that case, it would be impossible to determine which sister would be permitted.


###### Yevamot 28a:6
[Yevamot 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:6)

אִי הָכִי — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ יוֹצִיאוּ? בִּשְׁלָמָא רִאשׁוֹנָה, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: מַאן שְׁרָא לָךְ? אֶלָּא שְׁנִיָּה, אָמַר: חַבְרַאי שְׁנִיָּה יַיבֵּם, אֲנָא רִאשׁוֹנָה מְיַיבֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so, that which** the mishna **teaches** in the latter clause: **And if they married** their wives **before** consulting the court **they should divorce them,** is difficult. Why must they divorce their wives in this situation? **Granted,** the brother who took **the first** sister in levirate marriage must divorce her, as **we say to him: Who permitted her to you?** Indeed, she was forbidden as the sister of a woman with whom he had a levirate bond, and so he must divorce her. **However,** the brother who took **the second** sister **could say: My fellow** brother **consummated the levirate marriage with the second** sister, but **I am consummating the levirate marriage with the first** sister. It is possible that after the other brother consummated the levirate marriage with the second sister, the first sister would then be permitted to him after the fact, and he is not required to divorce her unless it is certain that he violated a prohibition.


###### Yevamot 28a:7
[Yevamot 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:7)

הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ: אֲחָיוֹת אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִי שְׁנָאָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **this is what** Rabbi Yoḥanan meant when he **said to** Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina: **I do not know who taught: Sisters,** for according to these considerations he cannot properly resolve the ruling of this mishna.


###### Yevamot 28a:8
[Yevamot 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:8)

תְּנַן: הָיְתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן אֲסוּרָה עַל הָאֶחָד אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה — אָסוּר בָּהּ וּמוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי אָסוּר בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דִּנְפַלָה חֲמוֹתוֹ תְּחִלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: If **one of** the sisters **was forbidden to one** of the brothers due to a **prohibition against forbidden relatives** because she was a relative of his wife or a relative from his mother’s side, then **he is prohibited from** marrying **her but permitted to** marry **her sister.** But **the second** brother, who is not a close relative of either sister, **is prohibited from** marrying **both of them. It enters your mind** to say **that** a forbidden woman, such as **his mother-in-law, happened** before the *yavam* for levirate marriage **first.**


###### Yevamot 28a:9
[Yevamot 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:9)

וְאַמַּאי? לֵיקוּ חָתָן לְיַיבֵּם הָךְ דְּאֵינָהּ חֲמוֹתוֹ בְּרֵישָׁא, וְתֶהֱוֵי חֲמוֹתוֹ לְגַבֵּי אִידַּךְ כִּיבָמָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה, תַּחְזוֹר לְהֶיתֵּרָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, the Gemara asks: **And why** would both women be forbidden to the second brother? **Let the son-in-law rise and consummate the levirate marriage with** the sister **who is not his mother-in-law first. Consequently, with regard to the other** brother, **his mother-in-law would be** considered **a *yevama* who was permitted** to perform levirate marriage at the time that she happened before him, **and then forbidden** when her sister happened before him for levirate marriage as well, **and then subsequently became permitted** when his brother consummated the levirate marriage with her sister. If so, the mother-in-law **should return to her original permitted status** and may enter into levirate marriage with him.


###### Yevamot 28a:10
[Yevamot 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:10)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּגוֹן דִּנְפַלָה הָךְ דְּאֵינָהּ חֲמוֹתוֹ בְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** The mishna is referring to a case **where** the woman **who was not his mother-in-law happened** before the brothers for levirate marriage **first,** in which case she was permitted to both of them. When her sister, i.e., the mother-in-law, happened before them for levirate marriage as well, both women were rendered forbidden to the second brother, as each one is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. Because the mother-in-law was forbidden from the time that she happened before the *yavam* for levirate marriage, she can never be permitted to him.


