האשה. ואמרו לה מת בעליך – that one witness said to her: “your husband has died,” and she married upon the testimony of one witnesses, and therefore, she should leave from this one and that one according to the law of a married woman who has been unchaste who is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to the person who initiated sexual intercourse with her for she is not an outraged woman and even though the Rabbis believe one witness regarding a woman because of being a chained woman. What is the reason? Because she herself is evidence by implication and she marries and this which is not evidence by implication, we fine her but she is married by [the testimony] of two witnesses who said to her that your husband died, but we say at the end, that she marries according to the testimony of the Jewish court, meaning to say, that she didn’t need the permission of the Jewish court since there were two witnesses testifying in the matter. She is permitted to return to her first husband for she is an outraged woman for what could she do? In the Gemara (Talmud Yevamot 88b) it proves that the Halakha is not this, but rather there is no difference whether she married according to the Jewish court with one witness and whether she married through [the testimony] of two witnesses, if her first husband comes, she should leave from this marriage (i.e., the second marriage) and that one (i.e., with the other husband) and all of these paths are concerning her.

וצריכא גט מזה ומזה – the reason that she requires a Jewish bill of divorce from the second [husband] for when they see that the first [husband] is alive, they would think that he divorced her, and as a result of this, she married the second [husband] and she is completely his (i.e., the second husband’s) wife, but if he removes her without a Jewish bill of divorce, she is found to be a married woman who leaves without a Jewish bill of divorce.

ולא בלאות – that were lost but her right to claim compensation for the wear and tear or ruin of the things which she brought along on her property that exist she did not lose.

והולד ממזר מזה ומזה – if she gave birth from the second [husband] he is a complete Mamzer/illegitimate child, and if the first [husband] took her back and she gave birth, he is a Mamzer from Rabbinic law.

לא זה ולא זה זכאין במציאתה – that the reason - why did the Rabbis state that what his wife finds belongs to her husband? It is because of enmity; here it should be enmity and hostility.

ולא במעשה ידיה – that the reason – why did the Rabbis states that her handiwork belongs to her husband? It is because of sustenance and here, where she doesn’t have sustenance, her handiwork is not his.

ובהפר נדריה – that the reason of why the husband annuls his wife’s vows, just as she should not make herself reprehensible to her husband, here, she would make herself look ever so repulsive (Talmud Yevamot 90b).

נפסלה מן הכהונה – because she is a harlot.

מן המעשר – it is fine, for the daughter [of a Levite] who ran about as a prostitute is not disqualified from the first tithe.

מן התרומה – even the priest’s due of the Rabbis.

יורשים כתובתה – the Ketubah of male issue.

חולצין ולא מיבמין – the brothers of the first [husband] perform the act of Halitzah according to the Torah, but the Rabbis decreed that he should not engage in a levirate marriage, and the brothers of the second [husband] perform the act of Halitzah according to the Rabbis, just as she requires a Jewish bill of divorce from the second [husband] according to the Rabbis.

ביאתה או חליצתה – he disputes with the first part of the Mishnah as it is taught they don’t perform levirate marriage.

ואין הולד ממנו ממזר – if the first [husband] took her back but the Halakha is neither according to Rabbi Yosi, nor according to Rabbi Eliezer nor according to Rabbi Shimon.

נשאת שלא ברשות – of the Jewish court, such as the example when two witnesses said to her: “your husband died,” that she doesn’t need the legal permission of the Jewish court.

ופטורה מן הקרבן – for an individual who acted according to the [errant] instruction of the Jewish court is exempt from the sacrifice.

שלא ע"פ ב"ד – but rather with two witnesses, she is a liable for a sacrifice for she errs inadvertently, but the Halakha is not like this Mishnah, but rather, whether she married by word of mouth of the Jewish court with one witnesses, whether by word of mouth of two witnesses, they are liable for a sacrifice – she and her second husband.

ואחר כך מת בנך – she did not depend upon having a levirate marriage.

ונשאת – to anyone [in the world].

