Parallel
יבמות 111
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Let her continue to live with him in any case. For if [a deaf woman] is acquired then she is of course acquired, and if she is not acquired, then she is a mere stranger. And should you argue, 'why should the minor wait until she grows up and then performs halizah? Let her continue to live with him [for the same reason that] if she is [properly] acquired then she is of course acquired, and if she is not acquired, then she is a mere stranger'; if so [it could be retorted] whereby should the deaf [widow] be released! R. Shesheth said: Logical deduction leads also to the interpretation R. Hisda imparted to Rab's ruling. For it was taught: If two brothers were married to two orphan sisters, a minor and a deaf woman, and the husband of the minor died, the deaf widow is released by means of a letter of divorce while the minor waits until she is of age, when she performs halizah. If the husband of the deaf woman dies, the minor is released by a letter of divorce while the deaf widow is forever forbidden [to marry again]. If, however, he cohabited with the deaf widow he must give her a letter of divorce and she becomes permitted [to marry any other man]. Now, if you grant that a deaf wife is partially acquired [and that concerning] a minor [it is doubtful whether] she is [fully] acquired or not acquired [at all], one can well see the reason why when he cohabited with the deaf widow he gives her a letter of divorce and she becomes permitted [to marry any other man]. For you may rightly claim that in any case [she becomes permitted]. If the minor is acquired, [the deaf widow] is rightly released as his wife's sister; and if she is not acquired [at all] he has quite lawfully contracted with her the levirate marriage. If you contend, however, [that concerning] a deaf woman [it is doubtful whether] she is acquired or not acquired [at all], and that a minor is partially acquired, [the difficulty arises] why should the deaf widow, if he cohabited with her and gave her a letter of divorce, be permitted [to marry again] when the cohabitation with her was unlawful, and an unlawful cohabitation does not release a woman? — It is possible that this statement represents the view of R. Nehemiah who ruled that an unlawful cohabitation exempts [a widow] from halizah. If [this statement represents the view of] R. Nehemiah read the final clause: 'If a man was married to two orphans, one of whom was a minor and the other deaf, and died 'and the levir cohabited with the minor and then cohabited with the deaf widow, or a brother of his cohabited with the deaf widow, both are forbidden to him. How do they obtain redress? The deaf woman is released by a letter of divorce while the minor waits until she is of age 'when she performs halizah'. Now, if you grant that a deaf wife is partially acquired [and that concerning] a minor [it is doubtful whether she is fully] acquired or not acquired [at all], and [that the opinion in this statement] is that of the Rabbis, one can well understand the reason why 'the minor waits until she is of age, when she performs halizah', since [otherwise] he might cohabit with the deaf widow first, and the [subsequent] cohabitation with the minor would [thereby] be rendered an unlawful cohabitation. If you contend, however, [that the opinion in the statement is that of] R. Nehemiah, surely he [it may be objected] ruled that an unlawful cohabitation does exempt! Consequently it must be concluded [that the opinion in the statement is that of] the Rabbis. Our point is thus proved. R. Ashi said: From the first clause also it may be inferred that [the opinion expressed] is that of the Rabbis. For it was stated, 'If, however, he cohabited with the deaf widow he must give her a letter of divorce and she becomes permitted [to marry any other man]', but it was not stated, 'If he cohabited with the minor, he must give her a letter of divorce and she becomes permitted'! — If this is all, there is not much force in the argument; since in respect of the deaf widow for whom no lawful redress is possible mention had to be made of redress obtained through a forbidden act, but concerning a minor, for whom lawful redress is possible, no redress obtainable through a forbidden act was mentioned. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO TWO ORPHANS WHO WERE MINORS DIED, AND THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH ONE, AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE OTHER, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE OTHER,
—
HE HAS NOT THEREBY RENDERED THE FIRST INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM]; AND THE SAME LAW IS APPLICABLE TO TWO DEAF WOMEN. [IF ONE WAS] A MINOR AND THE OTHER DEAF, AND THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH THE MINOR AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE DEAF WIDOW, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE DEAF WIDOW, HE HAS RENDERED THE MINOR INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM]. IF THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH THE DEAF WIDOW AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE MINOR, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE MINOR, HE HAS RENDERED THE DEAF WIDOW INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM]. [IF ONE WAS] OF SOUND SENSES AND THE OTHER DEAF, AND THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH THE FORMER AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE LATTER, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE LATTER, HE DOES NOT RENDER THE FORMER INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM]. IF THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH THE LATTER, AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE FORMER, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE FORMER, HE RENDERS THE LATTER INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM]. [IF ONE WAS] OF AGE AND THE OTHER A MINOR, AND THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH [THE WIDOW] WHO WAS OF AGE, AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH THE MINOR, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH THE MINOR, HE DOES NOT RENDER THE ELDER INELIGIBLE FOR HIM. IF THE LEVIR COHABITED WITH THE MINOR, AND THEN HE ALSO COHABITED WITH [THE WIDOW WHO WAS] OF AGE, OR A BROTHER OF HIS COHABITED WITH [THE WIDOW WHO WAS] OF AGE, HE RENDERS THE MINOR INELIGIBLE [FOR HIM]. R. ELEAZAR RULED: THE MINOR IS TO BE INSTRUCTED TO EXERCISE HER RIGHT OF MI'UN AGAINST HIM. GEMARA. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer. So also did R. Eleazar state: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar. And [both statements were] required. For if the statement had been made on the first [Mishnah] only [it might have been assumed that] in that case alone did Samuel hold that the halachah is in agreement With R. Eliezer, since [the levir there] had not fulfilled the commandment of the levirate marriage, but in this case where the commandment of the levirate marriage has been fulfilled, it might have been assumed that both must be released by a letter of divorce. And if the information had been given on the latter only, [it might have been suggested that] only in this case [is the halachah in agreement with him], because the elder is subject to levirate marriage with him, but not in the other case. [Hence both statements were] required. MISHNAH. IF A LEVIR WHO WAS A MINOR COHABITED WITH A SISTER-IN-LAW WHO WAS A MINOR, THEY SHOULD BE BROUGHT UP TOGETHER. IF HE COHABITED WITH A SISTER-IN-LAW WHO WAS OF AGE, SHE SHOULD BRING HIM UP UNTIL HE IS OF AGE. IF A SISTER-IN-LAW DECLARED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [AFTER HER LEVIRATE MARRIAGE], 'HE HAS NOT COHABITED WITH ME', [THE LEVIR] IS COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH, BUT [IF HER DECLARATION WAS MADE] AFTER THIRTY DAYS, HE IS ONLY REQUESTED TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH. WHEN, HOWEVER, HE ADMITS [HER ASSERTION], HE IS COMPELLED, EVEN AFTER TWELVE MONTHS, TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH. IF A WOMAN VOWED TO HAVE NO BENEFIT FROM HER BROTHER-IN-LAW, THE LATTER IS COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH, [IF HER VOW WAS MADE] DURING THE LIFETIME OF HER HUSBAND, BUT IF AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND, THE LEVIR MAY ONLY BE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH. IF THIS, HOWEVER, WAS IN HER MIND [EVEN IF HER VOW WAS MADE] DURING THE LIFETIME OF HER HUSBAND, THE LEVIR MAY ONLY BE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH. GEMARA. Must it be assumed that our Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Meir? For it was taught: A boy minor and a girl minor may neither perform halizah nor contract levirate marriage; so R. Meir! — It may even be said to agree with R. Meir, for R. Meir spoke only [of the levirate marriage of a sister-in-law] who was of age to a minor, and [of one who was] a minor to [a levir that was] of age, since one of these [may possibly be performing] forbidden cohabitation. He did not speak, however, of a boy minor who cohabited with a girl minor, in which case both are in the same position. But, surely, it was stated, IF HE COHABITED WITH A SISTER-IN-LAW WHO WAS OF AGE SHE SHOULD BRING HIM UP UNTIL HE IS OF AGE! — R. Hanina of Hozaah replied: If he had already cohabited [the law] is different. But was it not stated: SHE SHOULD BRING HIM UP UNTIL HE IS OF AGE, though each act of cohabitation is a forbidden one! — The truth is clearly that our Mishnah cannot be in agreement with R. Meir. Should not the text, To raise up unto his brother a name, be applied here? And this minor, Surely, is not capable of it! — Abaye replied: Scripture said, Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, whoever he may be. Raba replied: Without this [text] also you could not say [that a minor may not contract levirate marriage]. For is there any act [in connection with the levirate marriage] which is at one time forbidden and after a time permitted? Surely, Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: Any sister-in-law to whom the instruction, Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, cannot be applied at the time when she becomes subject to the levirate marriage, is indeed like the wife of a brother who has children, and is consequently forbidden! But then might it not be suggested that this same [principle is applicable here] also? — Scripture said, If brethren dwell together, even if [one brother is only] one day old. IF A SISTER-IN-LAW DECLARED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS etc. Who is it that taught that up to thirty days a man may restrain himself? — R. Johanan replied: It is R. Meir; for it was taught: A complaint in respect of virginity [may be brought] during the first thirty days; so R. Meir. R. Jose said: If [the woman] was shut up [with him, the complaint must be made] forthwith; if she was not shut up [with him], it may be made even after many years. Rabbah stated: It may even be said [to represent the opinion of] R. Jose, for R. Jose spoke there only of one's betrothed with whom one is familiar, but [not of] the wife of one's brother
—