json/Mishnah/Seder Nashim/Mishnah Yevamot/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Yevamot",
    "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
    "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
    "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה יבמות",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Nashim"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "\tFifteen women exempt their tzaroth [\"rival wives\"] from chalitzah [release from yibum (levirate marriage)] and from yibum all the way down the line (i.e., tzarah of tzarah of tzarah, etc.). [If one of them were married to his brother, who (with her) had two wives, and he died without children, they are both exempt, it being written (Leviticus 18:8): \"And a woman together with her sister you shall not take to be rivals (litzror) to reveal her nakedness upon her.\" What is the intent of \"upon her\"? To teach that even his yevamah, of whom it is written (Deuteronomy 25:5): \"Her yavam shall come upon her\" — if she is \"a woman together with her sister,\" you shall not take her. And the same applies to all of the other arayoth where kareth obtains. And this tells me only of her. Whence is her tzarah derived (as likewise forbidden)? From \"litzror,\" which implies: Take neither her, nor her tzarah, nor the tzarah of her tzarah.] They (the fifteen women) are: His daughter [His daughter from his anussah (a woman that he had forced), as is the case with \"the daughter of his daughter\" and \"the daughter of his son.\" For his daughter from his wife is \"bath ishto.\" For since it is written (Leviticus 18:17): \"The nakedness of a woman (ishah) and her daughter you shall not reveal,\" it makes no difference whether it is his or another's daughter. But his daughter from his anussah is not derived from that verse, for \"ishah\" connotes marriage. It is derived, rather, from (Ibid. 10): \"The nakedness of the daughter of your son or the daughter of your daughter.\"], the daughter of his daughter, the daughter of his son, the daughter of his wife, the daughter of her son, the daughter of her daughter, his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, the mother of his father-in-law [All of these are forbidden to him by reason of (Ibid. 17): \"The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not reveal. The daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter, etc.\", subsumed in which are his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law.], his sister from his mother [who married his brother from his father, who died, as is the case with his mother's sister. For yibum obtains only with one's brother from his father, this being derived by \"brotherhood\" identity from the sons of Yaakov (see Deuteronomy 25:5). Just as there, (they were all) brothers from the father, but not (necessarily) from the mother, here, too, (in the instance of yibum), it is not different.], his mother's sister, his wife's sister, the wife of his brother from his mother, [who, after her husband's death, married his brother from his father, to whom she is not kin. If he died without children, and she fell before him for yibum, she is forbidden to him by reason of her first having been the wife of his brother from his mother, who is forbidden to him perpetually, it being written (Leviticus 18:16): \"The nakedness of the wife of your brother,\" which is expounded \"your brother,\" whether from your father or from your mother.], and the wife of his brother who was not in his world [e.g., Reuven died without children and after his death, a brother, Levi, was born. Shimon took Reuven's wife in yibum. He had another wife and he died without children. Both of Shimon's wives fell before Levi for yibum. Both are exempt. The wife of Reuven who had been married to Shimon is forbidden to Levi on (liability of) kareth, Scripture having excluded her (from yibum), viz. (Deuteronomy 25:5): \"When brothers dwell together\" — when both of them had \"one dwelling\" (i.e., when they were concurrently alive) in the world. Therefore, when Reuven died, she was rendered perpetually forbidden to Levi (just as the wife of a brother who has children). And though now she falls to Levi through the marriage of Shimon, who was in his world, she is forbidden to him by reason of Reuven. And just as she is forbidden, so her tzarah is forbidden.], and his daughter-in-law. [His son died and she married his (her father-in-law's) brother. His daughter-in-law is forbidden to him perpetually, even after his son's death.] These (the aforementioned) exempt their tzaroth and the tzaroth of their tzaroth from chalitzah and from yibum all the way down the line. And all of them — if they died, or refused (his brother), or were divorced, or were found to be eiloniyoth (barren) — their tzaroth are permitted. [e.g., if his daughter died before his brother did, or if she refused him. And even though (normally), refusal (miun) obtains only with an orphaned minor, who was married by her mother and her brothers, it may also occur in her father's lifetime, as when her father married her to another and she was divorced when still a minor, in which instance her father no longer has jurisdiction over her. If she then married her father's brother while still a minor, she then can gain release through miun. (She is referred to later as \"an orphan in her father's lifetime.\") If she refused his brother, or were divorced by him, or were found to be an eilonith (in which instance \"her purchase was mistaken\" and it is as if she were never his brother's wife), her tzarah is taken in yibum.] [\"eilonith\" — from \"ayil,\" a ram. The characteristics of an eilonith are: an absence of breasts and of (pubertal) signs, a thick voice, like that of a man, and a lack of a \"belly slope,\" characteristic of women, i.e., her pudendum not projecting from her body, as that of other women.] And it cannot be said of his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law, that they were found to be eiloniyoth or that they refused. [For they already bore children to another before they married his brother. Therefore, they are not eiloniyoth. And miun, also, does not obtain with them, their being adults, and miun obtaining only with minors. As to our tanna's not including one's mother among those women who exempt their tzaroth from yibum, he holds with the ruling that one may not marry a woman whom his father had forced or seduced. But according to the ruling that one may marry her, and that this is the halachah, it is possible for one's mother to marry his brother from his father; and if his brother dies without children, his mother falls before him for yibum. So that there are found to be sixteen women who exempt their tzaroth, his mother being one of them. And this is the halachah.]",
            "\tHow do they exempt their tzaroth? If his daughter or one of the other of all these arayoth (forbidden relations) were married to his brother, who had another wife, and he died — just as his daughter is exempt (from yibum) [being forbidden to him, and there being no other brother but he], so her tzarah is exempt. If his daughter's tzarah went and married his second brother [in an instance where there is another brother, in which case both women are permitted to him and are not exempt, the mitzvah of yibum obtaining, in which instance he takes one of them in yibum and the other is exempt, it being written (Deuteronomy 25:9): \"the house of his brother\" — he builds one house, and not two], and he had another wife, and he died [without children, and they fell before him (for yibum)], just as the tzarah of his daughter is exempt [having been forbidden to him from the time she fell (for yibum) from his first brother], so the tzarah of her tzarah [the other wife of his second brother] is exempt [the first tzarah exempting her, the tzarah of an ervah (a forbidden relation) exempting her tzarah] — even if there were a hundred [brothers, and the tzarah of his daughter's tzarah went and was taken in yibum by his third brother, who had another wife, and he died without children; both are forbidden to him, and so, all the way down the line.] How, if they died, are their tzaroth permitted? If his daughter or one of the other of all of these arayoth were married to his brother, and he had another wife — if his daughter died or were divorced, and then his brother died, her tzarah is permitted [to be taken in yibum, for at the time of the yibum option, she was not her tzarah.] And if she [the ervah] could have refused [being a minor], and did not refuse [and his brother died], her tzarah performs chalitzah and is not taken in yibum. [Since she is considered married only by rabbinical ordinance and her yibum connection obtains only by rabbinical ordinance, she does not exempt her tzarah from chalitzah; but she is forbidden to be taken in yibum, because she seems like the tzarah of an ervah.]",
            "\tSix arayoth are more stringent than these [and what is their \"stringency\"?] — being married to others, [not being able to marry his brother from his father. And if their husbands die, who are not kin to this one, their tzaroth are permitted to marry him. For the tzarah of an ervah is forbidden to him only when she falls before him for yibum from his brother. And Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon explained: If they wed his brother illicitly, and he died without children, and they fell for yibum before him, their tzaroth are permitted. For these are not tzaroth of ervah, the marriage of his brother to these arayoth not being binding.] Their tzaroth are permitted: his mother [She may not marry his brother from his father, being forbidden to him by reason of \"the wife of his father\" (this according to the view that the anussah of his father is forbidden. I explained above that this is not the halachah; but that his mother exempts her tzarah, his mother being permitted to marry his brother from his father.)], the wife of his father, the sister of his father, his sister from his father, and the wife of his brother from his father [who had children. All are forbidden to his brother just as they are forbidden to him, and he never has any yibum linkage with these. If others married them, and they had other wives, and they died, their tzaroth are permitted to marry him. Likewise, if his brother married them illicitly and he died without children, their tzaroth are permitted.]",
            "\tBeth Shammai permit tzaroth to brothers. [They permit the tzarah of an ervah to be taken in yibum by one's brother, not expounding \"litzror\" (see above)], and Beth Hillel forbid them. If they [the tzaroth] received chalitzah [ from the brothers], Beth Shammai regard them [the tzaroth] as unfit for (marriage within) the priesthood, [their chalitzah being valid (and a chalutzah being forbidden to a Cohein)], and Beth Hillel regard them as fit, [their chalitzah having been unnecessary, and akin to chalitzah from a gentile.] If they were taken in yibum [by the brothers], Beth Shammai regard them as fit [for marriage to Cohanim if they are widowed from their husbands], and Beth Hillel as unfit, [living with those forbidden to them rendering them \"zonah,\" and thus forbidden to a Cohein]. Although these forbid, and these permit; these regard as unfit and these as fit, Beth Shammai did not keep from marrying women from Beth Hillel, and Beth Hillel did not keep from marrying women from Beth Shammai. [And even though the children of the tzaroth who were taken in yibum according to the ruling of Beth Shammai are mamzerim according to Beth Hillel, (the interdict against a brother's wife applying to them, the punishment for transgression being kareth, and the children born of a kareth union being mamzerim), still, Beth Hillel did not keep from marrying women from Beth Shammai; for they would apprise them which came from tzaroth and they would avoid them.] In all those instances where these ruled clean and the others unclean, they did not keep from observing ritual cleanliness among each other. [i.e., They would lend their vessels to each other. (The gemara asks why Beth Shammai's permitting the tzaroth to the brothers and Beth Hillel's forbidding them should not come under (Deuteronomy 14:1): \"Lo tithgodedu\" — you shall not form opposing factions (\"agudoth, agudoth\") — and it answers that \"lo tithgodedu\" would apply to one beth-din in one city, where half the judges ruled according to Beth Shammai, and half according to Beth Hillel — but not to two batei-din in one city, and certainly not to two batei-din in two cities.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tHow does \"the wife of his brother who was not in his world\" [exempt her tzarah]? If there were two brothers and one of them died, and a brother was born to them, [to whom she was yibum-linked, but to whom (the third brother) she is forbidden by reason of \"the wife of his brother who was not in his world\"], and afterwards the second brother [who had a wife of his own] took his brother's wife in yibum, and he died [without children] — then the first woman [the wife of the first who had already fallen before him once (for yibum)] goes out (i.e., she is not taken in yibum) by reason of \"the wife of his brother who was not in his world\"; and the second (goes out) by virtue of being her tzarah. If he (the second) made a ma'amar in her (the first brother's wife) and he died [i.e., if he betrothed her with money. With a yevamah, money-betrothal is not bona fide betrothal, but obtains only by ordinance of the scribes. For a yevamah is not acquired by the yavam to be considered a married woman until he lives with her; and in this instance he had not lived with her before he died.], the second wife receives chalitzah [ and she is not exempt by reason of tzarath ervah, because she is not actually her tzarah], and she is not taken in yibum [because ma'amar acquires to a certain extent, and she is tzarath ervah to a certain extent. And wherever bona fide betrothal does not obtain, she receives chalitzah and is not taken yibum.]",
