Yevamot

IF ONE OF THESE, HOWEVER, WAS ELIGIBLE  AND THE OTHER INELIGIBLE,  THEN IF HE  SUBMITS TO HALIZAH IT MUST BE FROM HER WHO IS INELIGIBLE,  AND IF HE CONTRACTS LEVIRATE MARRIAGE IT MAY BE EVEN WITH HER WHO IS ELIGIBLE. GEMARA. FOUR BROTHERS? Is this conceivable!  — Read, FOUR of the BROTHERS. MAY. And is he allowed?  Surely it was taught: Then the elder's of his city shall call him,  'they' but not their representative; 'and speak unto him'  teaches that he is given suitable advice. If he,  for instance, was young and she  old, or if he was old and she was young, he is told, 'What would you with  a young woman'? or 'What would you with an old woman'? 'Go to one who is [of the same age] as yourself and create no strife in your house'!  — This is applicable to that case only where he can afford it.  If so, even more wives also!  — Sound advice was given: Only four but no more, so that each may receive one marital visit a month. WHERE A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED etc. Let him contract levirate marriage with both! — R. Hiyya b. Abba replied in the name of R. Johanan: Scripture stated, That doth not build up his brother's house,  he builds one house  but does not build two houses. Then let him submit to halizah from both of them! — Mar Zutra b. Tobia replied: Scripture stated, The house of him who had his shoe drawn off,  he submits to the drawing off of the shoe in respect of one house but must not submit to the drawing off of the shoe in respect of two houses. Then let him submit to halizah  from one and contract levirate marriage with the other! — Scripture stated, That doth not build,  as he has not built  he must never again build. Then let him contract levirate marriage with one and submit to halizah from the other! — Scripture states, If he like not,  if, however, he liked, he may contract levirate marriage; whosoever may go up  to contract levirate marriage, may also go up to perform halizah and whosoever may not go up  to contract levirate marriage  may not go up to perform halizah. Furthermore, in order that it be not said that the same house  is partially 'built' and partially 'drawn off'. But let them say! — If he had first contracted levirate marriage and then submitted to halizah this would have been so indeed;  it is possible, however, that he may submit to halizah and subsequently contract levirate marriage and thus place himself under the prohibition of that doth not build. Might it be suggested that where there is only one,  the law of the levirate marriage shall be observed, but that where there are two, the law of levirate marriage shall not be observed! — If so, what need was there for the All Merciful to prohibit marriage with the rival of a forbidden relative? If any two rivals, it has been said, are not both subject to halizah and the levirate marriage, was there any need [to mention the exemption of] a rival of a forbidden relative! Why not? It is certainly needed! For it might have been assumed that the forbidden relative stands excluded, and her rival may, therefore, be taken in levirate marriage, hence it was taught that she also was forbidden! — But in fact [this is the proper explanation:] The repetition of his brother's wife  widened the scope. IF ONE OF THEM, HOWEVER, WAS ELIGIBLE. Said R. Joseph: Here  it was taught by Rabbi  that a man should not pour the water out of his cistern while others may require it. MISHNAH. A MAN WHO REMARRIED HIS DIVORCED WIFE,  OR MARRIED HIS HALUZAH, OR MARRIED THE RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH MUST DIVORCE HER, AND THE CHILD  IS A BASTARD; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. AKIBA. BUT THE SAGES SAID: THE CHILD IS NOT A BASTARD. THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE A MAN MARRIED THE RELATIVE OF HIS DIVORCEE THE CHILD  IS A BASTARD. GEMARA. Does R. Akiba hold the view that the child of a man who MARRIED THE RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH is a bastard? Surely Resh Lakish stated: Here  it was taught by Rabbi  [that the prohibition to marry] the sister of a divorced wife is Pentateuchal and that that of the sister of a haluzah is Rabbinical!  — Read,  THE RELATIVE OF HIS divorcee. This view may also logically be supported. For it was stated in the final clause, THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN A MAN MARRIED THE RELATIVE OF HIS DIVORCEE THE CHILD IS A BASTARD. Now, if you grant that her case  was under discussion one can well see the reason why the expression of THEY AGREE had been used; if you contend, however, that her case  was not under discussion what is the purport of THEY AGREE? Is it not possible that we were informed  that the [offspring of a union] of those who are subject to the penalty of kareth is a bastard?  — This surely is taught below: 'Who is a bastard? [The offspring of a union with] any consanguineous relative with whom cohabitation is forbidden; so R. Akiba. Simeon  the Temanite said: [The offspring of any union] the penalty for which is kareth at the hands of heaven. And the halachah is in agreement with his view.  But is it not possible that the Tanna  intended to indicate by his anonymous statement that the halachah is according to Simeon  the Temanite?  — If so, he should have stated, 'Others who are subject to the penalty of kareth', why then [specify] THE RELATIVE OF HIS DIVORCEE? Consequently it must he inferred that this case  was under discussion. But is it not indeed possible to maintain that it  was not under discussion, but because THE MAN WHO REMARRIED HIS DIVORCED WIFE OR MARRIED HIS HALUZAH OR THE RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH was spoken of,  he also introduced THE RELATIVE OF his divorcee'? Would consequently [the offspring of a union with] the RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH, according to R. Akiba,  be a bastard!  — R. Hiyya b. Abba replied in the name of R. Johanan, This is R. Akiba's reason: Because Scripture stated, The house of him that had his shoe drawn off;  Scripture thus called it his house. R. Joseph stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Rabbi: All agree that, where a man remarried his divorced wife,