Yevamot

MISHNAH. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW  AND THEN HIS BROTHER WHO WAS OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HER, [THE LATTER] RENDERS HER UNFIT  FOR [THE FORMER].  R. SIMEON SAID: HE DOES NOT RENDER HER UNFIT. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW  AND AFTERWARDS HE COHABITED WITH HER RIVAL, HE HAS RENDERED [THEREBY THE FIRST AS WELL AS THE SECOND] UNFIT FOR MARRIAGE WITH HIMSELF.  R. SIMEON SAID: HE DOES NOT RENDER [THEM] UNFIT. GEMARA. It was taught: R. Simeon said to the Sages, 'If the first cohabitation  was a valid act,  the second cohabitation  cannot have any validity;  if, the first cohabitation, however, has no validity,  the second cohabitation also should have no validity'. Our Mishnah  cannot represent the view of Ben 'Azzai; for it was taught: Ben 'Azzai stated, 'A ma'amar is valid after another ma'amar where it concerns two levirs  and one sister-in-law,  but no ma'amar is valid after a ma'amar where it concerns two sisters-in-law and one levir.' MISHNAH. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW  AND THEN DIED, SHE MUST PERFORM HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.  IF HE HAD MARRIED [ANY OTHER] WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIED, SHE IS EXEMPT [FROM BOTH]. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW, AND AFTER HE HAD COME OF AGE HE MARRIED ANOTHER WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIED, IF HE HAD NOT [CARNALLY] KNOWN THE FIRST WOMAN AFTER HE HAD BECOME OF AGE, THE FIRST ONE MUST PERFORM HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE,  WHILE THE SECOND  MAY EITHER PERFORM HALIZAH OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. R. SIMEON SAID: [THE SURVIVING LEVIR] MAY CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WITH WHICHEVER OF THEM HE MAY DESIRE  AND SUBMITS TO HALIZAH FROM THE OTHER.  [THE SAME LAW APPLIES] WHETHER HE IS OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY, OR WHETHER HE IS OF THE AGE OF TWENTY YEARS BUT HAD NOT PRODUCED TWO PUBIC HAIRS. GEMARA. Raba stated: With reference to the statement of the Rabbis that in the case of the levirate bond originating from two levirs [the sister-in-law] must perform halizah only but may not contract levirate marriage, it must not be assumed that this is applicable only where there is a rival, because [in that case] a preventive measure was necessary on account of the rival;  for here  there is no rival and yet [the sister-in-law] must perform halizah only but may not contract the levirate marriage. IF HE HAD MARRIED [ANY OTHER] WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIED etc. Here  we learned what the Rabbis taught: If an imbecile or a minor married and then died, their wives are exempt from halizah and from the levirate marriage. A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS etc. AND AFTER HE HAD COME OF AGE etc. Let the cohabitation of the boy of nine  be given the same validity as that of a ma'amar by an adult,  and so let the rival [here]  be debarred from the levirate marriage!  — Now said Rab: The cohabitation of a boy of nine was not given the same validity as that of a ma'amar by an adult. Samuel, however, said: It was certainly given the same validity:  and so said R. Johanan: It certainly was given the same validity. Then  let the same validity be given here also!  — This [question is a matter of dispute between] Tannaim. That Tanna [whose ruling is contained in the chapter] of the 'Four Brothers'  enacted a preventive measure on account of the rival;  and though he stated the law in respect of an adult the same law is applicable to a minor, the reason why he mentioned the adult being only because he was engaged on the question of  the adult. The Tanna here  however, is of the opinion that they  were given the same validity,  and he enacted no preventive measure on account of the rival; and though he spoke of the minor the same law applies to an adult, the reason why he spoke of the minor being only because he was dealing with the minor. R. Eleazar came and reported this statement at the schoolhouse but did not report it in the name of R. Johanan. When R. Johanan heard this he was annoyed.  Thereupon R. Ammi and R. Assi came in and said to him: Did it not happen at the Synagogue of Tiberias that R. Eleazar and R. Jose disputed [so hotly] concerning a door bolt which had a knob  at one end  that they tore a Scroll of the Law in their excitement. 'They tore?  Could this be imagined! Say rather 'That a Scroll of the Law was torn  in their excitement'. R. Jose b. Kisma who was then present exclaimed, 'I shall be surprised if this Synagogue  is not turned into a house of idolatry', and so it happened. [On hearing this] he was annoyed all the more. 'Comradeship too' he exclaimed. Thereupon R. Jacob b. Idi came in and said to him: 'As the Lord commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses;  did Joshua, then, concerning every word which he said, tell them, "Thus did Moses tell me"? But, the fact is that Joshua was sitting and delivering his discourse without mentioning names, and all knew that it was the Torah of Moses. So did your disciple R. Eleazar sit and deliver his discourse without mentioning names and all knew that it was yours'. 'Why', he  chided them,  are you not capable of conciliating like the son of Idi our friend?' Why was R. Johanan so annoyed? — [For the following reason]. For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: What is the meaning of the Scriptural text, I will dwell in Thy tent for ever?  Is it possible for a man to dwell in two worlds! But [in fact it is this that] David said to the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Lord of the Universe, May it be Thy will