            "\tIf there were two brothers and one of them died, and the second took his brother's wife in yibum, and then a brother were born, and then he [the second brother] died — the first woman goes out by reason of \"the wife of his brother who was not in his world,\" and the second by reason of being her tzarah. If he made a ma'amar in her and he died, the second receives chalitzah, and she is not taken in yibum. R. Shimon says: He can take either one in  yibum or give chalitzah to either one. [And she exempts the other thereby. This does not relate to \"If he made a ma'amar in her,\" but to the first part, viz.: \"The first one goes out, etc.\" R. Shimon holds that since when he was born she had already been taken in yibum, and had never had a yibum linkage to him (the one who was born later) from the first brother, she is permitted to him. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            "\tA general principle was stated in respect to a yevamah: If she is an issur ervah (interdicted as an ervah), she [her tzarah, and, it goes without saying, she herself], is subject to neither chalitzah nor yibum. [The same applies to an eilonith, it being written (Deuteronomy 25:6): \"And it shall be, the first-born that she bears\" — to exclude an eilonith. Likewise, the wife of a seris chammah (one born without testicles), and a hermaphrodite is subject to neither chalitzah not yibum, it being written (Ibid. 5): \"and he have no son\" — to exclude those who are incapable of begetting children. And the wife of a proselyte and of a freed bondsman is subject to neither chalitzah not yibum, there being no \"brotherhood\" to proselytes nor bondsmen. But a barren woman or an old woman receive chalitzah or are taken in yibum.] If she were interdicted as issur mitzvah or issur kedushah (see next Mishnah), she is subject to chalitzah, but not to yibum. If her sister [the sister of an ervah] were her yevamah [as when two sisters from his two brothers fell before him for yibum, one of them being forbidden to him as an ervah (e.g., his mother-in-law or his daughter-in-law)], she either receives chalitzah or is taken in yibum [For in such an instance, he is not in contravention of \"the sister of one linked to him (in yibum),\" an ervah not being linked to him].",
            "\tIssur mitzvah — shniyoth [secondary to arayoth] interdicted by the soferim. [They are called \"issur mitzvah\" because it is a mitzvah to hearken to the words of the sages. The shniyoth are: the mother of his mother (all the way down the line), the mother of his father's mother alone, the mother of his father (all the way down the line), the mother of his father's father, the wife of his father's father (all the way down the line), the wife of his father's mother (alone), the wife of his father's brother from the mother, the wife of his mother's brother, whether from the mother or from the father, the daughter-in-law of his son (all the way down the line), the daughter-in-law of his daughter, the daughter of the daughter of his son, the daughter of the daughter of his daughter, the daughter of the son of his son, the daughter of the son of his daughter, the daughter of the daughter of the son of his wife, the daughter of the daughter of the daughter of his wife, the mother of the mother of the father of his wife, the mother of the mother of the mother of his wife, the mother of the father of the mother of his wife, and the mother of the father of the father of his wife.] Issur kedushah — a widow to a high-priest [in an instance where his brother, a Cohein, died, and his wife fell before him (for yibum)], a divorced woman and a chalutzah to a plain Cohein [as when his dead brother had transgressed and married a divorced woman or a chalutzah. When he dies, she requires chalitzah, for betrothal \"takes\" in her (betrothal) \"taking\" in those interdicted by negative commandment (but not subject to kareth). But he does not take her in yibum, for she is forbidden to him. And simply to exempt her is impossible, the negative commandment not sufficing to exempt her, our deriving this (exemption) from the (instance of the) sister of one's wife, where kareth obtains], a mamzereth and a Nethinah to a Yisrael, and the daughter of a Yisrael to a Nathin and to a mamzer.",
            "\tIf one has a brother from any source [even a mamzer], he \"binds\" his brothers wife to yibum, and he is his brother for all purposes [to inherit him and to make himself unclean for him (at his death)] — except for one who has a brother from a bondswoman or from a gentile woman, [her child reverting to her, it being written in respect to a bondswoman (Exodus 21:4): \"The woman and her children shall belong to her master,\" and, in respect to a gentile woman, (Deuteronomy 7:4): \"For he will turn your son away from Me.\" Its not being written: \"For she will turn, etc.\" indicates the meaning to be (Ibid. 3): \"Your daughter do not give to his son,\" for the husband of your daughter will turn your son which your daughter will bear away from Me. But it does not refer to \"His daughter you shall not take for your son,\" for a son born of a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son.] If one has a son from any source, he (that son) exempts his father's wife from yibum, he is liable for striking and cursing him, and he is his son for all purposes — except for one who has a son from a bondswoman or from a gentile woman.",
            "\tIf a man betrothed one of two sisters and did not know which one, [so that both are forbidden to him, each one possibly being the sister of the woman he married], he gives a get to each. If he died and had another brother, he gives chalitzah to both [for he does not know which is his yevamah. And he cannot give chalitzah to one and take the other in yibum, by reason of \"the sister of his chalutzah.\" (And she is forbidden to him in her sister's lifetime by rabbinical ordinance.) Nor can he take one in yibum first, for she might not be his yevamah, in which instance he would be violating the sister of one \"linked\" to him, who is like his wife. If he had two brothers, one gives chalitzah [to one first], and the second, [if he wishes,] takes [the other] in yibum. [For if she (the other) is his yevamah, all well and good; and if she is the yevamah's sister, he does not violate \"the sister of his linked one,\" for the chalitzah of the other brother had dissolved the linkage.] If the brothers were beforehand and married them [before taking counsel with beth-din], they are not taken from them [for each one can say: \"I married correctly.\" And even if it were otherwise — that the first who wed for yibum really took the sister of his linked one — it was at that time that he transgressed, and when his brother came and took the other, the true yevamah, in yibum, the linkage to the other was retroactively dissolved.]",
            "\tIf two [who were not brothers] betrothed two sisters, each not knowing which he betrothed, each gives two gittin. If they died, and each had a brother, each gives chalitzah to both, [each being forbidden to perform yibum because of the possibility of \"the sister of his linked one\"]. If one had one brother and the other two, the one brother gives chalitzah to both, [yibum being impossible both before the chalitzah of the second woman, by reason of \"the sister of his linked one,\" and after, by reason of \"the sister of his chalutzah.\" Therefore, since yibum is forbidden, he first gives chalitzah to both, to free the one who is his yevamah to others]; and the two brothers — one gives chalitzah [to dissolve the linkage from his brother, if this is his yevamah], and the second takes (the other) in yibum. [The sister is permitted to the second in any case. If she is his yevamah, all well and good; and if she is the sister of his yevamah, the linkage of the latter was dissolved by his brother's chalitzah.] If they were beforehand and married them, they are not taken from them. If each had two brothers, the brother of one gives chalitzah to one, and the brother of the other gives chalitzah to the other. The latter brother takes the chalutzah of the former in yibum, and the former brother takes the chalutzah of the latter in yibum. [For, in any case, if the one he takes is his yevamah, he has taken her correctly, his brother having given chalitzah not to her, but to her sister, who was not his yevamah, so that the chalitzah is of no import. And if the one he takes is not his yevamah, he has properly wed an unattached woman. For \"the sister of his linked one\" does not obtain here, his brother having given chalitzah to her sister, his yevamah, so that the linkage is dissolved.] If two [brothers of (one of the deceased)] were beforehand, and gave chalitzah [to both of them, (each) not knowing which was his yevamah], the two [other brothers] may not take them [respectively] in yibum [for it may be that the first would be taking the sister of his linked one], but one gives chalitzah [first to one of them], and the other takes [the second] in yibum. [For, in either case, if she is his yevamah, all well and good; and if not, he will not have violated \"the sister of his linked one,\" his brother having given chalitzah to his yevamah. And she (the latter) will not be considered \"a yevamah to the marketplace,\" having received chalitzah from her husband's brother.] And if they [the two other brothers] were beforehand, and married them [after the chalitzah of the first two, not having consulted beth-din], they are not taken from them [as explained before. For there obtains only the possibility of \"the sister of his linked one\" in the marriage of the first. And it may be that he had actually, and properly, married his yevamah, so that the other brother, too, would properly have married an unattached woman. And even if the opposite were the case, and the first had violated \"the sister of his linked one,\" when the second came and took the other in yibum, her linkage would have been (retroactively) dissolved and his (the first brother's) wife would be permitted to him, though he had transgressed in taking her.]",
            "\tIt is a mitzvah for the elder brother to perform the yibum. [For we expound the verse (Deuteronomy 25:5): \"And he shall take her as a wife in yibum (6): and it shall be the first-born\" (He who performs the yibum shall be the first-born) \"that she bears\" (That yevamah must be capable of bearing — to exclude an eilonith) \"shall be invested\" (The first-born, the yavam, shall be invested) \"in the name of his dead brother\" (to inherit him, his other brothers not sharing with him)]. And if the younger were beforehand (to take her in yibum), he acquires her. If one were suspected of (relations with) a bondswoman, and she were freed, or with a gentile woman, and she became a proselyte, he may not marry her. If he did, she is not taken from him. If one were suspected of (relations with) a married woman, and they (beth-din) took her from him [her husband, because of this one, who caused her to be forbidden to him, and this one went and married her], even though he married her, he must send her away. [For the Torah forbids her also to him, just as she is forbidden to her husband, it being expounded (Numbers 5:13 and 14): \"she be unclean,\" twice — once, vis-à-vis the husband; once, vis-à-vis the adulterer. And this applies only to one who is suspected of adultery; but if one is suspected of relations with an unmarried woman, it would seem that it is a mitzvah for him to marry her, as we find in respect to one who forces a virgin (Deuteronomy 22:29): \"And to him shall she be as a wife.\"]",
            "\tIf one brings a get from abroad, and he says: \"Before me it was written, and before me it was signed\" [He must say this, as explained in Gittin — according to one view because (abroad) they are not versed in (the knowledge that a get must be written ) lishmah — to its particular end — and, according to another view, because certifying witnesses are not generally available there], he may not marry his (the divorcer's) wife. [For we have only his testimony to rely upon (and he may be lying in order to marry her)]. If he says: \"He died\" or \"I killed him\" or \"We killed him,\" he may not marry his wife. [For since she weds on the basis of his testimony, there may be talk that he \"cast his eyes upon her\" and testified falsely to be able to wed her. But she may marry another; for a woman may be married on the basis of the testimony of one witness.] R. Yehudah says: If he says: \"I killed him,\" his wife may not marry [on the basis of his testimony, even to another. For he is an evil-doer (by his own admission); and the Torah forbids the testimony of an evil-doer. But the halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah, it being ruled that a man does not render himself an evil-doer, being \"solicitous\" of himself. We believe him, then, as to the other's having been killed; but not as to his having killed him. So that even if he says: \"I killed him,\" his wife may marry.] [The gemara explains this (\"We killed him\") to mean: \"I was with his killers, but I did not kill him.\"]",
