How so, "the wife of his brother who never existed with him" (Yevamot 2:1)? [If there were] two brothers who existed at the same time, and one of them died without offspring, and the second one got up [to perform yibbum], but before he was able to perform ma'amar* with his yevama before a [third] brother was born to them, who never existed with [the first brother], the second [wife] either is subject to chalitza or yibbum. [If] he performed ma'amer with her, but before he was able to marry her a [third] brother was born, and afterwards he died, or if a [third] brother was born and he performed ma'amar with her, but before he was able to marry her the first [brother] died, the second [wife] is excluded from the name "wife of his brother who never existed with him," and the first [wife] is subject to chalitza but not to yibbum. Rabbi Shimon says, if one of [the wives] engages in relations or has chalitza performed on her, the rival wives are exempt. [If] he performed chalitza with one [of the deceased brother's wives] who had ma'amar performed on her, he [also] performs chalitza on the first [wife]. [If] he married her and then died, and a [third] brother was born, and afterwards he married her and died, both of them are exempt from chalitza and from yibbum, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says, since neither of them became betrothed on his account, and he came and found both of them in a state of permissibility, then should one of wives engage in relations or chalitza, she exempts her rival wife.

What is "ma'amar"? [The brother of the widow's deceased husband says,] "Behold, you are betrothed to me with money," "with the equivalent of money," or "with a document." And what is a "document"? [He writes,] "I, so-and-so the son of so-and-so, hereby acquire for myself so-and-so (fem.), my yevama, to provide alimentation and sustenance as is appropriate, as long as she has her marriage contract concerning the property of her first husband." Just as betrothal [in a typical case] does not [alone] effect the acquisition of a wife -- rather, only if it is done with the informed consent of both of them -- the difference between betrothal and ma'amar is that betrothal completes [the acquisition of a wife] and ma'amar does not complete [the acquisition of a yevama].

The forbidden relations of which they spoke (i.e., which render one liable for excision): They are not like one's wife in any respect. They do not have a [valid] marriage contract, nor the right to use his property (peirot), nor alimentation (mazanot), nor compensation for her used or spent property (b'laot), and they do not merit [the ability to] claim whatever they find, nor what they make with their hands, nor to have their vows invalidated. They do not have [any right to] inheritance, and he may not impurity himself for her, nor do the laws of betrothal apply, and she does not require a divorce document from him [before remarrying]. She is disqualified [from marrying a priest] and her offspring is a mamzer. The widow of a High Priest, and the divorcee or chalutza of an ordinary priest: Behold, they are like his wife in every respect, and she has a [valid] marriage contract, and the right to use his property, and alimentation, and compensation for her used or spent property, and she merits [the ability] to claim whatever she finds and what she makes with her hands, and to have her vows invalidated, and he does not defile her. The laws of betrothal apply to her, and she requires a divorce document from him [before remarrying]. She is disqualified [from marrying a priest] and her offspring is disqualified [from the priesthood]. Second-degree relations that are forbidden by rabbinic decree: They are not like his wife in any respect. They do not have a [valid] marriage contract, nor the right to use his property, nor alimentation, nor compensation for her used or spent property, and they do not merit [the ability to] claim whatever they find, nor what they make with their hands, nor to have their vows invalidated. She does inherit, and he may make himself impure for her. The laws of betrothal apply to her, and she requires a divorce document from him [before remarrying]. She is fit [to marry a priest] and her offspring is fit [for the priesthood]. And they force him to go out [from the marriage]. Rabbi Yehuda says, [with respect to] the widow of a High Priest, and the divorcee or chalutza of an ordinary priest, this is a prohibition [resulting from] a mitzvah. Second-degree relations that are forbidden by rabbinic decree, this is a prohibition [resulting from] sanctity. The laws of betrothal do not apply to her. Said Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and for what reason did they say, "the widow of a High Priest has a [valid] marriage contract"? Because he is fit [for the priesthood] and she is disqualified [from marriage to the priesthood], they penalized him [by requiring him] to give her a marriage contract. For what reason did they say, "second-degree relations that are forbidden by rabbinic decree do not have a [valid] marriage contract"? Because he is fit and she is fit, they penalized her by imposing a marriage contract on her, so that it would appear easy in his eyes to take her out [from the marriage]. Rabbi Yosei says, this one is [derived from] the words of the Torah, and and the words of the Torah do not require [the application of] presumptions, and that one is [derived from] rabbinic decree, and rabbinic decrees do require presumptions. Another interpretation: In the first case, she is made accustomed to marry him, and in the second case, she accustoms herself to marry him.

There are those [woman] who are subject to either chalitza or yibbum; who are subject to yibbum but not chalitza; who are subject to chalitza but not yibbum; and who are subject to neither chalitza nor yibbum. The forbidden relations about which we stated "neither subject to chalitza or yibbum," added to them are the wife of eunuch by nature, and the wife of a brother of the same mother, and the wife of a convert, and the wife of a freed [Hebrew] slave, and an aylonit -- [they are subject to] neither chalitza nor yibbum. A female deaf-mute and a female imbecile are subject to yibbum but not chalitza. One who is prohibited [due to] a mitzvah, and one who is prohibited [due to] sanctity -- they are subject to chalitza but not yibbum. A barren woman, and an elderly woman, and all other women are subject to either chalitza or yibbum. There are those who [instead] state [the rule as follows]: "There are those [men] who either perform chalitza or yibbum*" (in the masculine, from the point of view of the yavam), as opposed to "choltzot o m'yabmot" (in the feminine, from the point of view of the yavama), as is used in the earlier portion of this Tosefta, who perform yibbum but not chalitza, who perform chalitza but not yibbum, and who perform neither yibbum nor chalitza. The forbidden relations about which we stated "neither perform chalitza or yibbum," added to them are the eunuch by nature, and the androgynous, and the brother from the same mother, and the convert, and the freed [Hebrew] slave -- [they perform] neither chalitza or yibbum. A male deaf-mute and a male imbecile perform yibbum but not chalitza. 'One who is wounded by crushing' and 'one whose member is severed' (Deut. 23:2), a eunuch by human agency, and an elderly man perform chalitza but not yibbum. And all other men perform either chalitza or yibbum."