## Yevamot Daf 54b

###### Yevamot 54b:1
[Yevamot 54b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:1)

בְּיוֹמֵי תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא. אֵשֶׁת אָח — בְּבָנִים תְּלָא רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the matter depends upon days,** not blood. Although the flow of blood causes her to become impure, she remains impure for a full seven days regardless of whether she continues to experience menstrual bleeding for the duration of that time period. Similarly, in the case of **a brother’s wife, the Merciful One makes** her forbidden status **dependent upon children,** as, if she has children she remains forbidden to her husband’s brother even after her husband dies.


###### Yevamot 54b:2
[Yevamot 54b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:2)

אֶלָּא פָּרֵיךְ הָכִי: מָה לְנִדָּה וְאֵשֶׁת אָח שֶׁכֵּן אֵין אוֹסְרָן מַתִּירָן. תֹּאמַר בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁאוֹסְרָהּ מַתִּירָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara **refutes** the derivation in the following manner: **What** comparison can be drawn from **a menstruating woman and a brother’s wife, which** are unique in **that** what **renders them prohibited does not render them permitted?** Each becomes permitted due to an external factor, i.e., the passing of seven days or the death of her childless husband. **Can you say** that the *halakhot* of these cases apply **to a married woman,** whose prohibited status is different **in that the one who renders her prohibited** to the rest of the world, i.e., her husband, has the capacity to **render her permitted** through divorce?


###### Yevamot 54b:3
[Yevamot 54b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת״ — הוּקְּשׁוּ כׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת כּוּלָּן לְנִדָּה: מָה נִדָּה בְּהַעֲרָאָה, אַף כֹּל בְּהַעֲרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara offers another source for the *halakha* that the initial stage of intercourse is considered sexual intercourse. **Rabbi Yona said, and some say** it was **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: The verse states** at the end of the chapter on forbidden relations: **“For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be cut off”** (Leviticus 18:29). **All those with whom relations are forbidden are compared** to each other in this verse, and therefore also **to a menstruating woman,** who is mentioned in that chapter. Consequently, **just as** one is liable to receive punishment for having sexual intercourse with **a menstruating woman** from the time of **the initial stage of intercourse, so too,** one violates **all** prohibitions against engaging in forbidden relations from the time of **the initial stage of intercourse.**


###### Yevamot 54b:4
[Yevamot 54b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:4)

וְאֶלָּא ״נִדָּה״ דִּכְתִיבָא גַּבֵּי אֵשֶׁת אָח לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב הוּנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: רֶמֶז לִיבָמָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, מִנַּיִן?! הָא כְּתִיב: ״יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ״! אֶלָּא: רֶמֶז לִיבָמָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **But** if that is the source of this *halakha*, **why do I need** the term ***nidda* that is written with regard to a brother’s wife?** The Gemara answers that it is needed **for that which Rav Huna** taught, **as Rav Huna said: From where in the Torah** is there **a hint to** the *halakha* of **a *yevama*?** The Gemara expresses surprise: **From where? Isn’t it written** explicitly in the verse **“Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her”** (Deuteronomy 25:5)? **Rather,** Rav Huna meant to say: **From where** is there **a hint that a *yevama* is forbidden** to her brother-in-law **in her husband’s lifetime,** even after she is divorced from her husband?


###### Yevamot 54b:5
[Yevamot 54b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:5)

הַאי סְבָרָא הִיא: מִדְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא לְאַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ שָׁרְיָא, מִכְּלָל דִּבְחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ אֲסוּרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara remains puzzled: No proof is needed for this *halakha* either, as **this is** based upon **logical reasoning: From** the fact **that the Merciful One says** the woman **is permitted** to her brother-in-law **after her husband’s death it may be inferred that in her husband’s lifetime she is forbidden** to him.


###### Yevamot 54b:6
[Yevamot 54b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:6)

וְדִלְמָא: לְאַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ מִצְוָה, בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ רְשׁוּת? אִי נָמֵי: לְאַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ אִין, בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ לָא, וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה — עֲשֵׂה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this argument: **Perhaps after her husband’s death** it is **a mitzva** for her brother-in-law to marry her, whereas **during her husband’s lifetime** their marriage is **optional. Alternatively,** perhaps **after her husband’s death, yes,** she is permitted to him, while **during her husband’s lifetime, no,** they are not permitted to marry, but there is no punishment of *karet* if they do. This is because the source of the prohibition is the mitzva for them to marry after the husband’s death, **and a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva** has the status of **a positive mitzva,** but nothing more.