            "\tIf a sage forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow [If she vowed to derive no enjoyment from her husband, and he did not absolve her of her vow, and she came to a sage to absolve her of it, and he did not find \"an opening for regret\" (i.e., for absolution of her vow)], he (the sage) may not marry her [because he is suspect (of contriving to marry her)]. If she performed miun or chalitzah before him, he may marry her because he is a beth-din. [That is, this sage did not preside over miun or chalitzah by himself, two or three being required for this, so that he is not suspect. But one expert suffices for the absolution of vows.] And all of them [the sage, and one who brought a get, and one who testified to enable a woman to marry, concerning whom we learned that they may not marry her], if they had wives [at the time] and they died, they are [thereafter] permitted to marry them, [there being no \"suspicion\" in such an instance]. And all [these women] who were married to others [when the sage forbade her, or when the witness testified that her husband had died], and they were divorced or widowed [ from their second husbands], they are permitted to marry them [the sage or the one who brought the get]. And they are all permitted to the sons or the brothers [of those who permitted them, being forbidden only to the permitters themselves; for one does not sin on behalf of his son or his brother. And all of these concerning whom it is stated \"He may not marry her\" — if he did marry her, he need not send her away — with the exception of one who is suspected of adultery, in which instance, if beth-din took her from her husband on the basis of testimony and clear evidence, even if he did marry her, he must send her away. And if there were witnesses only to something suggestive, such as the man leaving and the woman girt in a sinar (a kind of breech-cloth) or the man leaving and the woman rising from her bed, and the like — if he married her, he need not send her away. And if after such witnesses came, the report were broadcast and did not cease after a day and a half — if he married her, he must send her away (unless he had children from her, in which instance he does not send her away, so that suspicion not be cast upon his children).]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf there were four brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and they died, the surviving two perform chalitzah, but not yibum. [For since both women are linked to each brother, the first to perform yibum violates \"the sister of his linked one,\" who is like his wife.] If they were beforehand and married them, they must send them away. R. Eliezer says in the name of Beth Shammai: They may keep them, and Beth Hillel say: They must send them away. [The gemara reverses this, viz.: Beth Shammai say: They must send them away, and Beth Hillel say: They may keep them. For in all places, Beth Shammai's is the stringent ruling, and Beth Hillel's the lenient, except for those noted instances where the opposite is the case. And in general we say: \"Beth Shammai in the place of Beth Hillel is not a Mishnah.\" That is, wherever we find in the Mishnah that Beth Shammai's is the lenient ruling (where it is wont to be Beth Hillel's, so that Beth Shammai stands in the place of Beth Hillel), we assume it to be not a (bona fide) Mishnah, but mistaken, and we reverse it (unless it be one of the noted Mishnayoth where Beth Shammai takes the lenient view and Beth Hillel the stringent one. And in Eduyoth, it is listed in the name of R. Eliezer among the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and the stringent ones of Beth Hillel.)]",
            "\tIf one of them were forbidden to one of the brothers as an issur ervah [e.g., his mother-in-law or her mother], he is forbidden to take her and permitted to take her sister [for she is not \"the sister of his linked one,\" an ervah not falling before him for yibum], and the second brother is forbidden to take both. If (one of them were forbidden as an) issur mitzvah or an issur kedushah [who, by Torah ordinance, falls before him for yibum, for which reason her sister is forbidden to him as \"the sister of his linked one\"], they receive chalitzah and are not taken in yibum.",
            "\tIf one of them were forbidden to one brother as issur ervah, and the other to the other as issur ervah, the woman forbidden to the first is permitted to the second, and the one forbidden to the second is permitted to the first. And this is the intent of (2:3): \"If her sister were her yevamah, she either receives chalitzah or is taken in yibum.\" [For she is not \"the sister of his linked one,\" an ervah not falling before him for yibum.]",
            "\tIf there were three brothers, two of them married to two sisters, or to a woman and her daughter, or to a woman and her daughter's daughter, or to a woman and her son's daughter, they receive chalitzah, but are not taken in yibum, and R. Shimon exempts them (from chalitzah). [R. Shimon's rationale (Leviticus 18:18): \"And a woman together with her sister you shall not take litzror\" — When both become tzaroth to each other — as in this case, when both are linked to him for yibum — there shall be no \"taking\" neither in the one nor in the other. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.] If one of them were forbidden to him as an issur ervah, he is forbidden to take her and permitted to take her sister. If she were forbidden to him as an issur mitzvah or as an issur kedushah, they receive chalitzah and are not taken in yibum.",
            "\tIf there were three brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and one of them single — if one of the sisters' husbands died, and the single brother made a ma'amar in her, and then the second brother died — Beth Shammai say: His wife remains with him [For Beth Shammai hold that the woman betrothed by ma'amar is regarded as his wife, so that when her sister falls before him afterwards she is not forbidden by reason of \"the sister of his linked one\"], and the other goes out [even from chalitzah, by reason of \"the sister of his wife.\"] And Beth Hillel say: He must send his wife away by get and by chalitzah, and his brother's wife by chalitzah. [For ma'amar is not sufficient to give her the status of a married woman, and the other is forbidden by reason of \"the sister of his linked one.\" A get is necessary because of the ma'amar, which is partial betrothal, and betrothal is not dissolved without a get. And she also requires chalitzah, for since the ma'amar is not bona fide betrothal, she is still linked to him (for yibum) and requires chalitzah to dissolve that linkage; so that first he gives her a get, and then chalitzah. And this is the halachah.] And this is the instance of which they said (13:7): \"Woe to him by reason of his wife, and woe to him by reason of his brother's wife!\"",
            "\tIf there were three brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and one of them married to a stranger [i.e., kin to neither of the wives] — if one of the sisters' husbands died, and the one married to the stranger took his wife (in yibum) and then died, the first (the one taken in yibum) goes out by reason of \"his sister's wife,\" and the second (the stranger) by reason of being her tzarah. If he made a ma'amar in her and he died, the \"stranger\" receives chalitzah and is not taken in yibum. [The same applies even if he did not make a ma'amar in her and he died — the \"stranger\" receives chalitzah, but not yibum, being the tzarah of the sister of his wife by linkage. \"If he made a ma'amar\" was stated in exception to the ruling of Beth Shammai, who say that ma'amar constitutes bona fide betrothal, so that even chalitzah is not required. We are hereby apprised that chalitzah is required.] If there were three brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and one of them married to a stranger — if the one married to a stranger died, and one of those married to the sisters took the \"stranger\" in yibum and he died, the first goes out by reason of \"the sister of his wife,\" and the second by reason of being her tzarah. If he made a ma'amar in her and he died, the \"stranger\" receives chalitzah and is not taken in yibum.",
            "\tIf there were three brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and one of them married to a stranger — if one of the sisters' husbands died, and the one married to the stranger took his wife (in yibum), and the wife of the second died, and then the one married to the stranger died, she (the one taken in yibum) is forbidden to him (the surviving brother) forever, since she was forbidden to him at one time [at the first falling (for yibum), when she fell from his first brother, at which time his wife (her sister) was alive, so that she was forbidden to him just as the wife of a brother who had children. As to her tzarah, the stranger, the ruling for her is not given. It stands to reason that she is given chalitzah and not taken in yibum.] If there were three brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and one of them married to a stranger — if one of the sisters' husbands divorced his wife, and the one married to the stranger died, and the one who had divorced his wife died took the stranger (in yibum) and he died — of such an instance it was stated: \"And all, if they died or if they were divorced, their tzaroth are permitted.\"",
            "\tAnd all of them [the fifteen arayoth], if they [his brothers] had in them (a) possible (relationship of) betrothal or divorce, [in which case there is a possibility of tzarath ervah], she (the tzarah) receives chalitzah and is not taken in yibum. What is an instance of possibility of betrothal? If he threw [the instrument of] betrothal to her, and it (landed) possibly closer to him (in which case she is not betrothed), possibly closer to her (in which case she is betrothed) [as when there were exactly eight cubits between them in the public domain, one's four cubits effecting acquisition for him there, and he threw it — possibly in his four cubits, possibly in hers] — this is (an instance of) \"possibility of betrothal.\" (What is an instance of) possibility of divorce? If he wrote the get in his hand, but witnesses were lacking; or if there were witnesses, but the date were lacking; or if there were a date, but only one witness — this is (an instance of) \"possibility of divorce.\"",
            "\tIf there were three brothers married to three strangers, and the wife of one of them died, and the second made a ma'amar in her and died, they receive chalitzah and are not taken in yibum, it being written (Deuteronomy 25:5): \"…and one of them dies … then her yavam (singular) shall come upon her\" — when the linkage of one yavam, and not two, is upon her. [For so long as he (the one who made the ma'amar) did not marry her, the linkage of the first is still upon him, and there is added to it the linkage of the second by way of the ma'amar; and when he dies, there remains upon her the linkage of two yavmin.] R. Shimon says: He may take either one in yibum [He holds that we are in doubt as to whether ma'amar acquires completely or does not acquire at all. Therefore, he can take either one in yibum. For if ma'amar acquires, she has only the linkage of the second upon her; and if it does not acquire, she has only the linkage of the first.], and he gives chalitzah to the other. [For one is not exempt by the (sexual) taking of the other (in marriage). For it may be that ma'amar does not acquire, in which instance there are \"two yevamoth coming from two houses.\" And he cannot take both in yibum, for it may be that ma'amar does acquire, in which instance there are two yevamoth coming from one house.\" The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon. And even though we say in our Mishnah that according to Scripture there is (such a thing as) linkage of two yavmin, as indicated by: \"Her yavam (singular) shall come upon her,\" in the gemara it is shown that it obtains only by rabbinical ordinance, lest it be said that two yevamoth coming from one house are taken in yibum.] If there were two brothers married to two sisters and one of them died, and then the wife of the second one died, she is forbidden to him forever, since she was forbidden to him at one time. (See 3:7).",
            "\tIf two men married two women, and when they took them in marriage (i.e., cohabitation), they (unwittingly) exchanged them, they are liable (for a sin-offering) by reason of adultery. If they were brothers, they are liable [in addition] by reason of one's brother's wife. And if they were sisters (they are liable in addition) by reason of (the interdict against) taking a woman and her sister. And if they were niddoth (they are liable in addition) by reason of (the interdict against living with) a niddah. [Even though we rule that one interdict is not superimposed upon another, this tanna holds that with issur kollel (a comprehensive interdict), and issur mosif (a superadded interdict), and issur bath-achath (a simultaneous interdict), as in this instance, one interdict is superimposed upon the other, and each requires a separate sin-offering.] And they are separated [not to return to their husbands] for three months, lest they be pregnant [and the children be mamzerim. And it is necessary to discriminate between seed that is kasher and seed that is not, that it (the latter) not be attributed to their husbands)]. And if they were minors who were incapable of bearing, they are returned immediately. And if they were the daughters of Cohanim, they are unfit to eat terumah [in their fathers' houses, even after the death of their husbands, and even though they were exchanged unwittingly.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one gave chalitzah to his yevamah, and she were found to be pregnant, and she gave birth — if the child lived, he may marry her relatives and she may marry his relatives, [this not being chalitzah, chalitzah having been unnecessary. \"Her relatives\" and \"his relatives\" of our Mishnah are those forbidden to a man because of his wife, and those forbidden to a woman because of her husband.], and she is not rendered unfit to the priesthood. If the child did not live [i.e., if it were a miscarriage], he is forbidden to her relatives and she is forbidden to his relatives and she is rendered unfit to the priesthood.",