ראשון ואחרון – the first [husband] before the report, and the last [husband] after the report. And according to Rabbi Akiba, it is established that he said, thee is a Mamzer when one is liable for violating negative commandments, but it is not Halakha.

מותרת לחזור לו – for the second betrothal is not anything, and he came upon her in prostitution, and we say in the Gemara (Tractate Yevamot 95a) (Numbers 5:13): “in that a man has had carnal relations with her [unbeknown to her husband , and she keeps secret the fact that she has defiled herself without being forced],” her carnal relations forbid her, but the carnal relations of her sister do not forbid her.

ומותר בקרובות השניה – to marry her (i.e. second wife’s) daughter for ewe hold that one marries the outraged or seduced woman.

רבי יוסי אומר כל שפוסל ע"י אחרים פוסל ע"י עצמו – Rabbi Yosi is the attendant of the first Tanna/teacher when he says, it makes no difference that his wife went and his brother-in-law (wife’s sister’s husband) who is the husband of his wife’s sister abroad nor whether his betrothed and his brother-in-law went and they came and said to him: “your wife died and your brother-in-law died,” and he married her sister and afterwards, his wife and his brother-in-law came; the wife of his brother-in-law is prohibited to his brother-in-law and his wife is permitted to him. And Rabbi Yosi said to him: His betrothed and his brother-in-law, for one is able to state that there was a condition in the betrothal, and this one who married her sister , married well, and requires a Jewish bill of divorce from him, so that they don’t say that a married woman goes out [from a marriage] without a Jewish bill of divorce for it invalidates her in regards to others, which are his brother-in-law, for since she left him with a Jewish bill of divorce, it invalidates her from her husband, it also invalidates her for marriage for himself and his wife is forbidden to himself because she is the sister of his divorced wife. But, where his wife and his brother-in-law went abroad and he married her sister that one is not able to say that there was condition for him in the marriage, and he married her well to this one, where it is possible to say that with regard to betrothal, one does not require a Jewish bill of divorce from him and does not invalidate [his wife] to others, for he did not invalidate the wife of his brother-in-law to his brother-in-law, he doesn’t invalidate her for himself. And his wife is permitted to him for she is not the sister of his divorced wife.

אמרו לו מתה אשתך ונשא אחותה מאביה – [he married his sister from her father] that was not from her mother and they retracted and said to him: “the second degree (i.e., first cousin) died,” and he married the sister of the second degree from her mother and not from her father, and it was found that this third [wife] is a stranger regarding the first wife. And they retracted and said to him, that the third-degree wife had died and he married the sister of the third wife from her father but not from her mother. It was found that the fourth is distant from the second, and all the more so, from the first. And they retracted and said to him, that this fourth wife had died,

ונשא אחותה מאמה – and he married her sister from her mother, and she is distant from the third, and similarly from the fist and second, and afterwards, they said to them that all of them are living.

מותר בראשונה ובשלישית ובחמישית – who are not related to each other, and even though the third [wife] is the sister of the second [wife], it is permitted for the betrothal of the betrothal of the second did not take effect because she is the wife’s sister to the first [wife] whom he took [as a wife] earlier, and she is like a ravaged or seduced woman and [it is taught In a Baraitha] that if he ravaged a woman, it is permitted [for him] to marry her daughter for the Torah did not prohibit other than the wife’s sister alone, and where Kiddushin/betrothal did not take effect, she is not his wife’s sister, and similarly, the fifth [wife] even though she is the sister of the fourth [wife] she is permitted [to him] for since Kiddushin/betrothal effect with the third [wife], it is found that sexual connection with the fourth [wife] who is the sister of the third is considered a coition of prostitution, and the [fifth wife] is not forbidden to him.

ופוטרות צרותיהן – if he died and the levir came and performed levirate marriage with of them, it exempts her rival wife.

ואסור בשניה – because o the first [wife] and the fourth because of the third.

ואם בא על השנייה לאחר מיתת הראשונה – for the words were true of the first [wife] , and the rest of the words were lies, he is prohibited to the third [wife] because of the second [wife] and on the fifth [wife] because of the fourth [wife].

