## Yevamot Daf 96a

###### Yevamot 96a:1
[Yevamot 96a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:1)

וְדִלְמָא אַ״אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל״?! אִי נָמֵי: מִמַּאי דְּאִיתַהּ לִדְרַב הוּנָא? דִּלְמָא לֵיתַהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא כְּלָל, וּבִדְרַב הַמְנוּנָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁזִּינְּתָה — אֲסוּרָה לִיבָמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But perhaps** Shmuel’s ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is referring to the ruling that **he does not disqualify** his brother-in-law’s wife to his brother-in-law, in a case where his wife and brother-in-law left. **Alternatively,** the contradiction can be resolved in the following manner: **From where** do we know **that there is** a reason **to** accept the explanation of **Rav Huna** with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel? **Perhaps there is no** cause to agree with **Rav Huna at all, and** it can be explained that Rav and Shmuel **disagree with regard to** the statement **of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A widow waiting for her *yavam* who engaged in licentious sexual relations is forbidden to her *yavam*.**


###### Yevamot 96a:2
[Yevamot 96a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:2)

דְּרַב אָמַר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וּמִיפַּסְלָא בִּזְנוּת. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵינָהּ כְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְלָא מִיפַּסְלָא בִּזְנוּת. וְאִי נָמֵי, בְּקִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בִּיבָמָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַב אָמַר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְלָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵינָהּ כְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְתָפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to this interpretation, the dispute is as follows: **As Rav said, she is like a married woman and she is** therefore **disqualified by licentious sexual relations. And Shmuel said** that **she is not like a married woman and is not disqualified by licentious sexual relations. And alternatively,** one can explain **that** Rav and Shmuel **disagree with regard to** the issue of whether **betrothal takes effect with a *yevama*: As Rav said, she is like a married woman** with regard to all men other than her *yavam*, **and** therefore **betrothal** performed by anyone else **does not take effect with her. And Shmuel said** that **she is not like a married woman, and** this means that **betrothal does take effect with her.**


###### Yevamot 96a:3
[Yevamot 96a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:3)

וְהָא אִפְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא? חֲדָא מִכְּלָל דַּחֲבֶרְתַּהּ אִיתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to this last answer: How can the dispute be explained in this manner? **But** Rav and Shmuel already **disagreed over this once.** The Sages would certainly not record the same dispute twice. The Gemara answers: It is possible that they did not in fact disagree twice with regard to the same case. Rather, **one** ruling **was stated by inference from the other.** In other words, their dispute was recorded in two different ways, the second time by inference from their original dispute.


###### Yevamot 96a:4
[Yevamot 96a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״מֵתָה אִשְׁתְּךָ״, וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ. מֵתָה, וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ. מֵתָה, וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ. מֵתָה, וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ, וְנִמְצְאוּ כּוּלָּן קַיָּימוֹת — מוּתָּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁית וּבַחֲמִישִׁית, וּפוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Witnesses **said to** a husband: **Your wife is dead, and he married her paternal sister,** and witnesses subsequently told him that his second wife **was dead and he married her maternal sister;** afterward witnesses said that this one too **was dead and he married her paternal sister;** finally they told him that she **was dead and he married** the last woman’s **maternal sister, and** then **they were all discovered to be alive.** In this case he is **permitted to** his **first** wife, **and to the third and to the fifth.** Since these women are not sisters, his betrothal to them is effective. Consequently, if he died **and** one of them entered into levirate marriage, **they exempt their rival wives.**


###### Yevamot 96a:5
[Yevamot 96a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:5)

וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבָרְבִיעִית, וְאֵין בִּיאַת אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** he is **forbidden to the second and fourth** wife, each of whom is the sister of his original wife. Therefore, if he passed away **and** the *yavam* had relations with one of them, his **relations with** any **one of them does not exempt her rival wife,** as she was forbidden to his brother, which means there was no mitzva of levirate marriage here at all.


###### Yevamot 96a:6
[Yevamot 96a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:6)

וְאִם בָּא עַל הַשְּׁנִיָּה לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — מוּתָּר בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבָרְבִיעִית, וּפוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן, וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית וּבַחֲמִישִׁית, וְאֵין בִּיאַת אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if he had relations with the second** woman in the aforementioned list **after the death of the first,** i.e., the first one indeed died but the other rumors were all false, in that case he is **permitted to the second and the fourth,** who are his lawful wives, **and they exempt their rival wives, and** he is **forbidden to the third and the fifth,** the sisters of the women married to him, **and the sexual relations** of the brother **with** any **one of them does not exempt her rival wife.**


###### Yevamot 96a:7
[Yevamot 96a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:7)

בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — הוּא פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אַחִין, וְהָאַחִין פּוֹסְלִין עַל יָדוֹ. אֶלָּא הוּא פּוֹסֵל תְּחִלָּה, וְהָאַחִין פּוֹסְלִין תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna addresses a different issue: If a boy **aged nine years and one day** had relations with his *yevama* **he** thereby **disqualifies** his **brothers** from levirate marriage, despite the fact that as a minor he has not acquired the *yevama* through this act of intercourse, **and the brothers** likewise **disqualify** the woman from **him** if they have intercourse with the *yevama*. **However,** there is a difference between them, as **he disqualifies** them only if he engaged in relations with her **first, and the brothers disqualify** him whether they had relations **first or last.**