            "\tIf one wed his yevamah, and he found her to be pregnant, and she gave birth — if the child lived, he must send her away, and they must bring a (sin-) offering [for he cohabited with his brother's wife outside the context of mitzvah (i.e., yibum), and the child is kasher in any event.] And if the child does not live, she remains with him. If it were not clear whether the child were a nine-month birth of the first or a seven-month birth of the second, he must send her away, the child is kasher, and they must bring a suspended guilt-offering. [For in all instances where one is liable to kareth for wilful transgression, and to a sin-offering for unwitting transgression, he is liable to a suspended sin-offering for possible transgression.]",
            "\tA shomereth yavam [a woman awaiting yibum] to whom property fell [from her father's house] — Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel concur that she may sell it or give it away, and that it (whatever she does) stands. If she died, what should they do with her kethubah [the hundred or two hundred, and the addition, and the dowry that she brought to him and for which he assumed responsibility] and the property which goes in and out with her [nichsei melog (usufruct), which when she goes in to her husband goes in with her, and which, when she goes out, goes out with her]? Beth Shammai say: The heirs of the husband and the heirs of the father should divide it [for there is a possibility that she is (considered) married (to the yavam), so that the yavam acquires half of her property, a husband inheriting his wife, her being possibly married to him endowing him with half.], and Beth Hillel say: The property [tzon barzel (mortmain)] remains in its status. [And Beth Hillel did not specify whether it reverts to the heirs of the woman, the property having been hers, or to the heirs of the husband, who had assumed responsibility for it. As to the halachah, they divide it even according to Beth Hillel.] Her kethubah is in the status (i.e., the ownership) of the heirs of the husband. The property which goes in and out with her is in the status of the heirs of the father.",
            "\tIf he took her (i.e., cohabited with her), she (the yevamah) is like his wife in all respects. [He divorces her with a get and does not require chalitzah, and he can take her back if he wishes, and she does not become forbidden to him.] — only that her kethubah be (bound) to the property of her first husband, [that the land of her first husband be security for her kethubah. And if she lacks a kethubah from her first husband, the yavam writes her a kethubah of a hundred only against his property.]",
            "\tIt is a mitzvah for the elder brother to perform the yibum [as we derive from (Deuteronomy 25:5): \"And it shall be the first-born, etc.\" (see 2:8)]. If he demurred, we \"go through\" all the brothers (in descending order of age). If they demurred, we return to the eldest and say to him: \"The mitzvah devolves upon you — either give her chalitzah or take her in yibum!\"",
            "\tIf he (one of the brothers) relegated it (yibum) to a (brother who was) a minor, when he would come of age, or to the eldest brother, when he returned from abroad [i.e., If the eldest of the brothers were abroad, and the eldest of the brothers before us relegated it to him, saying: \"Wait for him, for he is older than I,\"] or to a deaf-mute or a simpleton [until he were \"cured\"], he is not heeded; but we say to him: \"The mitzvah devolves upon you! — either give her chalitzah or take her in yibum.\" [Even though your brother who is abroad is older than you, since you are the eldest of the brothers before us, the mitzvah devolves upon you\"; for mitzvoth are not delayed.]",
            "\tIf one gives chalitzah to his yevamah, he is as one of the brothers relative to inheritance [and he does not lose his share because he gave chalitzah. (For we might think that he should be penalized for having deprived her of yibum, having rendered her unfit to the other brothers.)] If there is a father, the property (of the dead brother) reverts to the father, [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:6): \"And it shall be, the first-born, etc.\" Just as the first-born inherits nothing in the lifetime of the father, so the yavam. (This is not the halachah; but if one takes a yevamah, he acquires his brother's property, even if the father is alive.] If one weds his yevamah, he acquires the property of his brother. R. Yehudah says: In either event, if the father is alive, the father receives the property. If one gives chalitzah to his yevamah, he is forbidden o her relatives [as if she were his wife. All relatives forbidden by reason of (kinship) with one's wife are forbidden by rabbinical ordinance by reason of (kinship) with his chalutzah], and she is forbidden to his relatives. He is forbidden to her mother, her mother's mother, her father's mother, her daughter, her daughter's daughter, her son's daughter, and her sister so long as she is alive. [This refers to her sister and not to the other arayoth.] And the brothers are permitted (to her relatives). And she is forbidden to his father, his father's father, his son, his son's son, his brother, and his brother's son. One is permitted to the kin of the tzarah of his chalutzah [and we do not say that the tzarah is like the chalutzah, that he is forbidden to the sister of the tzarah of his chalutzah just as he is forbidden to the sister of his chalutzah], and he is forbidden to the tzarah of the kin of his chalutzah. [e.g., Reuven gave chalitzah to Leah, and Rachel (her sister) was married to a stranger. Rachel had a tzarah. If the stranger dies, that tzarah is forbidden to Reuven. The reason: When Leah receives chalitzah, she brings Rachel, her sister, with her to beth-din. People do not know which one of them he has given chalitzah to. Some think that he has given chalitzah to Rachel, so that if he marries Rachel's tzarah, (who is the tzarah of the kin of his chalutzah), they say that he has married the tzarah of his chalutzah, for they think that Rachel and her tzarah are the wives of his brother, his having given chalitzah (as they think) to Rachel. But a yevamah does not bring her tzarah with her when she receives chalitzah. Therefore, if he marries the sister of the tzarah, they do not say that he has married the sister of his chalutzah.]",
            "\tIf one gives chalitzah to his yevamah, and his brother married her sister and he died, he gives her chalitzah and does not take her in yibum. Likewise, if one divorces his wife, and his brother married her sister and he died, she is exempt from chalitzah and yibum. [The gemara asks: \"Likewise?\" Say, rather: But if one divorces his wife, etc. For the sister of one's divorcée is forbidden by the Torah, for which reason she is exempt from chalitzah and from yibum, whereas the sister of one's chalutzah is forbidden only by ordinance of the scribes, for which reason she receives chalitzah and is not taken in yibum.]",
            "\tA shomereth yavam [a woman awaiting yibum] — if his brother betrothed her sister [If one of the brothers betrothed her sister after the first had fallen before them for yibum, and she were linked (for yibum) to all of them] — In the name of R. Yehudah b. Betheira it was stated: He is told: Wait [before you marry her, lest you violate \"the sister of your linked one\"] until your elder brother performs an act [i.e., until he either takes her in yibum or gives her chalitzah and dissolves her linkage to you.] When his brother gives her chalitzah or takes her in yibum, he may marry his betrothed. If the yevamah died, he may marry his betrothed. [For even if he had taken her in yibum and she had died, he is permitted to marry her sister.] If the yavam dies [and no other brother remained but the one who had betrothed her sister], he sends out his betrothed with a get, and his brother's wife with chalitzah. [But he does not take her in yibum by reason of \"the sister of his divorcée.\" The gemara rules in accordance with R. Yehudah b. Betheira.]",
            "\tA yevamah does not receive chalitzah and she is not taken in yibum until after three months. [The reason is given in the gemara, viz. (Deuteronomy 25:7): \"If the man shall not desire to take his yevamah, then his yevamah shall go up to the gate\" (for chalitzah). But if he does desire, he takes her in yibum — whence: All who are subject to yibum are subject to chalitzah.] Likewise, all other women are not betrothed and are not married until after three months — both virgins [(decreed because of non-virgins)] and betrothed, [(because of married). And this is the halachah. (These three months are ninety days, excluding the day on which her husband died or on which she was divorced, and excluding the day on which she was betrothed.)], non-virgins, divorcées, widows, married or betrothed. R. Yehudah says: The married ones may be betrothed, [its being forbidden (normally) only in order to discriminate between the seed of the first and the seed of the second — so that she not bear a child of doubtful status (Nine months to the first, or seven months to the second?) But this does not apply to those who were betrothed], and the betrothed ones may be married, [not having conceived from the first] — except for the betrothed women in Yehudah, their betrothed being familiar with them. [In Yehudah they would closet the bride with the groom before they were married, so that he would become accustomed to her and disport himself with her, and so that they would not be ashamed at the (first) conjugal union of mitzvah. We are, therefore, apprehensive that he might have lived with her at that time.] R. Yossi says: All women may become betrothed, except a widow, because of her mourning. [Because R. Yehudah does not distinguish between a widow and a divorcée, and permits a widow to become betrothed even within the thirty days of her mourning, R. Yossi comes to differ with him on this, and he forbids a widow to become betrothed within the thirty days of her mourning.]",
            "\tIf four brothers were married to four women, and they died — if the eldest brother wishes to take all of them in yibum, he may do so. [The same applies to a greater number. If he can maintain them all, he may take them all. \"Four\" is stated as \"goodly counsel,\" viz.\" Four and not more, so that he may fulfill his conjugal obligation with each at least once a month.] If one were married to two women and he died, living with one of them or giving her chalitzah exempts her tzarah [and he does not take both in yibum, it being written (Deuteronomy 25:9): \"…who would not build the house of his brother\" — he builds one house and not two. And he does not give chalitzah to both, for whoever is not subject to yibum is not subject to chalitzah. And since both together are not subject to yibum (as stated: \"He builds one house, etc.\"), they, likewise, are not subject to chalitzah.] If one of the women were kasher (for the priesthood), and the other, unfit — if he gives chalitzah, he gives it to the one who is unfit [so that he not disqualify the fit one from (marrying into) the priesthood. For a chalutzah is unfit for the priesthood. \"Let one not pour out the waters of his well if others have need of them.\"], and if he elects yibum, he takes the one who is fit.",
            "One who takes back his divorcée [after she has remarried], and one who marries his chalutzah, [who is forbidden to him by (Deuteronomy 25:9): \"who would not build his brother's house\" — Once he did not build it (by having given chalitzah), he may build it no more], and one who marries the kin of his chalutzah, [R. Akiva holding that his chalutzah is like his wife, Scripture having referred to her as his \"house,\" viz. (Ibid. 10): \"the house of the removed shoe\" (chalutz hana'al), and R. Akiva holding, too, that the child of an interdicted marriage is a mamzer. (The halachah is not so.)] must send her out and the child is a mamzer. These are the word of R. Akiva. And the sages say: The child is not a mamzer. And they concede that if one marries the kin of his divorcée, the child is a mamzer, [for his divorcée is like his wife, and her mother and her sister are under krithuth interdict.]",
            "\tWhich is a mamzer? (The child of) any kin with whom marriage is interdicted. These are the words of R. Akiva. Shimon Hatemani says: (The child of) all kin with whom marriage is interdicted by kareth at the hands of heaven, [but not (merely) by negative commandment]. And this is the halachah [i.e., that the child of a kareth-interdicted marriage is a mamzer (except the child of a niddah), but the child of a marriage interdicted by negative commandment (alone) is not a mamzer.] R. Yehoshua says: All kin with whom marriage is interdicted by judicial death penalty. R. Shimon b. Azzai said: I found a pedigree-scroll in Jerusalem, in which it was written: \"Such and such is a mamzer from an adulterous union (in confirmation of the word of R. Yehoshua.) If one's wife died, he may marry her sister. If he divorced her and she died, he may marry her sister. If she married another and she died, he may marry her sister. If one's yevamah died, he may marry her sister. If he gave her chalitzah and she died, he may marry her sister."
