Yevamot

OWING TO HER MOURNING. GEMARA. It is quite reasonable that she  shall not be taken [forthwith] in levirate marriage, since the child [whom she might bear] may be viable,  and the levir would thus infringe the prohibition of marrying a brother's wife, which is Pentateuchal; but why should she not [forthwith] perform the halizah?  Does this,  then, present an objection against R. Johanan who said that the halizah of a pregnant woman is deemed to be a valid halizah?  But has not an objection against R. Johanan once been raised?  — [The question is whether] it may be assumed that an objection arises from here also?  — No; here, the reason  is this: The child might be viable;  and you would in consequence subject her to the need for an announcement  in respect of the priesthood.  Well, let her be subjected!  — It may happen that some people would be present at the halizah but would not be present at the announcement, and they would consider her ineligible to marry a priest. This quite satisfactorily explains the case of a widow; what can be said, however, in respect of a divorced woman?  — Because she would thereby  lose her maintenance.  This provides a quite satisfactory explanation in the case of a married woman; what can be said, however, in respect of a betrothed divorcee?  — The reason  is rather the ruling of  R. Jose. For it was taught: A man once appeared before R. Jose and said to him; 'May halizah be performed within three months'? The master replied, 'She must not perform the halizah'. — 'Let her perform the halizah! What would she lose'?  Thereupon he recited for him this Scriptural text: If the man like not,  [implying] that if he likes he may contract the levirate marriage; whosoever may go up  to contract the levirate marriage may also go up to perform the halizah etc. R. Hinena raised an objection: In doubtful cases halizah is performed and no levirate marriage may be contracted. Now, what is meant by 'doubtful cases'? If it be assumed to mean doubtful betrothal;  why, indeed, should no levirate marriage be contracted? Let the widow be taken in levirate marriage since no objection could possibly be raised!  Consequently,  the doubt must consist in the betrothal of two sisters when the man is uncertain which of them he betrothed;  and yet it was stated that halizah was to be performed!  — How now! There,  if Elijah were to come and point out the sister that was betrothed, she would be eligible for both halizah and levirate marriage;  here,  however, were Elijah to come and declare that the widow was not pregnant, would anyone heed him and allow her to contract the levirate marriage? Surely even a minor who is incapable of pregnancy must wait three months! Our Rabbis taught: A yebamah  is maintained during the first three months out of the estate of her husband. Subsequently  she is not to be maintained either out of the estate of her husband or out of that of the levir. If, however, the levir appeared in court  and then absconded, she is maintained out of the estate of the levir. If she became subject to a levir who was a minor she receives nothing from the levir. Does she, however, [receive her maintenance] from her husband's estate? — On this question, R. Aha and Rabina are in dispute. One holds that she receives and the other holds that she does not. And the law is that she receives nothing; for her penalty comes from heaven. Our Rabbis learned: A yebamah,  with whom the brothers had participated in halizah within the three months, must wait three months.