###### Yevamot 96a:8
[Yevamot 96a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:8)

כֵּיצַד? בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ — פָּסַל עַל יְדֵי אַחִין. בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ אַחִין וְעָשׂוּ בָּהּ מַאֲמָר, נָתְנוּ גֵּט אוֹ חָלְצוּ — פּוֹסְלִין עַל יָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna explains: **How so?** A boy **aged nine years and one day who had relations with his *yevama* has disqualified his brothers,** as they are no longer eligible to marry her. If his **brothers had relations with her,** or **performed levirate betrothal with her,** or **gave** her **a bill of divorce, or performed *ḥalitza* with her, they** permanently **disqualify him** from engaging in relations with her.


###### Yevamot 96a:9
[Yevamot 96a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ לָאו לְאַחַר מִיתַת רִאשׁוֹנָה נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְאַחַר מִיתַת רִאשׁוֹנָה וַדַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna states: And if he had relations with the second after the death of the first. The Gemara asks: **Is that to say** that **all of them,** all the other cases in the mishna, **are not** dealing with a situation **after the death of the first** woman? The entire case starts with the report: Your wife is dead. **Rav Sheshet said: After the definite death of the first one.** In other words, the mishna means that this did not follow a mere rumor that she was dead, but it was positively established that she had actually died.


###### Yevamot 96a:10
[Yevamot 96a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:10)

בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְכוּ׳. בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, תְּחִלָּה פָּסֵיל בְּסוֹף לָא פָּסֵיל? וְהָתָנֵי רַב זְבִיד בַּר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָעוֹשֶׂה מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא אָחִיו שֶׁהוּא בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד עָלֶיהָ — פְּסָלָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that a boy **aged nine years** and one day who had relations with his *yevama* has disqualified her from his brothers. Throughout this discussion, whenever the Gemara refers to a nine-year-old boy, it is understood that he is actually nine years and one day old. The Gemara asks: Does a boy **aged nine years and one day disqualify** her to the brothers only if he had relations with her **first,** but if he had relations **last he does not disqualify** them? **But didn’t Rav Zevid bar Rav Oshaya teach: One who performs levirate betrothal with his *yevama*, and afterward his brother, who is nine years and one day old, had relations with her, he has disqualified her.** This indicates that the intercourse of a nine-year-old disqualifies his brother even if it occurred after that of his brother.


###### Yevamot 96a:11
[Yevamot 96a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:11)

אָמְרִי: בִּיאָה — פָּסֵיל אֲפִילּוּ בְּסוֹף, מַאֲמָר — תְּחִלָּה פָּסֵיל, בְּסוֹף לָא פָּסֵיל. וּבִיאָה אֲפִילּוּ בְּסוֹף פָּסֵיל? וְהָא קָתָנֵי: אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל תְּחִלָּה, וְהֵן תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף. כֵּיצַד? בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ וְכוּ׳!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They say** in response: The **intercourse** of a nine-year-old **disqualifies** his brothers **even** if it happens **last;** however, in the case of a boy who merely performed **levirate betrothal** with her, if he did so **first he disqualifies** his brothers, whereas if he was **last, he does not disqualify** his brothers. The Gemara asks: **And** do the **sexual relations** of a nine-year-old **disqualify** his brothers **even** when performed **last? But isn’t it taught** in the mishna: **However, he disqualifies** them only if he was **first, and the brothers disqualify** him whether they were **first or last. How so?** A boy **aged nine years and one day who had relations with his *yevama*** has disqualified his brothers. The example the mishna uses for a boy who disqualifies his brothers first is an act of intercourse.


###### Yevamot 96a:12
[Yevamot 96a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:12)

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — הוּא פּוֹסֵל תְּחִלָּה, וְהֵן פּוֹסְלִין תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמַאֲמָר, אֲבָל בִּיאָה פּוֹסֶלֶת אֲפִילּוּ בַּסּוֹף. כֵּיצַד: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הַבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ — פָּסַל עַל יְדֵי אַחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna **is incomplete and this** is what **it is teaching:** With regard to a boy **aged nine years and one day, he disqualifies** his brothers **first, and they disqualify** him **first and last. In what** case **is this statement said?** This is said **with regard to levirate betrothal,** i.e., if they performed levirate betrothal with her. **However,** if the minor had **relations** with her, he **disqualifies** them **even** if he did so **last. How so?** If a boy **aged nine years and one day had relations with his *yevama*** after his brother performed levirate betrothal with her, he **has disqualified** his **brothers.**


###### Yevamot 96a:13
[Yevamot 96a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:13)

וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ מַאֲמָר כְּלָל עַל יְדֵי אַחִין? וְהָתַנְיָא: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, הוּא פּוֹסֵל בְּדָבָר אֶחָד, וְהָאַחִין פּוֹסְלִין עַל יָדוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים. הוּא פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אַחִין בְּבִיאָה, וְהָאַחִין פּוֹסְלִין עַל יָדוֹ בְּבִיאָה, בְּמַאֲמָר, בְּגֵט, בַּחֲלִיצָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does** a nine-year-old boy **have** the ability to perform **levirate betrothal at all** that would have any effect **with regard to** the eligibility of his brothers in levirate marriage? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a boy **aged nine years and one day, he disqualifies** the *yevama* to his brothers **in one way, and the brothers disqualify him in four ways.** How so? **He disqualifies the brothers by relations,** i.e., the *yevama* is forbidden to the other brothers if she has sexual relations with him, **and the brothers disqualify him by relations, by levirate betrothal, by a bill of divorce, and by *ḥalitza*.** The *tanna* does not mention the levirate betrothal of a minor at all.