בן ט' שנים ויום אחד פוסל – [a child nine years and one-day old invalidates] the deceased childless brother’s widow to the brothers if he had come upon her, for his act of sexual coition is [a valid] coition. Or, if he gave a Jewish bill of divorce or made a betrothal of a dead brother’s wife by statement with money or a document for he has a Jewish bill of divorce and a betrothal by statement of a dead brother’s wife, but it is not a complete Jewish bill of divorce, nor a complete betrothal by statement.

אלא הוא פוסל תחלה – In the Gemara (Tractate Yevamot 96a) it explains that with betrothal of a dead brother’s wife by statement, he disqualifies at the outset, but not at the conclusion, but if his older brother had made the statement of betrothal [to the dead brother’s childless widow] and [he] afterwards made the statement of betrothal, that which the nine-year and one-day old [did] did not invalidates her from his brothers, but through his act of coition, the nine-year and one-day old invalidates whether at the outset or at the conclusion, and our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: but rather he invalidates at the outset and they invalidate at the outset and at the conclusion. When is this said? Through betrothal by statement, but an act of coition even at the end also invalidates. How so? A child who is nine years and one day old who came upon his dead brother’s childless widow, etc.

פסל על ידו – for it is to him like a statement of betrothal after a statement of betrothal and both of them take effect with regard to her.

ר"ש אומר לא פסל – For the act of coition of a child who is nine years old, according to Rabbi Shimon doubtfully acquires [as a wife] and doubtful does not acquire [as a wife]; if it acquires, it acquires completely, and does not benefit his brother’s act of coition. And if he doesn’t acquire, it is to him like someone who did not engage in sexual intercourse, neither for him, nor his brother. Therefore, he did not invalidate, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שבא על בימתו ומת חולצת ולא מתיבמת – for she upon her the interdependence of a childless widow and her late brother’s brothers (i.e., the levirate relation) two brothers-in-law for the act of coition of this one, the younger (i.e., nine days and one-day old) is like the statement of levirate marriage from the older. She does not leave the levirate relation of the falling of the first [brother], and there falls upon her the levirate relationship through the falling of the second [brother] (see Rashi on the concluding Mishnah in Tractate Yevamot 96b). But it is taught in the Mishnah in Chapter Three (“Four Brothers”) (Tractate Yevamot, Mishnah 9, [referring to] the one who is subject to the levirate power of a single brother-in-law, and not the one who is subject to the levirate power of two brothers-in-law.

נשא אשה – [he married a woman] who is not his sister-in-law (i.e., the widow of the deceased childless brother), and he has brothers,

הרי זו פטורה – she is exempt, even though his sexual coition (i.e., of the brother who is nine years and one day old) is considered coition but his acquisition is not an acquisition at all until he brings forth two [pubic] hairs. But the widow of the childless dead brother, since she is dependent upon him, the Rabbis made her like a statement of betrothal.

אם לא ידע הראשונה משהגדיל ראשונה חולצת ולא מתיבמת – for the levirate relationship of two levirs is upon her, for since he did not know her [sexually] once he grew up, she did not leave from the first falling [of the levir to her].

רבי שמעון אומר מיבם לאיזה שירצה – for Rabbi Shimon does not hold by the levirate relationship of two levirs , and these words, we mentioned in the chapter of “Four Brothers” (Tractate Yevamot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 9).

וחולץ לשניה – for they are not rival wives to exempt one of them with the levirate marriage of her colleague. But a levirate marriage of both of them does not occur since she is her rival wife as part of the statement of levirate marriage of the Rabbis, but it appears as two widows of a brother who died without issue who come from one house.

אחד בן תשע ואחד בן כ' – both are equal for everything mentioned above, for as long as they haven’t brought forth two [pubic] hairs, he is a minor. Until he will be thirty five years of age and if he arrive at the thirty five years and did not bring forth two [pubic] hairs, even though they didn’t appear on him, they are a sign of his being castrated/a eunuch that is explained above (see Tractate Yevamot, Chapter Eight, Mishnah Four) – which is that of a natural eunuch.