## Yevamot Daf 44a

###### Yevamot 44a:1
[Yevamot 44a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:1)

הָיְתָה אַחַת כְּשֵׁרָה וְאַחַת פְּסוּלָה, אִם הָיָה חוֹלֵץ — חוֹלֵץ לַפְּסוּלָה, וְאִם הָיָה מְיַיבֵּם — מְיַיבֵּם לַכְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one** of these women **was fit** to marry into the priesthood **and one was unfit,** then **if he performs *ḥalitza*, he should perform *ḥalitza* with the unfit** woman rather than with the one who is fit for the priesthood, since doing so with the woman who is fit would needlessly disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. **But if he consummates the levirate marriage, he may consummate the levirate marriage with** the one who is **fit.**


###### Yevamot 44a:2
[Yevamot 44a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אַרְבָּעָה מֵאַחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The simple reading of the mishna’s first clause implies that all four brothers died. The Gemara questions this: Can it **enter your mind** to say that all **four brothers** died? If they all died, then who remains to consummate the levirate marriage? **Rather,** emend the mishna and **say** instead: **Four** married men **of** a set of more than four **brothers** died.


###### Yevamot 44a:3
[Yevamot 44a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:3)

הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. וְשָׁבְקִי לֵיהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְקָרְאוּ לוֹ זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ״ — הֵן וְלֹא שְׁלוּחָן. ״וְדִבְּרוּ אֵלָיו״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין לוֹ עֵצָה הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If the eldest of them wished to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his *yevamot*, **he has permission** to do so. The Gemara asks: **Do they** actually **leave him** to do so? **Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And the Elders of his city shall call him”** (Deuteronomy 25:8), which indicates that **they,** the Elders, **and not their agent,** should call him. The verse continues: **“And they speak to him”;** this phrase **teaches that they offer him advice that is appropriate for him.**


###### Yevamot 44a:4
[Yevamot 44a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:4)

שֶׁאִם הָיָה הוּא יֶלֶד וְהִיא זְקֵנָה, הוּא זָקֵן וְהִיא יַלְדָּה, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל יַלְדָּה, מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל זְקֵנָה? כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל שֶׁכְּמוֹתְךָ, וְאַל תָּשִׂים קְטָטָה בְּבֵיתֶךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains: Appropriate advice means **that if he was a young man and she an elderly woman** or if **he was an elderly man and she a young woman, they say to him: What do you** want **with a young woman** when you are elderly? Or: **What do you** want **with an elderly woman** when you are young? **Go after your own kind,** i.e., a woman of a similar age, **and do not place discord in your household** that could be caused by marrying a woman of a significantly different age. From the *baraita* it is apparent that if consummating the levirate marriage will ultimately lead to contention between the couple, it is preferable to perform *ḥalitza*. Similarly, in the case of the mishna, marrying four women will likely lead to contention since it is difficult to support so many people, and poverty will lead to strife. Therefore, the *yavam* should not be allowed to consummate levirate marriages with all of them.


###### Yevamot 44a:5
[Yevamot 44a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:5)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי! עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אַרְבַּע — אִין, טְפֵי — לָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנִמְטְיֵיהּ עוֹנָה בְּחֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara qualifies the mishna’s case: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach that he has permission to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his *yevamot* in the case **where it is possible for him** to provide for all four women. The Gemara asks: **If so,** then the same should be true **even** if there are **many** more women **as well;** why does the mishna specifically discuss a case of four women? The Gemara explains: The mishna **teaches us good advice;** in a case of up to **four** women, **yes,** if he can provide for them then it is acceptable to marry all of them. But if there are any **more** than that, **no,** he should not, **in order that he will** be able to **meet the conjugal rights** of each woman at least once **in** each **month.** A Torah scholar is expected to provide conjugal relations once a week. If he marries no more than four women, then that will ensure that each of his wives will receive their conjugal rights at least once a month.