###### Yevamot 54b:7
[Yevamot 54b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:7)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו נִדָּה הִיא״, וְכִי אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו נִדָּה הִיא? אֶלָּא כְּנִדָּה: מָה נִדָּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר לְאַחַר מִכָּאן — בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּרָהּ בְּכָרֵת, אַף אֵשֶׁת אָח [נָמֵי], אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר לְאַחַר מִכָּאן — בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ בְּכָרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states: “And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is impurity [*nidda*]”** (Leviticus 20:21). **Is his brother’s wife** necessarily **a menstruating woman [*nidda*]? Rather,** she is **like a menstruating woman** in the following manner: **Just as** with regard to **a menstruating woman, although she has a permitted** stage **afterward, at the time** that she is **forbidden,** one who has intercourse with her is liable **to** receive the punishment of ***karet*, so too,** with regard to **a brother’s wife, although she has a permitted** stage **afterward, during her husband’s lifetime** marriage to her brother-in-law is punishable **by *karet*.**


###### Yevamot 54b:8
[Yevamot 54b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:8)

אֶלָּא: הַעֲרָאָה דִּכְתִיבָא גַּבֵּי אָחוֹת אָב וַאֲחוֹת אֵם, לְמָה לִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if the source of the *halakha* that the initial stage of intercourse is considered sexual intercourse is as stated above, **why do I need** this *halakha* to be indicated by the word *he’era* (Leviticus 20:19) in the case of **a father’s sister and a mother’s sister?**


###### Yevamot 54b:9
[Yevamot 54b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:9)

לִכְדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבִינָא מֵרָבָא: הַמְעָרֶה בִּזְכוּר מַהוּ? בִּזְכוּר — ״מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה״ כְּתִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that it is needed **for the dilemma that Ravina raised before Rava:** With regard to **one who performs the initial stage of intercourse with** another **male, what is** the *halakha*? Is it considered to be a forbidden act of homosexual intercourse? The Gemara is puzzled by this dilemma: **With regard to a male, it is written** explicitly: “You shall not lie with a man **as with a woman”** (Leviticus 18:22), which indicates that anything considered an act of sexual intercourse with a woman is also considered an act of sexual intercourse with a man.


###### Yevamot 54b:10
[Yevamot 54b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:10)

אֶלָּא: הַמְעָרֶה בִּבְהֵמָה, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְהַעֲרָאָה, דִּכְתִיבָא גַּבֵּי אֲחוֹת אָב וַאֲחוֹת אֵם, דְּאָתְיָא בְּהֶקֵּישָׁא מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹנָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְהַעֲרָאָה דִבְהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the word *he’era* in the case of a father’s sister and a mother’s sister is needed to resolve the following dilemma: With regard to **one** who **performs the initial stage of intercourse with an animal, what is** the *halakha*? Rava **said to** Ravina: **If** the word *he’era* **does not** refer **to the matter of the initial stage of intercourse** in the context **where it is written,** i.e., the prohibition with regard to **a father’s sister and a mother’s sister, as** this *halakha* **is derived from a comparison based upon** the statement of **Rabbi Yona, refer it to the matter of the initial stage of intercourse** with **an animal.** The superfluous expression written in the case of a father’s sister and a mother’s sister teaches that the initial stage of intercourse is considered sexual intercourse even with an animal.


###### Yevamot 54b:11
[Yevamot 54b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:11)

מִכְּדֵי בְּהֵמָה חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין הִיא, מַאי טַעְמָא כְּתִיב לְהַעֲרָאָה דִּידַהּ גַּבֵּי חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת? לִכְתּוֹב גַּבֵּי מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין, וְנֵילַף מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין מִמִּיתַת בֵּית דִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Since** intercourse with **an animal is** a prohibition for which one is **liable to** receive **capital punishment from the court, what is the reason** that the *halakha* of **the initial stage of intercourse** that applies to **it is written with regard to** the prohibitions proscribing a father’s sister and a mother’s sister, for which one is **liable to** receive ***karet*? Let** the word *he’era* **be written with regard to** prohibitions for which one is liable to receive **capital punishment from the court, and let us derive** the *halakha* with regard to a prohibition punishable by **capital punishment from the court,** i.e., the case of bestiality, **from** another prohibition punishable by **capital punishment from the court.**


###### Yevamot 54b:12
[Yevamot 54b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:12)

אַיְּידֵי דְּכוּלֵּיהּ קְרָא לִדְרָשָׁא אָתֵי, כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ נָמֵי הָא מִילְּתָא לִדְרָשָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Since the entire verse** of a father’s sister and a mother’s sister **comes for** the purpose of **an exposition,** as the Gemara is about to explain, **this matter,** i.e., that the initial stage of intercourse is considered intercourse, **is also written for** the purpose of **an exposition,** i.e., to indicate that this principle holds true in a different context, i.e., that of bestiality.


