Yevamot

In the days of Rabbi there was a desire to permit the nethinim.  Said Rabbi to them, 'We could very well surrender our portion; who could surrender the portion of the altar?'  He  is thus in disagreement with R. Hiyya b. Abba. For R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: The portion of the congregation is forbidden for ever,  and the portion of the altar is forbidden only when the Sanctuary is in existence, but when the Sanctuary is not in existence it is permitted. MISHNAH. R. JOSHUA STATED: I HAVE HEARD  THAT A SARIS  SUBMITS TO HALIZAH  AND THAT HALIZAH IS ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, AND ALSO THAT A SARIS  DOES NOT SUBMIT TO HALIZAH AND THAT NO HALIZAH IS TO BE ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, AND I AM UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS.  R. AKIBA SAID, I WILL EXPLAIN IT: A MAN-MADE SARIS  SUBMITS TO HALIZAH AND HALIZAH IS ALSO ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS IN A STATE OF FITNESS. A SARIS BY NATURE  NEITHER SUBMITS TO HALIZAH NOR IS HALIZAH ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, SINCE THERE NEVER WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS FIT. R. ELIEZER SAID: NOT SO, BUT A SARIS BY NATURE  SUBMITS TO HALIZAH AND HALIZAH IS ALSO ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, BECAUSE HE MAY BE CURED. A MAN-MADE SARIS  NEITHER SUBMITS TO HALIZAH NOR IS HALIZAH ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, SINCE HE CANNOT BE CURED. R. JOSHUA B. BATHYRA TESTIFIED CONCERNING BEN MEGOSATH, WHO WAS A MAN-MADE SARIS LIVING IN JERUSALEM. THAT HIS WIFE WAS ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED BY THE LEVIR, THUS CONFIRMING THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA. THE SARIS NEITHER SUBMITS TO HALIZAH NOR CONTRACTS THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, AND SO ALSO A WOMAN WHO IS INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION MUST NEITHER PERFORM HALIZAH NOR BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. IF A SARIS SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH FROM HIS SISTER-IN-LAW, HE DOES NOT THEREBY CAUSE HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED.  IF, HOWEVER, HE COHABITED WITH HER HE CAUSES HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED.  SINCE HIS ACT IS SHEER PROSTITUTION.  SIMILARLY, WHERE BROTHERS SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH FROM A WOMAN INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION, THEY DO NOT THEREBY CAUSE HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED.  IF, HOWEVER, THEY COHABITED WITH HER, THEY CAUSE HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED.  SINCE COHABITATION WITH HER IS AN ACT OF PROSTITUTION. GEMARA. Observe! R. Akiba was heard to state that 'Those who are subject to the penalty of negative precepts  are on a par with those who are subject to the penalties of kareth';  but those who are subject to the penalty of kareth are not eligible for halizah or levirate marriage!  — R. Ammi replied: 'What we are dealing with here is with a case, for instance, where his brother  had married a proselyte; and R. Akiba is of the same opinion as R. Jose, who stated that an assembly of proselytes is not regarded as an assembly.'  If so,  he should also be permitted to contract levirate marriage!  — The law is so indeed; only because R. Joshua used the expression 'SUBMITS TO HALIZAH'  he [R. Akiba] also used the expression 'SUBMITS TO HALIZAH'. This  may also be proved by inference; for it was stated, R. JOSHUA B. BATHYRA TESTIFIED CONCERNING BEN MEGOSATH, WHO WAS A MAN-MADE SARIS LIVING IN JERUSALEM, THAT HIS WIFE WAS ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED BY THE LEVIR,  THUS CONFIRMING THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA. This proves it. Rabbah raised an objection: He who is wounded in the stones or has his privy member cut off, a man-made saris, and an old man, may either participate in halizah or contract levirate marriage. How?  If these died  and were survived by wives and brothers, and those brothers addressed a ma'amar to the wives, or gave them letters of divorce, or participated with them in halizah, their actions are legally valid;  if they cohabited with them, the widows become their lawful wives.  If the brothers died and they  addressed a ma'amar to their  wives, or gave them divorce, or participated with them in halizah, their actions are valid;  and if they cohabited with them the widows become their lawful wives, but they  may not retain them, because it is said in Scripture. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord.  This clearly proves that we are dealing  with members of the assembly!  — The fact is, said Rabbah, that this  is a case where the widow became subject to him  first and he was subsequently maimed.  Said Abaye to him: Let the prohibition against the maimed man override the positive precept of the levirate marriage! Did we not learn [of a similar case]: R. Gamaliel said, If she  made a declaration of refusal  well and good;  and if not, let [the elder sister] wait until the minor grows up and she will then be exempt as his wife's sister.  Thus it follows that the prohibition against a wife's sister has the force of overriding [that of the levirate marriage]; here also, then, let the prohibition against the maimed man have the force of overriding it! — But, said R. Joseph. this Tanna  represents the view of the Tanna of the school of R. Akiba, who maintains that [the issue] of a union which is subject to the penalty of negative precepts owing to consanguinity  is regarded as a bastard, but [the issue] of a union that is merely subject to the penalty of negative precepts is not a bastard. The text, 'To raise up unto his brother a name'  should be applicable to this case  also, but he,  surely, is incapable of raising it!  — Raba replied: If so,  there exists no woman who is eligible for the levirate marriage whose husband was not a saris by nature  for a short time, at least, prior to his death. Against R. Eliezer,  however, Raba's reply  presents a [valid] objection! — There  it is only a general state of debility  that had set in. What are we to understand by A SARIS BY NATURE? — R. Isaac b. Joseph replied in the name of R. Johanan: Any man