        ],
        [
            "\tR. Gamliel says: There is no get after a get. [Two yevamoth to one yavam from one brother. If he gave a get to the first one and then to the second one, the kin of the second are not forbidden to him as the kin of his divorcée. For when he gave a get to the first one, the linkage of both of them to him was dissolved. For a get avails with a yevamah to render him (the giver) \"who would not build his brother's house,\" so that neither he nor the other brothers can take her in yibum — neither her nor her tzarah. Therefore, if he gives a second get to the second one, his act is meaningless. It is as if he were to give a get to a strange woman. The same applies to two yavmin, each of whom gave one yevamah a get. The get of the latter is meaningless and he is permitted to marry her kin.] And there is no ma'amar after a ma'amar, [both with two yavmin to one yevamah, and one yavam to two yevamoth. The second ma'amar is meaningless. She does not require a get from him, and he is permitted to her kin.] And there is no chalitzah after chalitzah. The sages say: There is a get after a get. [The first does not completely dissolve the linkage; for she requires chalitzah. Therefore, there is still partial linkage, and the second get avails to render the second one his divorcée and to forbid her kin to him. And this is the halachah.] And there is a ma'amar after a ma'amar. But there is nothing after cohabitation and after chalitzah.",
            "\tHow? [This does not refer to the previous dispute, but is an independent statement referring to one yavam and one yevamah, viz.: How (i.e., What) is the halachah in the instance of one yavam and one yevamah? If he made a ma'amar in his yevamah and gave her a get, she requires chalitzah from him. And if he wishes to wed her, he may not do so; for since he began to divorce her, \"who would not build his brother's house\" obtains.] If he made a ma'amar and chalitzah, she requires a get from him. [For chalitzah dissolves the (yibum) linkage, and the get is required to dissolve her betrothal, chalitzah not dissolving betrothal.] If he made a ma'amar and cohabited with her, this is in keeping with the mitzvah.",
            "\tIf he gave a get and made a ma'amar, she requires a get and chalitzah. [For the get pushes away (the linkage) a little and leaves over a little, and the ma'amar acquires what the get has left over. Therefore, she requires a get for his ma'amar and chalitzah for his (yibum) linkage.] If he gave a get and cohabited with her, she requires a get and chalitzah. [He may not remain with her, for from the time he gave her the get, \"who would not build\" obtains, so that she requires a get for his cohabitation and chalitzah for his linkage.] If he gave her a get and chalitzah, there is nothing after chalitzah. [This Mishnah is in accordance with R. Akiva, who says that betrothal does not obtain with those interdicted by negative commandment. But this is not the halachah. The halachah is in accordance with the sages, who say that there is something after chalitzah, so that if he betroths her after chalitzah, she requires a get from him.] If he gave her chalitzah and made a ma'amar, or (if he gave her chalitzah and then) gave her a get or cohabited with her, or if he cohabited with her and gave her a ma'amar, or (if he cohabited with her) and then he gave her a get or chalitzah — there is nothing after chalitzah. This is so both in the instance of one yevamah to one yavam and in the instance of two yevamoth to one yavam. [They are the same in that there is something after the first get or after the first ma'amar; and there is nothing after initial cohabitation or after chalitzah.]",
            "\tHow? [i.e., What is the halachah?] If he made a ma'amar in one, two gittin are required [for the two yevamoth, according to the rabbis, there being a ma'amar after a ma'amar], and chalitzah [for one of them, who exempts her tzarah.] If he made a ma'amar in one and gave a get to the other, a get and chalitzah are required. [The get of the latter invalidates the ma'amar of the former, \"who would not build\" obtaining, so that a get is required for his ma'amar and chalitzah for his linkage.] If he gave a ma'amar to one and cohabited with the other, two gittin are required, [a get for his ma'amar and a get for his cohabitation], and chalitzah [to one of them, who exempts her tzarah.] If he gave a ma'amar to one and chalitzah to the other, the first requires a get. If he gave a get to one and a get to the other, chalitzah (to one of them) is required. If he gave a get to one and cohabited with the other, a get and chalitzah are required. And he is forbidden to keep her, [\"who would not build\" obtaining because of the get of the first. And a get does not suffice for the one he cohabited with, it being an unfit cohabitation. If he gave a get to one and a ma'amar to the other, a get and chalitzah are required. If he gave a get to one and chalitzah to the other, there is nothing after chalitzah. [And if he then betroths her or her tzarah, the betrothal does not \"take,\" as per R. Akiva, who holds that betrothal does not obtain with those interdicted by negative commandment. And this is not the halachah.]",
            "\tIf he gave chalitzah (to one) and gave chalitzah (to the other), or gave chalitzah and a ma'amar, or (after chalitzah) gave a get or cohabited, or cohabited and cohabited, or cohabited and made a ma'amar, or (after cohabitation) gave a get or chalitzah [In all of these instances he is permitted to the kin of the second, for after the chalitzah of the first, there is no yibum linkage, so that the chalitzah of the second is meaningless, and she is not rendered unfit, even for (marriage to) the priesthood. Likewise, if he gave chalitzah to one and a ma'amar to the other, or if he gave a get to the second after the chalitzah of the first, or if he cohabited with the second after the chalitzah of the first, his second act is meaningless. Or if he cohabited with the first and then with the second, or if he cohabited with the first and made a ma'amar in the second, or if (after cohabiting with the first), he gave a get to the second or chalitzah to the second, there is nothing after cohabitation, and his second act is meaningless, and he is permitted to the kin of the second] — there is nothing after chalitzah. [This refers to the first part; and, for the second part, \"there is nothing after cohabitation\" is presupposed], whether it be an instance of one yavam to two yavamoth, or of two yavmin to one yevamah.",
            "\tIf he gave her chalitzah and made a ma'amar, or (if he gave her chalitzah and then) gave her a get or cohabited with her, or if he cohabited with her and gave her a ma'amar, or (if he cohabited with her) and then gave her a get or chalitzah — there is nothing after chalitzah [This refers to one yavam and one yevamah. And though this was stated above (5:3), it is re-stated here because of what follows, where a distinction is made between cohabitation and chalitzah. For with chalitzah, whether in the beginning, the middle, or the end, there is nothing after it, whereas with cohabitation, there is nothing after it only when it comes in the beginning. And it also introduces the dispute between R. Nechemiah and the rabbis.] — whether in the beginning, or the middle, [as when he gave a get to one and chalitzah to the other, and then made a ma'amar in the second or in the first; the ma'amar is of no avail, and a get is not required for it], or in the end. [If he gave chalitzah after a ma'amar or a get, there is nothing after it, and it is a bona fide chalitzah. And if he made a ma'amar thereafter, no get is required after it. For chalitzah constitutes divorce though it be a defective chalitzah.] And cohabitation — when it comes at the beginning, there is nothing after it. In the middle [as when he gave a get to one, and cohabited with another, and gave a ma'amar to the third, he is forbidden to her (the third's) kin] and in the end, there is something after it. [If he gave a get to one, and a ma'amar to another, and cohabited with a third, yibum linkage still obtains after this cohabitation; and to send her away, chalitzah is required, a get not sufficing.] R. Nechemiah says: Both cohabitation and chalitzah — both in the beginning, the middle, or the end, there is nothing after it [and she goes out with a get, without chalitzah. And if he betroths the other after cohabitation, his act is meaningless.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one cohabits with his yevamah, (he acquires her) — whether unwittingly [thinking her to be another woman], wilfully, [wantonly, and not for the sake of the mitzvah], constrainedly, or wittingly. Even if he is unwitting and she wilful; he, wilful and she, unwitting; he, constrained and she, unconstrained; she, constrained and he, unconstrained. [Not only (is she acquired) when she intends the mitzvah; but even where both do not intend the mitzvah, as when he intends a different woman and she intends a wanton act, he acquires her, it being written (Deuteronomy 25:5): \"Her yavom shall come upon her\" — in any instance.] Whether he is ma'areh [If he does not consummate his intercourse, but just inserts the corona alone (The touching of the corona without entry is called neshikah, \"kissing\"], or consummates the act, he acquires her. [And he inherits (his dead brother) and he must give her a get if he wishes to send her away.] And no distinction was made between one type of intercourse and another [whether normal or non-normal (anal) intercourse, it being written (Leviticus 18:22): \"the lyings\" of a woman, Scripture positing two \"lyings\" for a woman.]",
            "\tLikewise, if one cohabits [by any of the aforementioned varieties of intercourse] with any of the arayoth of the Torah or with any of the unfit ones, such as a widow to a high-priest [He thereby renders her unfit for (marriage to) the priesthood, by reason of \"zonah,\" even though the wife of an Israelite who was forced is permitted to her husband], a divorcée and a chalutzah to a regular Cohein [And a divorcée, too — if she is the daughter of a Cohein, such cohabitation renders her unfit to eat the terumah of her father's house], a mamzereth and a Nethinah to an Israelite [This does not refer to rendering her unfit for the priesthood, for she is already unfit, but it is stated in reference to he'arah, to make he'arah subject to stripes, as consummated intercourse], the daughter of an Israelite to a Nathin or to a mamzer — he thereby renders her unfit, and there is no distinction (in this regard) between one type of intercourse and another.",
            "\tA widow to a high-priest, a divorcée and a chalutzah to a regular priest — from betrothal they may not eat terumah. [Because her betrothal was one of transgression, she is rendered unfit to eat the terumah of her father's house if she is the daughter of a Cohein.] R. Eliezer and R. Shimon permit it [until he cohabits with her, it being written (Leviticus 21:15): \"And he shall not profane (velo vechalel) his seed\" — two chilulim (profanations), one for her and one for her seed. The halachah is not in accordance with them, but she may not eat terumah even from betrothal.] If they were widowed or divorced from marriage [from these Cohanim], they are unfit (to eat terumah) [for they are rendered chalaloth by cohabitation]. (If they were widowed or divorced) from betrothal, they are permitted (to eat terumah) [for even the first tanna renders them unfit only in their (husbands') lifetimes, when they await forbidden cohabitation, but not when their husbands have died.]",
            "\tA high-priest may not marry a widow, both a widow from betrothal and a widow from marriage. And he may not marry a bogereth (one who has matured beyond maidenhood), [it being written (Leviticus 21:14): \"And he, a woman in her virginity shall he take\" — to exclude a bogereth, whose virginal signs are partially lost (in the process of maturing)] R. Eliezer and R. Shimon permit a bogereth. [The halachah is not in accordance with them.] He may not marry a mukath etz (a virgin accidentally deflowered). If he betrothed a widow and were appointed high-priest, he may marry her. It happened with Yehoshua b. Gamla that he betrothed Marta the daughter of Baitus, and the king appointed him high-priest, and he married her. If a shomereth yavam (a woman awaiting yibum), fell before a regular priest (for yibum), and he was appointed high-priest — even if he had made a ma'amar in her, he may not marry her. If the brother of a high-priest died, he gives her chalitzah, but he does not take her in yibum.",
            "\tA regular Cohein may not marry an eilonith (a woman who cannot bear) unless he has a wife and children. [The same is true of an Israelite. \"Cohein\" is stated only because of the demurral of R. Yehudah, who says that a Cohein, though he has a wife and children may not marry an eilonith, as opposed to an Israelite. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] R. Yehudah says: Even though he has a wife and children, he may not marry an eilonith, for she is the \"zonah\" referred to in the Torah (Leviticus 21:7). And the sages say that \"zonah\" is a proselyte, a freed maidservant, and a woman who had been lived with wantonly, [such as those interdicted by negative commandment or positive commandment, and, it goes without saying, those liable to kareth or judicial death penalty. But if one lives with an unmarried woman, he does not render her a zonah.]",
