## Yevamot Daf 29a

###### Yevamot 29a:1
[Yevamot 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/29a:1)

וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת לֹא חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This *halakha* was also taught in the previous mishna (26a), and it is cited in this mishna according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rabbi Shimon say: Two sisters neither perform *ḥalitza* nor enter into levirate marriage?** Because these women are eligible for levirate marriage according to Torah law, they are considered the sisters of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. In this case, Rabbi Shimon exempts them from both *ḥalitza* and levirate marriage. Why, then, does the mishna require them to perform *ḥalitza*?


###### Yevamot 29a:2
[Yevamot 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/29a:2)

גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה דְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **a rabbinic decree due to the general case of a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva.** If they did not perform *ḥalitza* in this case, where they are sisters, there is a concern that people would assume that their exemption from *ḥalitza* stemmed not from their status as sisters but rather due to the prohibition. This would lead to the mistaken conclusion that women who are forbidden due to a mitzva do not require *ḥalitza*. Therefore, the Sages issued a rabbinic decree requiring *ḥalitza* in this case.


###### Yevamot 29a:3
[Yevamot 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/29a:3)

הָא תִּינַח אִיהִי, אֲחוֹתָהּ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? גְּזֵירָה אֲחוֹתָהּ מִשּׁוּם לַתָּא דִּידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well** for her, as **she** is forbidden due to the prohibition resulting from a mitzva. It is appropriate to require *ḥalitza* with her, to demonstrate that *ḥalitza* is generally applied in cases where there is a prohibition resulting from a mitzva. But with regard to **her sister, what is there to say?** Why must she perform *ḥalitza* as well? The Gemara answers: There is **a rabbinic decree** with regard to **her sister due to her.**


###### Yevamot 29a:4
[Yevamot 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/29a:4)

וְהָא גַּבֵּי עֶרְוָה לָא גָּזְרִינַן? שָׁאנֵי עֶרְוָה דְּמִגְמָר גְּמִירִי לַהּ אִינָשֵׁי, וְקָלָא אִית לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Shimon issues a decree in this case requiring *ḥalitza* for the sister, out of concern for confusion, then there is a difficulty: **But, with regard to a forbidden relative we do not issue a decree** requiring *ḥalitza* due to her sister; why does Rabbi Shimon issue a rabbinic decree requiring *ḥalitza* with a woman forbidden due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva and not with a woman who is a forbidden relative? The Gemara answers: **Forbidden relatives are different, as people learn** the *halakhot* pertaining to **them** because they are stated explicitly in the Torah and are well known to all, **and** the ruling **has publicity.** Therefore, there is no concern lest people mistakenly confuse this case with cases of *yevamot* who are not sisters. Prohibitions resulting from mitzvot are not, however, explicit in the Torah, nor are they generally known.


###### Yevamot 29a:5
[Yevamot 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/29a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין, שְׁנַיִם נְשׂוּאִים שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְאֶחָד מוּפְנֶה. מֵת אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי אֲחָיוֹת, וְעָשָׂה בָּהּ מוּפְנֶה מַאֲמָר. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָחִיו הַשֵּׁנִי —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **three brothers, two** of whom **were married to two sisters, and one who was single,** the following occurred: **The husband of one of the sisters died** childless, leaving behind his wife, **and the single** brother **performed levirate betrothal [*ma’amar*]** to this wife. The single brother performed an act of betrothal to the *yevama* but did not yet consummate the marriage by engaging in sexual intercourse. **Afterward, the second brother died,** and therefore the second brother’s wife, the sister of the betrothed, happened before the single brother for levirate marriage as well.


###### Yevamot 29a:6
[Yevamot 29a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/29a:6)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, וְהַלֵּזוּ תֵּצֵא מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּגֵט וּבַחֲלִיצָה, וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה. זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ: אוֹי לוֹ עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאוֹי לוֹ עַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In this case, **Beit Shammai say: His wife remains with him.** The woman he betrothed is considered like his wife, and he is not required to divorce her. **And this other** woman **leaves** the *yavam* and is exempt from levirate marriage **as the sister of a wife. Beit Hillel say:** Being as he had not yet entered into marriage with the first woman, he is required to perform levirate marriage with both women. Therefore, **he divorces his wife,** i.e., the woman to whom he performed levirate betrothal, **with a bill of divorce,** which nullifies levirate betrothal, **and by *ḥalitza*,** which nullifies the levirate bond. **And,** he sends away **the wife of his** second **brother with *ḥalitza*** as well. They comment: **This is** the case **that** was referred to when the Sages **said: Woe unto him for his wife and woe unto him for the wife of his brother.** Due to the combination of circumstances, he loses them both.


###### Yevamot 29a:7
[Yevamot 29a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/29a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** ״זוֹ הִיא״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי הָךְ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּלָא עָבְדִינַן כְּווֹתֵיהּ. אֶלָּא אִי כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אִי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What** does the mishna’s formulation of the term: **This is,** which indicates limitation and exactitude, come **to exclude?** The Gemara answers: **It excludes that** statement **of Rabbi Yehoshua** (109a). There, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that if a man is married to a minor when her sister happens before him for levirate marriage, he must send both of the women away. He said there: Woe unto him for his wife and woe unto him for the wife of his brother. From the language in the mishna here, we learn **that we do not act in accordance with his** opinion. **Rather,** we act **either in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel or in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar.** According to the opinion of both of these *tanna’im* in the mishna (109a), despite the conflict between the brother’s marriage to the minor and the levirate bond with her sister, there is still a way for him to marry one of the women.


###### Yevamot 29a:8
[Yevamot 29a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/29a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לָא תֵּימָא מַאֲמָר לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי קוֹנֶה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר, דְּאִי בָּעֵי לְאַפּוֹקֵי סַגִּי לַהּ בְּגִיטָּא, אֶלָּא מַאֲמָר לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶלָּא לִדְחוֹת בַּצָּרָה בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the main issue of levirate betrothal, it would seem from this mishna that Beit Shammai hold that levirate betrothal has the legal force of levirate marriage. However, **Rabbi Elazar said: Do not say** that **levirate betrothal acquires** the woman **as a full-fledged acquisition according to** the opinion of **Beit Shammai,** such that the first woman becomes his wife to the extent **that if he wants to divorce** her **a bill of divorce would suffice** without an act of *ḥalitza*. **Rather, for Beit Shammai, levirate betrothal acquires** the woman **only** insofar **as it precludes a rival wife** from entering levirate marriage. The legal force of levirate betrothal is limited to preventing the rival wife of the sister from performing levirate marriage; she is exempt from both levirate marriage and *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 29a:9
[Yevamot 29a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/29a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יְקַיְּימוּ. יְקַיְּימוּ אִין — לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Avin said: We, too, learn** in the mishna a proof that levirate betrothal is not a full-fledged act of acquisition, even according to Beit Shammai. The mishna at the beginning of this chapter (26a) teaches that when two sisters who are *yevamot* happen before two brothers for levirate marriage, if the brothers married their wives before consulting the court, then **Beit Shammai say: They may maintain them** as their wives. From here it can be deduced: If they already married them, **yes, they may maintain them.** However, marrying them ***ab initio*, no,** this is prohibited due to the prohibition against marrying the sister of a woman with whom one has a levirate bond.