###### Yevamot 44a:6
[Yevamot 44a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:6)

מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי וְכוּ׳. וּנְיַיבֵּם לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ! אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִבְנֶה אֶת בֵּית אָחִיו״, בַּיִת אֶחָד הוּא בּוֹנֶה, וְאֵין בּוֹנֵה שְׁנֵי בָתִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: In the case of **one who was married** to two women and died childless, the intercourse or *ḥalitza* of either one of them with the *yavam* releases her rival wife from the levirate bond. The Gemara questions why the mishna considers only the possibility that he would do so with only one of the women: **But let him** instead **consummate levirate marriages with both of them. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse states** that a *yavam* who performs *ḥalitza* is referred to as: “The man **who does not build his brother’s house”** (Deuteronomy 25:9). The fact that the word “house” appears in the singular indicates that even had he instead chosen to consummate a levirate marriage, only **one house may he build,** by consummating a levirate marriage with one of his brother’s wives, **but he may not build two houses.**


###### Yevamot 44a:7
[Yevamot 44a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:7)

וְנַחְלוֹץ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ?! אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנַּעַל״, בַּיִת אֶחָד הוּא חוֹלֵץ, וְאֵין חוֹלֵץ שְׁנֵי בָתִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **But let him perform *ḥalitza* with both of them;** why does the mishna state that he does so with only one woman? **Mar Zutra bar Toviya said: The verse states** that following the *ḥalitza* the man is called: **“The house of him who had his shoe removed”** (Deuteronomy 25:10). The fact that the word “house” appears in the singular indicates that **he performs *ḥalitza* with** only **one house,** i.e., only one of his brother’s wives, **and he does not perform *ḥalitza* with two houses.**


###### Yevamot 44a:8
[Yevamot 44a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:8)

וּנְיַיבֵּם לַחֲדָא וְנַחְלוֹץ לַחֲדָא! אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִם לֹא יַחְפּוֹץ״, הָא חָפֵץ — יְיַבֵּם. כׇּל הָעוֹלֶה לְיִבּוּם — עוֹלֶה לַחֲלִיצָה, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין עוֹלֶה לְיִיבּוּם — אֵין עוֹלֶה לַחֲלִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **But let him consummate the levirate marriage with one and perform *ḥalitza* with the other.** The Gemara explains that **the verse states: “If** the man **does not wish** to take his *yevama*” (Deuteronomy 25:7), which implies that with regard to anyone who performs *ḥalitza*, **were he to wish** to, **he could consummate the levirate marriage.** This teaches the principle that only **one who is eligible for levirate marriage is eligible for *ḥalitza*,** but **one who is ineligible for levirate marriage is ineligible for *ḥalitza*.** And since, in the case of the mishna, if the *yavam* consummated the levirate marriage with one of his brother’s wives he may not do so with the second, consequently he may not perform *ḥalitza* with her either.


###### Yevamot 44a:9
[Yevamot 44a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:9)

וְעוֹד, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ: בַּיִת מִקְצָתוֹ בָּנוּי וּמִקְצָתוֹ חָלוּץ. וְיֹאמְרוּ! אִי דִּמְיַיבֵּם וַהֲדַר חָלֵיץ — הָכִי נָמֵי. אֶלָּא, [דִּלְמָא] חָלֵיץ וַהֲדַר מְיַיבֵּם, וְקָם לֵיהּ בְּ״לֹא יִבְנֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** an additional reason that one may not do so is so **that** people **should not say** that the brother’s **house was partially built** through levirate marriage **and partially released through *ḥalitza*.** The Gemara asks: **And** even if **they will say** that, what of it? The Gemara explains: **If he** first **consummated the levirate marriage** with one wife **and subsequently performed *ḥalitza*** with the other, **indeed,** there is no reason not to do this. **However, perhaps he** might first **perform *ḥalitza*** with one wife **and subsequently consummate levirate marriage** with the other, **and** by doing so **he is liable for** a violation of the prohibition **of: “He does not build** his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9). The verse indicates that one who performs *ḥalitza* has not built his brother’s house and is therefore subsequently prohibited from attempting to do so by consummating a levirate marriage with either the *ḥalutza* or any of her rival wives.


###### Yevamot 44a:10
[Yevamot 44a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:10)

וְאֵימָא: כִּי אִיכָּא חֲדָא — תִּתְקַיֵּים מִצְוַת יִבּוּם, כִּי אִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי — לֹא תִּתְקַיֵּים מִצְוַת יִבּוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks. **But** since the Torah’s description of levirate marriage mentions only a case in which the deceased brother had only one wife, **say: When there is only one** wife, **the mitzva of levirate marriage exists,** but **when there are two** wives, **the mitzva of levirate marriage does not exist.**


