Yevamot

MISHNAH. IF A MAN BETROTHED ONE OF TWO SISTERS AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH OF THEM HE HAS BETROTHED, HE MUST GIVE A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO THE ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER.  IF HE DIED,  LEAVING A BROTHER,  THE LATTER MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE HALIZAH WITH BOTH OF THEM.  IF HE HAD TWO BROTHERS,  ONE IS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HALIZAH  AND THE OTHER MAY CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.  IF THEY ANTICIPATED [THE BETH DIN] AND MARRIED THEM  THEY ARE NOT TO BE [PARTED FROM] THEM. IF TWO MEN BETROTHED TWO SISTERS AND THE ONE DOES NOT KNOW WHOM HE BETROTHED AND THE OTHER DOES NOT KNOW WHOM HE BETROTHED, THE ONE MUST GIVE TWO LETTERS OF DIVORCE AND THE OTHER MUST ALSO GIVE TWO LETTERS OF DIVORCE. IF THEY DIED AND THE ONE LEFT A BROTHER AND THE OTHER ALSO LEFT A BROTHER, THE ONE BROTHER MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE HALIZAH WITH THE TWO WIDOWS AND THE OTHER ALSO MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE HALIZAH WITH THE TWO WIDOWS.  IF ONE  LEFT ONE BROTHER AND THE OTHER LEFT TWO, THE ONE BROTHER MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE HALIZAH WITH THE TWO WIDOWS  AND [AS REGARDS] THE TWO, ONE PARTICIPATES IN THE HALIZAH  AND THE OTHER MAY CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.  IF THEY ANTICIPATED [THE BETH DIN] AND MARRIED THEM,  THEY ARE NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF THEM.  IF ONE  LEFT TWO BROTHERS AND THE OTHER  ALSO LEFT TWO, ONE BROTHER OF THE ONE PARTICIPATES IN THE HALIZAH WITH ONE WIDOW AND ONE BROTHER OF THE SECOND PARTICIPATES IN THE HALIZAH WITH THE OTHER WIDOW, [AND THEN THE OTHER] BROTHER OF THE FIRST MAY CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WITH THE HALUZAH OF THE SECOND  AND [THE OTHER] BROTHER OF THE SECOND MAY CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WITH THE HALUZAH OF THE FIRST. IF BOTH  ANTICIPATED [THE BETH DIN] AND PARTICIPATED IN THE HALIZAH,  THE [OTHER] TWO MUST NOT BOTH CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE,  BUT ONE MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE HALIZAH  AND THE OTHER MAY THEN CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.  IF BOTH  ANTICIPATED [THE BETH DIN]  AND MARRIED  THEY ARE NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF THEM. GEMARA. Is it to be inferred from here that even betrothal which cannot culminate in connubial intercourse  is also valid?  — Here we are dealing with the case where they were known  but were later confused. This may also be proved by deduction, since it was stated, AND HE DOES NOT KNOW  and it was not stated 'and it was not known'  This proves it. What, then, does our Mishnah teach us?  — The second clause was necessary:  IF HE DIED AND LEFT A BROTHER, THE LATTER MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE HALIZAH WITH BOTH OF THEM. IF HE HAD TWO BROTHERS, ONE IS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HALIZAH AND THE OTHER MAY CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, only halizah must be first and the levirate marriage afterwards, but not the levirate marriage first, since, thereby, he might infringe [the interdict against] the sister of her who is connected with him by the levirate bond. IF TWO MEN BETROTHED TWO SISTERS etc. Does this imply that a betrothal which cannot culminate in connubial intercourse is also valid?  — Here also it is a case where they were known.  but were subsequently confused. This may also be proved by deduction, since it was stated, AND THE ONE DOES NOT KNOW,  and it is not stated 'and it is not known'.  This proves it. What, then, does our Mishnah teach us?  — It was necessary to have the latter clause,  IF THEY DIED … AND ONE LEFT ONE BROTHER AND THE OTHER LEFT TWO, THE ONE BROTHER MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE HALIZAH WITH THE TWO WIDOWS AND, [AS REGARDS] THE TWO, ONE PARTICIPATES IN THE HALIZAH AND THE OTHER MAY CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.  Is not this obvious, being in the same case as the first clause? — It might have been assumed that [levirate marriage should be forbidden in the case of] two brothers as a preventive measure against the case Of one, hence we were taught [that it was not so], and also that halizah must be first and the levirate marriage afterwards, but the levirate marriage must not take place first, for thereby, one might infringe [the interdict against] a yebamah's marriage to a stranger. IF ONE LEFT TWO BROTHERS AND THE OTHER ALSO LEFT TWO etc. What need was there again for this statement? It is, surely. the same!  — It might have been assumed that [the marriage should be forbidden] as a preventive measure against marrying without previous (halizah,  hence we were taught [that no such measure Was enacted].  Wherein does this case differ from the following in which we learned: In the case of four brothers two of whom were married to two sisters, and those who were married to the sisters died, behold their widows may only perform the halizah but may not be taken in levirate marriage [by either of the levirs]? — What a comparison!