Yevamot

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