###### Yevamot 44a:11
[Yevamot 44a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:11)

אִם כֵּן, צָרַת עֶרְוָה דְּאָסַר רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא תַּרְתֵּי בְּעָלְמָא אָמְרַתְּ לָאו בְּנֵי חֲלִיצָה וְיִבּוּם נִינְהוּ — צָרַת עֶרְוָה מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a proof: **If** that were **so, why do I** need the *halakha* concerning **a rival wife of a forbidden relation, which is forbidden by the Merciful One** in the Torah? **Now** that even in the case of **two** women in **general,** where neither woman is a forbidden relation, **you say** that **they are not eligible for *ḥalitza* and levirate marriage, is it necessary** to say **a rival wife of a forbidden relation** is also forbidden? The fact that the Torah does prohibit a rival wife of a forbidden relation indicates that the mitzva of levirate marriage does exist in a general case of two wives in which neither is a forbidden relation.


###### Yevamot 44a:12
[Yevamot 44a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:12)

אַלְּמָה לָא? אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: עֶרְוָה אַבָּרַאי קָיְימָא, וְתִתְיַיבֵּם צָרָתַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲסִירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Why not?** Even if one assumes that there is no mitzva of levirate marriage when the deceased brother had two wives, **it is** still **necessary** to teach the *halakha* concerning a rival wife of a forbidden relation because it could **enter your mind to say** that since there is no possibility of consummating the levirate marriage with her, **the forbidden relation stands outside** the calculation such that her presence is disregarded, **and her rival wife should enter into levirate marriage** as though she were the only wife. Therefore, the verse needs to **teach us that** the rival wife **is forbidden.**


###### Yevamot 44a:13
[Yevamot 44a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:13)

אֶלָּא: ״יְבִמְתּוֹ״ ״יְבִמְתּוֹ״ — רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the repeated use of the phrase **“his *yevama*,” “his *yevama*”** in the verses concerning levirate marriage **amplifies** the mitzva of levirate marriage so that it applies even when the deceased brother had more than one wife.


###### Yevamot 44a:14
[Yevamot 44a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:14)

הָיְתָה אַחַת כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי: לֹא יִשְׁפּוֹךְ אָדָם מֵי בוֹרוֹ, וַאֲחֵרִים צְרִיכִים לָהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: If **one** of these wives of the deceased brother **was fit** for the priesthood and one was unfit, *ḥalitza* should not be performed with the fit woman since doing so would needlessly disqualify her from the priesthood. **Rav Yosef said** that **here,** through this mishna, **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **taught** the principle that one should not perform an action that will needlessly disadvantage others, and so **a person should not spill out water** collected in **his pit** that he does not need **when others are in need of it.**


###### Yevamot 44a:15
[Yevamot 44a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּחְזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ, וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא חֲלוּצָתוֹ, וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ — יוֹצִיא, וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who remarries his divorcée** after she had been married to another man from whom she was then widowed or divorced, **or one who marries the woman with whom he performed *ḥalitza* [*ḥalutza*], or one who marries a relative of his *ḥalutza*,** since all such marriages are forbidden he **must divorce** her, **and the offspring** born from such unions **is a *mamzer*;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva.** He holds that even the offspring from relations forbidden by a prohibition punishable by lashes is a *mamzer*.


###### Yevamot 44a:16
[Yevamot 44a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:16)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּמוֹדִים בְּנוֹשֵׂא קְרוֹבַת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ — שֶׁהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Rabbis say: The offspring** in those cases **is not a *mamzer*, but they concede with regard to one who marries a relative of his divorcée,** a union forbidden by a prohibition entailing *karet*, **that the offspring is a *mamzer*.** They hold that only the offspring from relations forbidden by a prohibition entailing *karet* is a *mamzer*.


###### Yevamot 44a:17
[Yevamot 44a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:17)

**גְּמָ׳** וְסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הַנּוֹשֵׂא קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר? וְהָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי: אֲחוֹת גְּרוּשָׁה מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֲחוֹת חֲלוּצָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים! תְּנִי: קְרוֹבַת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **But does Rabbi Akiva** actually **hold** that with regard to **one who marries a relative of his *ḥalutza*, the offspring is a *mamzer*? Didn’t Reish Lakish say** that through the mishna **here, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **taught** that **a sister of** one’s **divorcée** is forbidden **by Torah law** whereas **a sister of** one’s ***ḥalutza*** is forbidden **by rabbinic law?** If a relative of one’s *ḥalutza* is forbidden by rabbinic law, how can the offspring of that union be a *mamzer*? The Gemara concedes: Emend the mishna and **teach** instead: **A relative of his divorcée.**