###### Yevamot 54b:13
[Yevamot 54b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:13)

מַאי דְּרָשָׁא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה״, בֵּין מִן הָאָב, בֵּין מִן הָאֵם. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the **exposition** that the rest of the verse introduces? **As it is taught in a** *baraita*, the verse **“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister”** (Leviticus 18:12) indicates that the prohibition applies **whether** she is your father’s sister **from** his **father, or from** his **mother. Do you say** that she is forbidden **whether** she is your father’s sister **from** his **father or from** his **mother, or** perhaps **it is only** a sister **from** his **father** who is forbidden, **but not from** his **mother?**


###### Yevamot 54b:14
[Yevamot 54b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:14)

וְדִין הוּא: חַיָּיב כָּאן וְחַיָּיב בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ, מָה אֲחוֹתוֹ — בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם, אַף כָּאן — בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It** may be inferred **logically** from the fact that the Torah **rendered him liable here and rendered him liable with his sister: Just as** with regard to **his sister** he is liable to receive punishment **whether** she is his sister **from** his **father or from** his **mother, so too here,** he is liable **whether** she is his father’s sister **from** his **father or from** his **mother.**


###### Yevamot 54b:15
[Yevamot 54b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:15)

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: חַיָּיב כָּאן וְחַיָּיב בְּדוֹדָתוֹ, מָה דּוֹדָתוֹ — מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם, אַף כָּאן — מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or** perhaps **go this way** and compare a father’s sister and a mother’s sister to a different *halakha*: The Torah **rendered him liable here and rendered him liable with his aunt,** i.e., the wife of his father’s brother: **Just as** concerning **his aunt,** he is liable to receive punishment only with regard to the wife of his father’s brother **from** his **father,** i.e., the wife of his father’s paternal brother, **and not** for the wife of his father’s brother **from** his **mother,** i.e., the wife of his father’s maternal brother, **so too here,** he is liable only with regard to a father’s sister or a mother’s sister **from** their **father,** i.e., a paternal sister, **and not from** their **mother,** a maternal sister.


###### Yevamot 54b:16
[Yevamot 54b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:16)

נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה? דָּנִין אִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו מֵאִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ דּוֹדָתוֹ, שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes these two possibilities: **Let us see to which** case **it is** more **similar,** i.e., which is a better comparison. **We** should **derive** the *halakha* with regard to **a prohibition that comes on its own,** i.e., a father’s sister and a mother’s sister, **from a prohibition that** also **comes on its own,** i.e., a sister, **and** the *halakha* with regard to **his aunt cannot** be used to **prove** otherwise, **as** it is **not a prohibition that comes on its own,** but through marriage.


###### Yevamot 54b:17
[Yevamot 54b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:17)

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זֶה: דָּנִין קְרוֹבֵי הָאָב מִקְּרוֹבֵי הָאָב, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁקְּרוֹבֵי עַצְמוֹ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters this argument: **Or** perhaps **go this way** and claim that **we** should **derive** the *halakha* with regard to **the relatives of** his **father,** i.e., his father’s sister, **from the** *halakha* with regard to **the relatives of** his **father,** i.e., his father’s brother’s wife, **and** the case of **his sister cannot** be used to **prove** otherwise, **as** she is **his own relative.** Consequently, there is no conclusive proof based on reasoning alone.


###### Yevamot 54b:18
[Yevamot 54b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:18)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה״ — בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם. ״עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹת אִמְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה״ — בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore **the verse states: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister,”** which teaches that this prohibition applies **whether** she is your father’s sister **from** his **father or from** his **mother.** Similarly, the verse **“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister”** indicates that the prohibition applies **whether** she is your mother’s sister **from** her **father or from** her **mother.** These prohibitions are stated twice (Leviticus 18:12–13 and 20:19), and the superfluous verse indicates that the prohibition applies even to the maternal sister of one’s father or mother.


###### Yevamot 54b:19
[Yevamot 54b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:19)

לְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב בַּאֲחוֹת אָב, לְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב בַּאֲחוֹת אֵם? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בַּאֲחוֹת אָב, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לָהּ חַיִיס, אֲבָל אֲחוֹת אֵם — אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the Torah **to write** this *halakha* **with regard to a father’s sister,** and **why do I** need the Torah **to write** it again **with regard to a mother’s sister? Rabbi Abbahu said:** Both verses **are necessary. If the Merciful One had written** this *halakha* only **with regard to** one’s **father’s sister,** one might say that it is limited to that case, **as she has** common **lineage** with her nephew, since lineage goes through one’s father. **However,** with regard to one’s **mother’s sister** you might **say** that she is **not** prohibited, as she is not considered to share common lineage with him.