            "\tOne may not desist from (the mitzvah of) procreation unless he has children. Beth Shammai say: Two males, [deriving it from Moses, who separated from his wife after he had begotten two males.] And Beth Hillel say: A male and a female, it being written (Genesis 1:27): \"Male and female He created them.\" [And Moses cannot serve as a precedent, for he acted by Divine fiat.] If one married a woman and lived with her ten years without having children, he may not desist (from the mitzvah). [As we find with Abraham. After living with Sarah for ten years and not having children, he married Hagar. The time that he lived with her outside of Eretz Yisrael is not included, for living outside the land may have contributed (to her childlessness). And all of the time that a man or a woman are sick, or incarcerated, or in any other state where cohabitation is precluded, this is not included in the ten year period.] If he divorced her, she is permitted to marry another. [For it (the childlessness) may be due not to her, but to him. And when he divorces her, he gives her (the amount of) her kethubah, if she claims that it is due to his \"not shooting like an arrow.\" And we impose a ban upon her if she knows otherwise and makes a false claim against him.] The second is permitted to live ten years with her. And if she miscarries, he counts from the time she miscarries. The mitzvah of begetting children devolves upon the man and not upon the woman, [it being written (Genesis 1:27): \"Be fruitful and multiply … and subdue it\" (\"vekivshuhah\"). It is written defective, without the vav after the shin (implying that only one is being addressed and that the mitzvah of procreation devolves upon the man, the \"subduer\" of the woman.)] R. Yochanan b. B'roka said: Of both (man and woman) it is written (Ibid. 28): \"And G d blessed them, and G d said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply.'\" [The halachah is not in accordance with him.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tA widow to a high-priest, a divorcée or a chalutzah to a regular priest — if she brought to him melog bondsmen [What the woman leaves to herself and does not write into her kethubah is called \"nichsei melog\" (\"plucking property\"), for the husband \"plucks\" them, as chickens are plucked. For he eats the fruits of that property, and if they decrease (in value), they decrease for her; and if they increase, they increase for her] and tzon-barzel bondsmen [Nichsei tzon-barzel is the property that she brings in to him and which is written into the kethubah: \"This and this is what I (the husband) pledge for her kethubah.\" It is called \"tzon-barzel,\" for the principal remains like \"iron.\" For if they all die, the husband must make restitution. And since they were wont to count the sheep (tzon) thus, and the shepherd was held accountable for them, even if they all died, the property for which the husband assumed responsibility was called \"nichsei tzon barzel.\"] — the melog bondsmen do not eat terumah [for they are hers, and she is a chalalah], and the tzon-barzel bondsmen do eat. And these are melog bondsmen: If they die, they die unto her; and if they increase, they increase unto her. Though he (the husband) is obliged to feed them, they do not eat terumah. And these are tzon-barzel bondsmen: If they die, they die unto him; and if they increase, they increase unto him. Since he must make restitution (if they are lost), they eat terumah.",
            "\tIf the daughter of an Israelite married a Cohein, and he died, leaving her pregnant, her bondsmen do not eat terumah because of the portion of the fetus (in the bondsmen). [Even though she has children from him and she eats terumah, her tzon-barzel bondsmen do not eat terumah; for they belong to the heirs, and the fetus has a portion in them, and the fetus lacks power to cause them to eat terumah — either because he holds that a fetus in the womb of a stranger (to the priesthood), (i.e., an Israelite) is a stranger, or because he holds that one who is born causes (others) to eat; one who is not yet born does not cause to eat, it being written (Leviticus 22:11): \"And one that is born in his house — they may eat,\" which may be read: \"They may cause to eat.\"] For a fetus disqualifies [If the daughter of a Cohein were married to an Israelite, and he left her pregnant, and she had no other child, the fetus disqualifies her from returning to her father's house.], and it does not cause to eat. [If the daughter of an Israelite were married to a Cohein, and he left her pregnant, the fetus lacks power to cause her to eat, and the same applies to his bondsmen.] These are the words of R. Yossi. They said to him: Now that you have testified to us concerning the daughter of an Israelite to a Cohein, the daughter of a Cohein, too — her bondsmen should not eat terumah because of the portion of the fetus (in them). For they are his bondsmen, and they eat only because of him, and he lacks the power to cause them to eat. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.]",
            "\tThe fetus and the yavam and betrothal and the deaf-mute and a boy of nine years and one day disqualify (from eating terumah) and do not cause (to eat terumah). [(\"The fetus\":) This fetus, if she (the mother) is the daughter of a Cohein wed to an Israelite, he disqualifies (her), it being written (22:13): \"Then she shall return to her father's house as in her maidenhood\" — to exclude one who is pregnant. If she is the daughter of an Israelite wed to a Cohein, he does not cause (her) to eat, for \"one who is not yet born does not cause to eat\" (see 7:3). (\"and the yavam\":) If she is the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite, he disqualifies her, it being written: \"Then she shall return to her father's house\" — to exclude one awaiting yibum, who cannot return, being bound to her yavam. And if she is the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite, he does not cause her to eat, it being written (Ibid. 22:11): \"the acquisition of his money,\" and this one is the acquisition of his brother. (\"and betrothal\":) If she is the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite, he disqualifies her, for he acquires her with \"being\" (i.e., betrothal), and from the time of \"being\" she is disqualified, viz. (Ibid. 12): \"And the daughter of a Cohein, if she be to a stranger\" (i.e., a non-priest). If she is the daughter of an Israelite to a Cohein, he does not cause her to eat — a decree lest they pour her a cup of terumah wine in her father's house and she offer it to her brothers and sisters. (\"and the deaf-mute\":) If she is the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite, he disqualifies her, for he acquires her by rabbinic ordinance. And if she is the daughter of an Israelite to a Cohein, he does not cause her to eat, it being written (Ibid. 11): \"the acquisition of his money,\" and a deaf-mute does not acquire by Torah law. (\"and a boy of nine years and one day\":) If one of those unfit for the priesthood, who was nine years and one day old lived with the daughter of a Cohein, or of a Levite, or of an Israelite, he disqualifies her from eating terumah; for the cohabitation of one that old is considered cohabitation, and she is rendered a chalalah thereby. And if the daughter of an Israelite married a Cohein who was nine years and one day old, he does not cause her to eat terumah, because his acquisition is not a bona fide acquisition.] If it were doubtful whether or not he were nine years and one day [he is considered to be so, and he disqualifies]. If it were doubtful whether or not he brought two (pubic) hairs [If a minor betrothed a woman and it were doubtful whether or not he had brought two hairs, so that his betrothal is in doubt, his wife receives chalitzah and is not taken in yibum.] If the house fell upon him and upon his brother's daughter [who was his wife, and we do not know whether he died first, so that both women fell to yibum before his brother and the tzarah is exempt by reason of \"the tzarah of one's daughter\" — or whether she died first, so that when the other fell for yibum she was not the tzarah of his daughter, (as we learned (1:1): \"And all of them — if they died, or refused … their tzaroth are permitted\")], her tzarah receives chalitzah and is not taken in yibum. [Since stringent rulings in instances of doubt are mentioned here, this instance is mentioned too.]",
            "\tThe ravisher and the seducer and the simpleton do not disqualify and do not cause to eat. [(\"the simpleton\":) Even if he took her as a wife with chuppah (the bridal canopy) and betrothal, he does not disqualify and does not cause to eat, his acquisition not being a bona fide acquisition.] And if they are not fit to enter the congregation of Israel, they do disqualify. How so? If an Israelite lived with the daughter of a Cohein, she may eat terumah. If she became pregnant, she may not eat terumah. If the fetus in her womb were severed, she may eat [immediately. And the same applies if she bore it, and it died.] If a Cohein lived with the daughter of an Israelite, she may not eat terumah. If she became pregnant, she may not eat, [the fetus not causing her to eat]. If she bore, she eats. \"The strength of the son is found to be greater than that of the father.\" [For the one who lived with her does not cause her to eat, not having lived with her to the end of marriage, so that she is not his acquisition — whereas his son does cause her to eat.] A bondsman disqualifies by reason of cohabitation. [If he cohabits with the daughter of a Cohein, he disqualifies her from eating terumah], and he does not disqualify by reason of seed [if the daughter has \"seed\" (a bondsman) from a kasher Israelite]. How so? The daughter of an Israelite to a Cohein, or the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite, and she bore a son to him. If the son went and forced himself upon a maidservant, and she bore a son by him, that son is a bondsman, [the child of a maidservant having her status]. If the mother of his (the bondsman's) father were the daughter of an Israelite to a Cohein, she does not eat terumah (on the strength of her \"grandson,\" the bondsman); if she were the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite, she does eat terumah [if his father died even though his child (the bondsman) is alive; and in general, the child of a child does disqualify. For he (the bondsman) is not regarded as his father's child, not being considered his seed (but his mother's)]. A mamzer disqualifies and causes to eat. How so? The daughter of an Israelite to a Cohein or the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite, and she bore a daughter to him. If the daughter went and married a bondsman or a gentile and bore a son to him, he is a mamzer. If the mother of his (the mamzer's) mother were the daughter of an Israelite to a Cohein, she eats terumah; if she were the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite, she does not eat terumah.",
            "\tA high-priest sometimes disqualifies. How so? The daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite and she bore a daughter to him. If the daughter went and married a Cohein and bore a son to him, he is qualified to be a high-priest, standing and ministering upon the altar. He causes his mother to eat, and he disqualifies the mother of his mother. [For if not for him, the mother of his mother would return to the terumah of her father's house after the death of her daughter. But so long as he is alive, she does not return to it, it being written (Leviticus 22:11): \"and she have no seed\" (vezera ein lah) — \"ayin alehah\" (\"look into her\") — either the daughter of the daughter of her daughter, or the son of the son of her son (disqualifies her) until the end of all the generations.] And this one (the grandmother) says: \"Let there not [be in Israeli many] like my (grand-) son, the high-priest, who disqualifies me from eating terumah!\""
        ],
        [
            "\tOne who is uncircumcised [an uncircumcised Cohein whose brothers died because of circumcision] and all who are unclean may not eat terumah. [This is derived from the Paschal offering, concerning which it is written (Exodus 12:48): \"And no uncircumcised one shall eat of it.\"] Their wives and their bondsmen may eat terumah. [For because of non-circumcision and uncleanliness they do not leave the category of Cohanim; it is just that they themselves are wanting amendment.] A petzua dakka and a k'ruth shafchah (see 8:2) — they and their bondsmen eat, and their wives do not eat. [For he makes her a chalalah by cohabiting with her in that she cohabits with one who is unfit for (marriage with) her.] And if he did not cohabit with her from the time he became a petzua dakka and a k'ruth shafchah [If she were married to him before this, and he did not cohabit with her after he became a petzua dakka], they may eat.",
            "\tA petzuah dakka is one whose testicles have been injured, even one of them. And a k'ruth shafchah is one whose membrum is cut. And if there remained even a hairs-breadth of the corona [If it were cut from the corona down], he is fit, [the \"membrum\" being from the corona upwards towards the body. The corona (atarah) is the row of flesh surrounding the circumcision site. Whether the membrum is injured as by sword or knife, or whether it was crushed and became small of itself — whether it was cut in the membrum or the testicles or the testicular cords — all of these render him unfit. And this is so only when man is the cause; but if illness is the cause, all is kasher.] A petzua dakka and a k'ruth shafchah are permitted to a proselyte and to a freed bondswoman. And they are forbidden only to enter the congregation, it being written (Deuteronomy 23:2): \"A petzua dakka and a k'ruth shafchah shall not come into the congregation of the L rd.\"",