###### Yevamot 28a:11
[Yevamot 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:11)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יְקַיְּימוּ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: יוֹצִיאוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יְקַיְּימוּ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: קַל הָיָה לָהֶם לְבֵית הִלֵּל בְּדָבָר זֶה, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יוֹצִיאוּ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: יְקַיְּימוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the case of two brothers who married their wives before consulting the court, the mishna states that the women should be divorced. **Rabbi Eliezer** disagrees and **says** that this is a matter of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as **Beit Shammai say:** They may maintain them as their wives, and Beit Hillel say: They should divorce them. An expanded version of this discussion **is taught** in the *Tosefta* (5:1): **Rabbi Eliezer says** that **Beit Shammai say: They may maintain them** as their wives, **and Beit Hillel say: They should divorce them. Rabbi Shimon says: They may maintain them** as their wives. **Abba Shaul** disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and **says: This was a matter of leniency for Beit Hillel.** They were the ones who put forth a lenient ruling, **as Beit Shammai say: They should divorce them, and Beit Hillel say: They may maintain** them as their wives.


###### Yevamot 28a:12
[Yevamot 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:12)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּמַאן? אִי כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי — הַיְינוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אִי כְּבֵית הִלֵּל — הַיְינוּ אַבָּא שָׁאוּל! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּדָבָר זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks about this *baraita*: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is** the statement of **Rabbi Shimon?** This matter is a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, with different versions of their opinions, and therefore Rabbi Shimon should not have formulated the *halakha* in this manner. Indeed, **if** he holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai,** then **that is** the same as the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.** He would thereby conclude that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as per Rabbi Eliezer’s version. If so, he should have formulated his opinion in that way. **If,** however, he holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Hillel,** then **that is** the opinion of **Abba Shaul.** The Gemara responds: **This is what he is saying:** Rabbi Shimon actually maintains a third opinion: **Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute this matter;** both agreed that the marriages may be maintained.


###### Yevamot 28a:13
[Yevamot 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:13)

הָיְתָה אַחַת מֵהֶם כּוּ׳. הָא תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: אֲחוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתָּהּ — אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna stated: If **one of** the sisters **was** forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relations, then he is prohibited from marrying her but permitted to marry her sister. The Gemara asks: **We** already **learned** this **on one occasion: When her sister,** who is a forbidden relative to the *yavam*, **is her *yevama*** as well, **she either performs *ḥalitza* or enters into levirate marriage.**


###### Yevamot 28a:14
[Yevamot 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:14)

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְועִינַן הָתָם: מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם שֵׁנִי, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם שֵׁנִי — אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **necessary** that this be said here as well, **for if it taught us** this *halakha* only **there** in its more general formulation (*Yevamot* 20a), then I might have said: The *yavam* is permitted to marry the sister **because there is no** reason **to issue** a rabbinic **decree due to a second** brother. There, there is only one *yavam*, to whom one sister is permitted and the other is forbidden. **Here, however,** in the case of two brothers, **where there is** reason **to issue** a rabbinic **decree due to the second** brother, lest he consummate the levirate marriage as well, **I would say** that we do **not** allow even the first brother to perform levirate marriage, and both sisters-in-law should be forbidden to both brothers.


###### Yevamot 28a:15
[Yevamot 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:15)

וְאִי אַשְׁמוּעִינַן הָכָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא שֵׁנִי דְּקָא מוֹכַח, אֲבָל הָתָם, דְּלֵיכָּא שֵׁנִי — אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the mishna **had taught us** the *halakha* only **here,** it would have been possible to say that the permissibility of levirate marriage here is **because there is** a second brother who **indicates,** by refraining from performing levirate marriage, that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is forbidden. **However, there,** where there **is not a second** brother, **I would say no,** this *halakha* would not apply, due to a concern that people might wrongly conclude that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is permitted. Therefore, it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* in both places.


###### Yevamot 28a:16
[Yevamot 28a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/28a:16)

אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה כּוּ׳. הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the mishna: If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to **a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva** or due to a prohibition stemming from sanctity, then her sister must perform *ḥalitza* and may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara wonders: **We** already **learned this as well:**