###### Yevamot 96a:14
[Yevamot 96a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:14)

בִּיאָה דְּפָסְלָה בֵּין בִּתְחִלָּה בֵּין בְּסוֹף — פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ, מַאֲמָר דְּבִתְחִילָּה פָּסֵיל, בְּסוֹף לָא פָּסֵיל — לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: No proof can be derived from that source, as with regard to the **sexual relations** of a minor, **which disqualifies** his brothers **whether** it came **first or last,** the *tanna* can teach a **definite** ruling, i.e., he can state this *halakha* in an unambiguous and unqualified manner. Conversely, with regard to the **levirate betrothal** of a minor, **which** if it occurred **first disqualifies** his brothers but if it happened **last,** after one of the brothers performed levirate marriage with her, it **does not disqualify** them, the *tanna* **cannot** teach it in a **definite** and unqualified manner, but would have to elaborate and explain the precise circumstances. Therefore he omitted this case entirely.


###### Yevamot 96a:15
[Yevamot 96a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:15)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: יֵשׁ לוֹ גֵּט. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבִימִי: יֵשׁ לוֹ מַאֲמָר. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: יֵשׁ לוֹ גֵּט, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ מַאֲמָר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was also stated** by other *amora’im*: **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** A minor boy **has** the ability to give **a bill of divorce** in the case of a *yevama*, i.e., if he gave her a bill of divorce he has disqualified her to his brothers. **And similarly Rav Taḥalifa bar Avimi said: He has** the ability to perform **levirate betrothal.** The Gemara comments: **This is also taught** in a *baraita*: A minor **has** the ability to give **a bill of divorce and he has** the ability to perform **levirate betrothal;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Yevamot 96a:16
[Yevamot 96a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:16)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר יֵשׁ לוֹ גֵּט? וְהָתַנְיָא: עָשׂוּ בִּיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע כְּמַאֲמָר בַּגָּדוֹל, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: עָשׂוּ חֲלִיצַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע כְּגֵט בַּגָּדוֹל. וְאִם אִיתָא — לִיתְנֵי: כְּגִיטּוֹ! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִית לֵיהּ וְזוּטַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** does **Rabbi Meir hold** that a minor boy **has** the ability to give **a bill of divorce? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **They established the sexual relations of a nine-year-old like a levirate betrothal** performed by **an adult. Rabbi Meir says: They established the *ḥalitza* of a nine-year-old like a bill of divorce of an adult.** The Gemara explains the difficulty: **And if it is so, let** Rabbi Meir **teach:** They established the *ḥalitza* of a nine-year-old **like his** own **bill of divorce,** as he too can give a *yevama* a bill of divorce. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: He does have** the ability to give a bill of divorce, **but** it is **less** powerful than the bill of divorce of an adult *yavam*, as explained by Rav Huna below.


###### Yevamot 96a:17
[Yevamot 96a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:17)

לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאָמַר אֵין גֵּט אַחַר גֵּט — הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּגָדוֹל אַחַר גָּדוֹל וְקָטָן אַחַר קָטָן, אֲבָל גָּדוֹל אַחַר קָטָן — מַהֲנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, elaborates: **According to** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel, who said** that **there is no bill of divorce after a bill of divorce** for a *yevama*, i.e., if one of the brothers gave her a bill of divorce, no bill of divorce given later by a different brother is of any significance, **this applies only** when the bill of divorce was given **by an adult after an adult, or** by **a minor after a minor.** However, if **an adult** gave a bill of divorce **after a minor,** the bill of divorce of the adult **is effective** and disqualifies the *yevama*, as the bill of divorce of a minor is of less importance.


###### Yevamot 96a:18
[Yevamot 96a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/96a:18)

לְרַבָּנַן, דְאָמְרִי יֵשׁ גֵּט אַחַר גֵּט — הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּגָדוֹל אַחַר גָּדוֹל, אוֹ בְּקָטָן אַחַר קָטָן, אֲבָל קָטָן אַחַר גָּדוֹל — לָא מַהֲנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say** that **there is a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, this applies only** to the case **of an adult after an adult, or to a minor after a minor. However,** they too agree that the bill of divorce of **a minor after an adult is not effective,** as a minor’s bill of divorce is certainly weaker than that of an adult. For this reason Rabbi Meir said that they established the *ḥalitza* of a nine-year-old like a bill of divorce of an adult, to emphasize that a subsequent bill of divorce of a minor is of no account.