Yevamot

IF HE  HAD BROTHERS BY THE FIRST  AND ALSO BROTHERS BY THE SECOND,  BUT NOT BY THE SAME MOTHER, HE  MAY EITHER SUBMIT TO HALIZAH OR CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE,  BUT AS FOR THEM, ONE  SUBMITS TO HALIZAH  AND THE OTHER MAY [THEN] CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. IF ONE OF [THE TWO HUSBANDS] WAS AN ISRAELITE AND THE OTHER A PRIEST, HE  MAY ONLY MARRY A WOMAN WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO MARRY A PRIEST.  HE  MAY NOT DEFILE HIMSELF FOR THE DEAD,  BUT IF HE DID DEFILE HIMSELF HE DOES NOT SUFFER THE PENALTY OF FORTY STRIPES.  HE MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH,  BUT IF HE DID EAT HE NEED NOT PAY COMPENSATION EITHER FOR THE PRINCIPAL OR [FOR THE ADDITIONAL] FIFTH.  HE DOES NOT RECEIVE A SHARE  AT THE THRESHING-FLOOR, BUT HE MAY SELL [HIS OWN] TERUMAH  AND THE PROCEEDS ARE HIS.  HE RECEIVES NO SHARE IN THE CONSECRATED THINGS OF THE TEMPLE,  NO CONSECRATED THINGS ARE GIVEN TO HIM,  BUT HE IS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS OWN.  HE IS EXEMPT FROM [GIVING TO ANY PRIEST] THE SHOULDER, THE CHEEKS AND THE MAW,  WHILE HIS FIRSTLING MUST REMAIN IN THE PASTURE  UNTIL IT CONTRACTS A BLEMISH.  THE RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO PRIESTS AND THE RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO ISRAELITES ARE IMPOSED UPON HIM. IF THE TWO [HUSBANDS] WERE PRIESTS, HE  MUST MOURN AS ONAN  FOR THEM  AND THEY MUST MOURN AS ONENIM  FOR HIM,  BUT HE MAY NOT DEFILE HIMSELF FOR THEM,  NOR MAY THEY DEFILE THEMSELVES FOR HIM.  HE MAY NOT INHERIT FROM THEM,  BUT THEY MAY INHERIT FROM HIM.  HE IS EXONERATED  IF HE STRIKES OR CURSES  THE ONE OR THE OTHER. HE GOES UP [TO SERVE] IN THE MISHMAR  OF THE ONE AS WELL AS OF THE OTHER,  BUT HE DOES NOT RECEIVE A SHARE [IN THE OFFERINGS].  IF, HOWEVER BOTH SERVED IN THE SAME MISHMAR,  HE RECEIVES A SINGLE PORTION. GEMARA. Only the halizah [must take place first]  and the levirate marriage afterwards; the levirate marriage, however, must not take place first, since, thereby, one  might infringe the prohibition against the marriage of a sister-in-law with a stranger. Samuel said: If ten priests stood together and one of them separated [from the company] and cohabited [with a feme sole]. the child [that may result from the union]  is a shethuki.  In what [respect is he] a shethuki? If it be suggested that he is silenced  [when he claims a share] of his father's estate, [is not this, it may be retorted] self-evident? Do we know who is his father! — Rather,  he is silenced [if he claims any] of the rights of priesthood.  What is the reason? — Scripture stated, And it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him,  it is, therefore, required that 'his seed' shall be traced to 'him',  but this is not the case here. R. Papa demurred: If that is so in the case of Abraham where it is written, To be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee,  what does the All Merciful exhort him thereby!  — It is this that he said to him: Marry not an idolatress or a bondwoman so that your seed shall not be ascribed to her. An objection was raised: The first  is fit to be a High Priest.  But, surely, it is required that a priest's child shall be traced to his father,  which is not the case here!  — [The requirement that] a priest's child shall be traced to his father  is a Rabbinical provision. while the Scriptural text is a mere prop;  and it is only in respect of prostitution that the Rabbis have made their preventive measure; in respect of marriage, however, no such measure was enacted by them. But did the Rabbis introduce such a preventive measure in the case of prostitution? Surely we learned: IF A WOMAN DID NOT WAIT THREE MONTHS AFTER [SEPARATION FROM] HER HUSBAND, AND MARRIED AGAIN AND GAVE BIRTH [TO A SON]; now, what is meant by AFTER [SEPARATION FROM] HER HUSBAND? If it be suggested: AFTER the death OF HER HUSBAND, read the final clause: HE MUST MOURN AS ONAN FOR THEM AND THEY MUST MOURN AS ONENIM FOR HIM; one can well understand [the circumstances in which] HE MOURNS AS ONAN FOR THEM, such mourning being possible [even in the case] of marriage with the second [husband, on the occasion of the] collecting of the bones of the first.  But how is it possible that they MOURN AS ONENIM FOR HIM, when the first husband is dead!  If, however, [it be suggested that our Mishnah speaks] of a divorced woman, and that the meaning of AFTER [SEPARATION FROM] HER HUSBAND is AFTER the divorce OF HER HUSBAND, then read the final clause: HE MAY NOT DEFILE HIMSELF FOR THEM, NOR MAY THEY DEFILE THEMSELVES FOR HIM; now, one can understand that THEY MAY NOT DEFILE THEMSELVES FOR HIM as a restrictive measure, [since in respect of every one of them it may be assumed that] he is possibly not his son; but why MAY HE NOT DEFILE HIMSELF FOR THEM? Granted that he must not defile himself for the second;  for the first, however, he should be allowed to defile himself in any case! For if he is his son, then he may justly defile himself for him; and if he is the son of the second  he may legitimately defile himself for him since he is a halal!  Consequently [our Mishnah must refer to a case] of prostitution,  and the meaning of AFTER [SEPARATION FROM] HER HUSBAND must be, AFTER [SEPARATION FROM] THE MAN WHO IRREGULARLY COHABITED WITH HER;  and yet it was stated in the final clause, HE MAY GO UP [TO SERVE] IN THE MISHMAR OF THE ONE AS WELL AS OF THE OTHER. This, then, presents an objection against the ruling of Samuel!  — R. Shemaia replied: [Our Mishnah refers] to a minor who made a declaration of refusal.  But is a minor  capable of propagation? Surely R. Bebai recited before R. Nahman: Three categories of women may use an absorbent in their marital intercourse:  A minor, an expectant mother, and a nursing wife. The minor,  because she  might become pregnant and, as a result, she might die. An expectant mother,  because she  might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.  A nursing wife,  because she  might have to wean her child [prematurely]  and this would result in his death. And what is the age of such a minor?  From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under,  or over this age  must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner. This is the opinion of R. Meir. The Sages, however, said: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in the usual manner, and mercy will be vouchsafed from heaven,  for it is said in the Scriptures, The Lord preserveth the simple!  — [The case of our Mishnah] is possible with a mistaken betrothal,  and on the basis of a ruling of Rab Judah in the name of Samuel. For Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel in the name of R. Ishmael: And she be not seized  [only then  is she] forbidden;  if, however, she was seized  she is permitted;  there is, however, another kind of woman who is permitted  even if she was not seized.  And who is she? — A woman whose betrothal was a mistaken one,  who may, even if her son sits riding on her shoulder, make a declaration of refusal [against her husband] and go away.