            "\tAn Ammonite and a Moavite are forbidden (to enter the congregation of the L rd), and their prohibition is perpetual; but their women are permitted immediately. An Egyptian and an Edomite are forbidden only until three generations, both the males and the females. R. Shimon permits the females immediately. R. Shimon said: This can be deduced a fortiori, viz.: Now if in a place where the males are interdicted perpetually, the females are permitted immediately — in a place where the males are interdicted only until three generations, should it not follow that the females be permitted immediately! They said to him: If this is the halachah, we shall accept it; and if (only) an a fortiori argument, it can be refuted. [If you are expounding an a fortiori argument of your own, it can be refuted, viz.: In the instance of Ammon and Moav, the reason (that only men and not women are interdicted) is given, viz. (Deuteronomy 23:4): \"Because they did not greet you with bread and with water\" — and it is not the way of a woman to greet, whereas no reason is given for (the interdict against) an Egyptian and an Edomite.] He answered: No, I am stating a halachah. Mamzerin and Nethinin are interdicted, and their interdict is perpetual, both males and females. [Nethinim are the Giveonites who converted to Judaism in the days of Joshua, and who were \"given\" (netunim) to be hewers of wood and drawers of water.]",
            "\tR. Yehoshua said: I have heard that a saris (one who is impotent) gives chalitzah and that his wife receives chalitzah; and that a saris does not give chalitzah and his wife does not receive chalitzah [viz. (Deuteronomy 25:6): \"…and his name will not be wiped out\" — to exclude one whose name is already wiped out], and I cannot explain [with which saris chalitzah obtains and with which it does not.] R. Akiva said: I will explain it: Seris adam (\"a man-caused saris\") [who became a saris after he was born] gives chalitzah and his wife receives chalitzah because there was a time when he was kasher; a seris-chammah (\"a sun-saris\") does not give chalitzah and his wife does not receive chalitzah, for there was never a time when he was kasher. [(\"seris-chammah\") from his mother's womb, never having seen the sun except when he was a saris. His signs: one who has no beard, whose hair is soft, whose skin is smooth, whose urine does not raise a vapor, whose urine-jet is not dome-like (i.e., it does not go far enough to form a dome), whose semen is thin, whose urine has no vinegar-like odor, whose skin does not give off a vapor when he bathes in the wintertime, and whose voice is not distinctly a man's voice.] R. Elazar says: Not so, but a seris-chammah gives chalitzah and his wife receives chalitzah, because he can be healed; a seris-adam does not give chalitzah and his wife does not receive chalitzah, because he cannot be healed. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva, who says that a seris-adam gives chalitzah and his wife is subject to chalitzah and yibum; but he does not take a woman in yibum, for he is forbidden to enter the congregation.] R. Yehoshua b. Betheira testified about one Ben Megoset, a seris-adam in Jerusalem, whose wife was taken in yibum, in confirmation of the words of R. Akiva.",
            "\tThe saris [a seris-chammah] does not give chalitzah and does not take a woman in yibum [and his wife is not subject to chalitzah or yibum.] Similarly, an eilonith [We have described her signs in the first chapter (1:1)] is subject to neither chalitzah nor yibum. If a saris gives chalitzah to his yevamah, he does not render her unfit (to the priesthood). If he cohabits with her, he does render her unfit, for his cohabitation is one of z'nuth. Similarly, if the brothers gave chalitzah to an eilonith, they do not render her unfit; if they cohabit with her, they do render her unfit, for her cohabitation is one of z'nuth. [Since she is exempt from yibum, she is forbidden to them as \"the wife of one's brother.\"]",
            "\tIf a seris-chammah Cohein married the daughter of an Israelite, he causes her to eat terumah. R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: If a hermaphrodite Cohein marries the daughter of an Israelite, he causes her to eat terumah. [For they hold that a hermaphrodite is regarded as a male. And R. Yossi retracts and says in the baraitha that a hermaphrodite is regarded as a distinct creation, which the sages did not determine to be male or female, for which reason a hermaphrodite Cohein does not cause her to eat terumah.] R. Yehudah said: If a tumtum (one whose genitals are concealed) were incised and found to be a male, he does not give chalitzah, for he is like a saris. [The halachah is not in accordance with him; for it is ruled above that a seris-adam gives chalitzah and his wife receives chalitzah, and a tumtum that was incised is like a seris-adam]. A hermaphrodite marries (a woman), but is not married (to a man). [For he is regarded as a male, and if a man cohabits with him, it is as if he were cohabiting with a male, whether by way of his male feature (i.e., the anus) or by way of his female feature.] R. Eliezer says: (If one lives with) a hermaphrodite, he is liable to stoning as (if he would live) with a male. [Only if he does so by way of his male feature and not by way of his female feature. And the halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tThere are some who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yavmin, and there are some who are permitted to their yavmin and forbidden to their husbands. And there are some who are permitted to both, and there are some who are forbidden to both. These are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to the yavmin: a regular Cohein who married a widow and who has a brother who is a high-priest [The same applies to (a Cohein who married) a virgin, for when he dies she is rendered a widow. \"a widow\" is stated in anticipation of what comes later, viz.: \"a high-priest who married a widow.\"], a chalal who married a kesheirah, who has a brother who is kasher, an Israelite who married the daughter of an Israelite, who has a brother who is a mamzer, a mamzer who married a mamzereth, who has a brother who is an Israelite. These are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yavmin.",
            "\tAnd these are permitted to their yavmin and forbidden to their husbands: a high-priest who betrothed a widow and who has a brother who is a regular Cohein [But if he married her, she becomes a chalalah through his cohabitation and is forbidden to both the husband and the yavam.], a kasher who married a chalalah and who has a brother who is a chalal, an Israelite who married a mamzereth and who has a brother who is a mamzer, a mamzer who married the daughter of an Israelite, who has a brother who is an Israelite. These are permitted to their yavmin, but forbidden to their husbands. Forbidden to both: a high-priest who married a widow, who has a brother who is either a high-priest or a regular priest, a kasher who married a chalalah, who has a brother who is kasher, an Israelite who married a mamzereth, who has a brother who is an Israelite, a mamzer who married the daughter of an Israelite, who has a brother who is a mamzer. These are forbidden to both. And all other women are permitted to their husbands and to their yavmin.",
            "\tThe sheniyoth interdicted by the soferim (see 2:4): \"If she were shniyah to the husband and not to the yavam [e.g., the mother of her husband's mother, but not of the yavam's mother, as when they were brothers from the father but not from the mother], she is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam. If she were shniyah to the yavam and not to the husband, she is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband. If she were shniyah to both, she is forbidden to both. She has no kethubah [It is the hundred and two hundred, which is the principal of the kethubah, which she does not have, but she does have the addition], and she does not have fruit [He does not pay her for the fruit of her nichsei melog. And even though the rabbis granted him fruit for his obligation to redeem her, and he has no obligation to redeem this one, in that she does not satisfy: \"And I shall cause you to dwell with me as a wife\" — so that it would seem that he should reimburse her for what he ate of her nichsei melog — still, the rabbis penalized her to have no claim on the fruit that he ate as a condition of the kethubah, just as they penalized her to have no claim on the principal of the kethubah. For a condition of the kethubah is likened to the kethubah itself.], and she does not have sustenance [It goes without saying that he does not have to feed her while she is still with him, for he is obliged to send her away. But even if he went abroad and she borrowed and ate, he need not pay. For with a kasher wife, if she borrowed and ate, the husband is obliged to pay. For the lender claims what he lent her and she claims it of her husband. For it is only when one fed her not by way of loan that we say in Kethuvoth that the halachah is according to Chanan, who said that if one went abroad and another fed his wife, he (the latter) has placed his money \"on a deer's horn.\" For since he fed her for the sake of her husband, and he lent her nothing, from whom can he claim payment? She did not borrow anything, and her husband did not ask him to feed her. Therefore, he has performed a mitzvah (but he can make no claim). If he lent her, and she is kasher, her husband must repay him, but if she is one of the shniyoth, he is not obliged to pay.], and she does not receive belaoth [If the husband used her nichsei melog until they were \"worn out\" (balu), he need not reimburse her. For we might think that since she has no kethubah, if the husband ate her nichsei melog, he must reimburse her for what was \"worn away\"; we are, therefore, apprised that the rabbis penalized her, that her husband not pay belaoth, but whatever she finds remaining (of the nichsei melog) she takes], and the child (of the union) is kasher, and we force him to send her away. A widow to a high-priest, a divorcée and a chalutzah to a regular priest, a mamzereth and a Nethinah to an Israelite, the daughter of an Israelite to a Nathin or to a mamzer have a kethubah. [They have a kethubah and fruit, the husband paying them for the fruit he ate of their nichsei melog. And they have sustenance, being fed from his property (but only after his death. While he is alive, he is not forced to feed her, for he is obliged to send her away. And if someone lent her food in her husband's lifetime, he need not repay the loan.) They also have belaoth, the husband being obliged to return what he \"wore away\" of their nichsei melog. And this is only when he knew them (to be a widow, etc.), but if he did not know them to be so, they have neither kethubah, fruit, sustenance, nor belaoth. But they do have the addition and the belaoth which remain. As to the shniyoth not having kethubah, fruit, sustenance, or belaoth, and a widow to a high-priest, and a divorcée or a chalutzah to a regular priest having them — this is because the former are interdicted (only) by the scribes and require reinforcement (of the interdict), whereas the latter are interdicted by the Torah and do not require reinforcement. In the chapter \"These receive stripes,\" it is shown that a chalutzah to a high-priest is interdicted by the Torah. And even though a chalutzah to a regular priest is interdicted by the scribes, it was likened to Torah-interdicted in this regard.]",
            "\tThe daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein, or pregnant by a Cohein, or shomereth yavam to a Cohein, and, also, the daughter of an Israelite to a Cohein do not eat terumah. [As we learned (7:4): \"The fetus and the yavam and betrothal … disqualify and do not cause to eat.\"] The daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Levite, or pregnant by a Levite, or shomereth yavam to a Levite, and also the daughter of a Levite to an Israelite do not eat ma'aser. [The entire Mishnah is in accordance with R. Meir, who says that ma'aser rishon is forbidden to strangers (i.e., non-Levites), but this is not the halachah.] The daughter of a Levite betrothed to a Cohein, pregnant by a Cohein, shomereth yavam to a Cohein, and also, the daughter of a Cohein to a Levite may eat neither terumah nor ma'aser. [This is the intent: Neither terumah nor ma'aser is distributed on the threshing floor, neither to the daughter of a Cohein nor the daughter of a Levite — a decree by reason of a divorcée, the daughter of an Israelite, who is forbidden to eat ma'aser. If they distribute ma'aser to a woman on the threshing floor, they might come to distribute it to the daughter of an Israelite after she has been divorced from the Levite; for not all  know that she had been receiving on the strength of her husband. For this reason R. Meir decreed that a woman not take a share on the threshing floor, even the daughter of a Cohein and the daughter of a Levite. As to its being stated: \"The daughter of a Levite betrothed to a Cohein… may eat neither terumah nor ma'aser,\" the same is true even if she were married. It is because of the first part of the Mishnah, viz.: \"The daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein, etc.\" (in which instance it is only if she were betrothed that she does not eat; for if she were married, she would eat) that here, too, at the end of the Mishnah, \"The daughter of a Levite betrothed to a Cohein\" is stated.]",