###### Yevamot 44a:18
[Yevamot 44a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:18)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וּמוֹדִים בְּנוֹשֵׂא קְרוֹבַת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ שֶׁהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אַיְירִי בָּהּ — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״וּמוֹדִים״. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא אַיְירִי בַּהּ, מַאי ״וּמוֹדִים״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **So, too, it is reasonable** that this is the correct version of the mishna, as **the latter clause teaches: But they concede** in the case of **one who marries a relative of his divorcée that the offspring is a *mamzer*. Granted, if you say** that Rabbi Akiva **was talking about that** case, **this is** consistent with **that which** the mishna **teaches: They concede,** which implies that they agree to a case already mentioned. **However, if you say** that he **was not talking about that** case, **what** could the phrase: **They concede,** possibly be referring to?


###### Yevamot 44a:19
[Yevamot 44a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:19)

וְדִלְמָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּיֵשׁ מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת. הָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ לְקַמַּן: אֵיזֶהוּ מַמְזֵר — כׇּל שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר שֶׁהוּא בְּ״לֹא יָבֹא״ — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. וַהֲלָכָה כִּדְבָרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But perhaps this** phrase **teaches us that** the Rabbis concede **that** the offspring **from** forbidden relations for which one **is liable to** receive ***karet* is a *mamzer*.** The Gemara rejects this option: **This is already taught later on** in a mishna (49a): **Which** offspring of forbidden relations has the status of **a *mamzer*?** It is the offspring of a union with **any next of kin that is subject to** a Torah prohibition that one **should not engage in sexual relations** with them; this is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon HaTimni says:** It is the offspring of a union with **any** forbidden relative **for which one is liable to** receive ***karet* at the hand of Heaven. And** the ***halakha* is in accordance with his statement.** Since the mishna explicitly rules in accordance with Rabbi Shimon HaTimni, it would be unnecessary for the mishna here to teach that fact.


###### Yevamot 44a:20
[Yevamot 44a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:20)

וְדִלְמָא קָסָתֵים לַן תַּנָּא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי. אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנֵי שְׁאָר חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת, קְרוֹבַת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַיְירִי בַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara persists: **But perhaps the *tanna* taught us as unattributed** a mishna that is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon HaTimni** to indicate that this is indeed the accepted *halakha*. The Gemara rejects this: **If so,** then **let him teach other** cases of forbidden relations **for which one is liable to** receive ***karet*; why do I** need the mishna to specifically consider the case of **a relative of** one’s **divorcée? Rather, conclude from this** that Rabbi Akiva indeed **was talking about that** case.


###### Yevamot 44a:21
[Yevamot 44a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:21)

[וְדִלְמָא] לְעוֹלָם לָא אַיְירִי בַּהּ, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא מַחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ וְנוֹשֵׂא חֲלוּצָתוֹ וּקְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ — תָּנֵי נָמֵי קְרוֹבַת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara persists: **But perhaps he was not actually talking about that** case, **but since** Rabbi Akiva **taught** the cases of **one who remarries his divorcée, or one who marries his *ḥalutza* or a relative of his *ḥalutza*,** the mishna **also taught** in the name of the Rabbis the case of one who marries **a relative of his divorcée** because it is a similar case. The Gemara concedes that this would be an acceptable reading of the mishna.


###### Yevamot 44a:22
[Yevamot 44a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:22)

אֶלָּא: קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הָוֵי מַמְזֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנַּעַל״, הַכָּתוּב קְרָאוֹ ״בֵּיתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna should not be emended, and with regard to the Gemara’s original question as to how Rabbi Akiva could claim that the offspring from one’s union with a relative of his *ḥalutza* is a *mamzer* if that union is forbidden only by rabbinic law, one must conclude that **a relative of one’s *ḥalutza*** is forbidden by Torah law **according to Rabbi Akiva** and therefore the offspring **is a *mamzer*. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that **this is Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning: As the verse states: “The house of he who had his shoe removed”** (Deuteronomy 25:10). **The verse called** his relationship with the *ḥalutza* **his house,** indicating that the *ḥalutza* is considered as though she had been married to the *yavam*, and therefore her relative is forbidden to him by Torah law.


###### Yevamot 44a:23
[Yevamot 44a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44a:23)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּמַחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said** that **Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: All agree in** the case of **one who remarries his divorcée**