###### Yevamot 54b:20
[Yevamot 54b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:20)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בַּאֲחוֹת אֵם — שֶׁכֵּן וַדָּאִית, אֲבָל אֲחוֹת אָב — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if the Merciful One had written** this *halakha* only **with regard to** one’s **mother’s sister,** one might say that it is limited to that case, **as she is certainly** his relative, since one’s biological relationship with his mother is absolutely certain. **However,** with regard to one’s **father’s sister,** one might **say no,** that she is not forbidden, as paternity can never be established beyond doubt. It is therefore **necessary** for this *halakha* to be stated in both cases.


###### Yevamot 54b:21
[Yevamot 54b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:21)

וְדוֹדָתוֹ, דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא דְּמִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם, מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **his aunt, where it is obvious to the *tanna*** that the prohibition includes only the wife of his father’s brother **from** his **father and not from** his **mother, from where does he** derive this *halakha*?


###### Yevamot 54b:22
[Yevamot 54b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:22)

אָמַר רָבָא: אָתְיָא ״דּוֹדוֹ״ ״דּוֹדוֹ״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״עֶרְוַת דֹּדוֹ גִּלָּה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״אוֹ דֹדוֹ אוֹ בֶן דֹּדוֹ יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״, מָה לְהַלָּן — מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם, אַף כָּאן — מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** It is **derived** through a verbal analogy between the terms **“his uncle”** and **“his uncle.” It is written here: “He has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness”** (Leviticus 20:20), **and it is written there,** with regard to the redemption of a Jew who has been sold to a gentile: **“Either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall redeem him”** (Leviticus 25:49). **Just as there,** in the case of redemption, it must be a relative **from the** side of his **father and not from the** side of his **mother, so too here,** with regard to forbidden relations, the prohibition applies to the wife of his father’s brother **from** his **father,** i.e., the wife of his father’s paternal brother, **and not from** his **mother.**


###### Yevamot 54b:23
[Yevamot 54b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:23)

וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״, מִשְׁפַּחַת אָב קְרוּיָה מִשְׁפָּחָה, מִשְׁפַּחַת אֵם אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה מִשְׁפָּחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And there,** with regard to the *halakhot* of redemption, **from where do we** derive that a maternal relative is not included? **The verse states:** “Or any that is near of kin to him **of his family shall redeem him”** (Leviticus 25:49), and it is an established principle that only **the family of** one’s **father is called family,** while **the family of** one’s **mother is not called family,** as lineage is determined based upon one’s father.


###### Yevamot 54b:24
[Yevamot 54b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:24)

וְהָדִתְנַן: אָמְרוּ לוֹ מֵתָה אִשְׁתְּךָ וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ, מֵתָה וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ, מֵתָה וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ, מֵתָה וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna: If **they said to him: Your wife is dead, and he** then **married her sister from her father.** He was subsequently informed that his second wife **died, and he married her sister from her mother,** i.e., his second wife’s maternal sister. He was then informed that his third wife **died, and he married her sister from her father,** i.e., his third wife’s paternal sister. He was then informed that his fourth wife **died, and he married her sister from her mother,** i.e., his fourth wife’s maternal sister. It later became apparent that all these rumors were unfounded and all the women were still alive. Consequently, since one cannot marry his wife’s sister during his wife’s lifetime, some of the marriages are void.


###### Yevamot 54b:25
[Yevamot 54b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:25)

מוּתָּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁית וּבַחֲמִישִׁית, וּפוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבָרְבִיעִית, וְאֵין בִּיאַת אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *halakha* in this case is that it is **permitted** for him to marry his **first, third, and fifth** wives, as they are not related to each other. Consequently, these marriages are valid, **and** these women **exempt their rival wives** from levirate marriage if they all became subject to levirate marriage and one of them performed levirate marriage or *ḥalitza*. However, it is **prohibited** for him to marry his **second and fourth** wives, as they are both sisters of one of his previous wives, and their marriages are therefore void. Consequently, **sexual intercourse** between **one of them** and his brother, if he has died childless, **does not exempt her rival wife,** i.e., the real wives of the deceased, from levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 54b:26
[Yevamot 54b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/54b:26)

וְאִם בָּא עַל הַשְּׁנִיָּה לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, מוּתָּר בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבָרְבִיעִית, וּפוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן, וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית וּבַחֲמִישִׁית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the first wife indeed died, **and he had intercourse with the second** woman **after the death of the first** one, it is **permitted** for him to marry **the second and fourth** women, who are not related to each other, **and they exempt their rival wives** from levirate marriage if they perform levirate marriage or *ḥalitza*, **and** it is **prohibited** for him to marry **the third and fifth** women, as they are sisters of his previous wives, who are still alive, and consequently these marriages are void.