            "\tIf the daughter of an Israelite were married to a Cohein, she may eat terumah. If he died, and she had a child from him, she may eat terumah, [it being written (Leviticus 22:11): \"…And one that is born in his house — they may eat (yochlu) of his bread.\" Read it \"ya'achilu\" (\"they cause to eat\"). So long as her child is alive, it \"causes her\" to eat terumah.] If she married a Levite [after she had had a child from the Cohein], she eats ma'aser [and not terumah, though she has a child from the Cohein, for she has subsequently become a \"stranger.\"] If he (the Levite) died, and she had a child from him, she eats ma'aser [on the strength of her son from the Levite; but she does not eat terumah on the strength of her child from the Cohein, having seed from a stranger.] If she married an Israelite, she eats neither terumah nor ma'aser. If he dies, and she had a child from him, she eats neither terumah nor ma'aser. If her child from the Israelite died, she eats ma'aser. If her child from the Levite died, she may eat terumah. If her child from the Cohein died, she may eat neither terumah nor ma'aser.",
            "\tIf the daughter of a Cohein married an Israelite, she may not eat terumah. If he died, and she had a child from him, she may not eat terumah. If she married a Levite, she may eat ma'aser. If he died and she had a child from him, she may eat ma'aser. If she married a Cohein, she may eat terumah. If he died and she had a child from him, she may eat terumah. If her child from the Cohein died, she may not eat terumah. If her child from the Levite died, she may not eat ma'aser. If her child from the Israelite died, she returns to the house of her father. And concerning this it is written (Leviticus 22:13): \"Then she shall return to the house of her father as in her maidenhood. From the bread of her father she may eat.\""
        ],
        [
            "\tIf a woman's husband went abroad, and they came and said to her [i.e., if one witness said to her]: Your husband died, and she remarried [on the testimony of one witness], and then her husband returned, she leaves the one and the other [as per the halachah of a married woman who committed adultery, who is forbidden to both her husband and to the adulterer, not having been forced. And though the rabbis accepted one witness to prevent agunah (perpetual inability to remarry), that is because a woman is expected to thoroughly search out the matter before she remarries, and because she did not do so in this instance, she is penalized. But if she remarried on the testimony of two witnesses who said: Your husband died, it is stated at the end: \"If she remarried without a ruling of beth-din (i.e., if the permission of beth-din were not required, two witnesses having testified), she is permitted to return to her first husband,\" being considered \"forced,\" for what was she to have done? But in the gemara it is shown that this is not the halachah, that it makes no difference whether she remarried by the ruling of beth-din on the testimony of one witness, or on the testimony of two witnesses — if her first husband returns, she leaves both, and all of the other provisions apply to her], and she requires a get from the one and from the other. [The reason she requires a get from the second is that when the second is seen alive, people think that she received a get from the first, on the basis of which she married the second, so that she is his bona fide wife; and if he sends her away without a get, it is found (i.e., the impression is given) that a married woman is sent away without a get.] And she has neither kethubah, nor fruit, nor sustenance, nor belaoth, [which were lost; but she does not forfeit those which remain] — neither from the one nor from the other. If she had taken from the one or from the other, she must return it, and the child is a mamzer from the one or from the other [If she had a child by the second, it is a confirmed mamzer, and if the first took her back and she had a child, it is a mamzer by rabbinic ordinance.], neither of them (if they were Cohanim) may become unclean to her (if she died), neither acquires the lost objects that she finds [For why did the rabbis ordain that a husband acquires such objects? To prevent his hating her. But here, let him hate her by all means!], nor the work of her hands [For why did the rabbis ordain that a husband acquires this? Because he feeds her. But in this instance, since her sustenance is not incumbent upon him, he does not acquire the work of her hands.], nor (the power) to absolve her vows. [For why does a husband have such power? So that she not become demeaning to him. But here, let her become demeaning by all means!] If she were the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes unfit for (eating) terumah, [having the status of a \"zonah\"], and if she were the daughter of a Levite (she becomes unfit for eating) ma'aser [This is a (rabbinic) penalty, for (by Torah ordinance), the daughter of a Levite who became a zonah does not become unfit for eating ma'aser], and the daughter of a Cohein (becomes unfit for eating) terumah [even that which is terumah by rabbinic ordinance], and the heirs of both do not inherit her kethubah [a kethubath b'nin dichrin (see Kethuboth 4:10)]. And if they died, the brothers of the one and the brothers of the other give chalitzah and do not take her in yibum. [The brothers of the first give chalitzah by Torah ordinance, and the rabbis decreed that yibum not be performed; and the brothers of the second give chalitzah by rabbinic ordinance, just as she requires a get from the second by rabbinic ordinance.] R. Yossi says: Her kethubah is attached to the property of her first husband. R. Elazar says: Her first husband has rights in what she finds, the work of her hands, and the absolution of her vows. R. Shimon says: Cohabitation with or chalitzah from the brothers of the first exempt her tzarah. [He disagrees with what precedes, viz.: \"They give chalitzah and do not take her in yibum], and the child is not a mamzer [if her first husband took her back. And the halachah is in accordance with neither R. Yossi, nor R. Elazar, nor R. Shimon.] And if she married without the permission [of beth-din, as when two witnesses said to her: Your husband died, in which instance the permission of beth-din is not required], she is permitted to return to him.",
            "\tIf she remarried by ruling of beth-din, she leaves him and she is exempt from an offering. [For if an individual (as opposed to a congregation) acts by ruling of beth-din, he is exempt from an offering (if the ruling is subsequently found to be erroneous.)] If she did not remarry by ruling of beth-din [but on the testimony of two witnesses], she must leave and bring an offering, [for she sinned unwittingly. The halachah is not in accordance with this Mishnah, but whether she remarried by ruling of beth-din or on the testimony of two witnesses, she and her second husband must bring an offering.] Superior is the power of beth-din, which exempts her from an offering. If beth-din ruled that she could remarry, and she went and cohabited sinfully, she must bring an offering; for they permitted her only to remarry.",
            "\tIf a woman's husband and son went abroad, and they came and said to her: Your husband died, and then your son died, [so that she was not subject to yibum], and she remarried [to a stranger]; and then they said to her: The opposite was the case, she leaves him; and the child, both the former [i.e., before she heard otherwise], and the latter [after she heard otherwise] is a mamzer. This is in accordance with R. Akiva, who says that the issue of a relationship interdicted by negative commandment is a mamzer. But this is not the halachah.] If they said to her: Your son died, and then your husband died, and she were taken in yibum; and then they said to her: The opposite was the case, she leaves, and the child, both the former and the latter, is a mamzer. If they said to her: Your husband died, and she remarried; and they said to her: He was alive (at the time she remarried), and then he died, she leaves him; and the child — the former is a mamzer, and the latter is not a mamzer. If they said to her: Your husband died, and she was betrothed; and then her husband returned, she is permitted to return to him. Even if the latter gave her a get, she is not rendered unfit for the priesthood. R. Elazar b. Matia expounded in this regard (Leviticus 21:7): \"And a woman divorced from her husband\" (may not marry a Cohein) — and not from one who is not her husband.",
            "\tIf a man's wife went abroad, and they came and said to him: Your wife died, and he married her sister, and then his wife returned, she is permitted to return to him, [for the betrothal of the second is meaningless, and he lived with her in z'nuth. And it is stated in the gemara (Numbers 5:13): \"And a man lie with her\" — her lying (adulterously) forbids her (to her husband), and not her sister's.] He is permitted to the kin of the second [i.e., to marry her (sister's) daughter, it being ruled (11:1): \"One may marry the kin of a woman he ravished or seduced], and the second is permitted to his kin; and if the first (i.e., his wife) died, he is permitted to the second. If they said to him: Your wife died, and he married her sister; and then they said to him: She was alive (when you married her sister) and then she died, the former child is a mamzer, and the latter is not. R. Yossi says: All who render unfit for others render unfit for themselves, and all who do not render unfit for others do not render unfit for themselves. [R. Yossi heard the first tanna saying: It makes no difference whether his wife and his brother-in-law went abroad or whether his betrothed and his brother-in-law went abroad — if they came and said to him: Your wife died and your brother-in-law died, and he married her sister, and then his wife and his brother-in-law returned, his brother-in-law's wife is forbidden to her husband, and his own wife is permitted to him. And R. Yossi said to him: In the instance of his betrothed and his brother-in-law, where it might be said that there was a condition in the betrothal, and that his marriage to her sister was a bona fide one (the condition not having been met), so that she (the second) requires a divorce from him (the one who is married to the first), so that it not be said that a married woman is leaving without a get — since he renders her unfit for others, i.e., his brother-in-law (for, leaving him with a get, she is rendered unfit to her husband), he also renders his wife unfit for himself, by reason of \"the sister of his divorcée.\" But where his wife and his brother-in-law go abroad, and he marries her sister, in which instance it cannot be said that there was a condition in the marriage and that his marriage to the second was a bona fide one (as it could be said of betrothal), and she (the second) does not require a divorce from him — since he does not render unfit for others, not rendering his brother-in-law's wife unfit for him, he does not render unfit for himself, his wife being permitted to him, not being \"the sister of his divorcée.\"]",
            "\tIf they said to him: Your wife died, and he married her sister from her father [not from her mother], and then [they said to him:] she [the second] died, and he married her [the second's] sister from her mother [and not from her father, so that the third is a stranger to the first], and then [they said to him:] she [the third] died, and he married her [the third's] sister from her father [and not from her mother, so that the fourth is a stranger to the second, and, it goes without saying, to the first], and then [they said to him:] she [the fourth] died, and he married her sister from her mother [so that she is a stranger to the third, and, likewise, to the first and to the second], and then they were all found to be alive [i.e., they said to him that they are all alive], he is permitted to the first, the third, and the fifth [for they are not kin to one another. And though the third is the sister of the second, she is permitted; for the betrothal of the second did not \"take,\" she being \"his wife's sister\" to the first, whom he had married before, so that she (the second) is like his ravished or seduced one (concerning which it is ruled that if one ravished a woman he is permitted to marry her daughter), the Torah having forbidden the sister of a wife alone; and where betrothal does not \"take,\" she is not \"the sister of a wife.\" And, similarly, with the fifth. Though she is the sister of the fourth, she is permitted to him. For since betrothal \"took\" in the third, the cohabitation of the fourth, who is a sister of the third, is found to be one of z'nuth, and the fifth is not forbidden to him.] And they exempt their tzaroth. [If he (the husband) died, and the yavam came and took one of them in yibum, he exempts her tzarah.] And he is forbidden to the second [because of the first] and to the fourth [because of the third.] And cohabitation with either one of them (the second or the fourth) does not exempt her tzarah (i.e., the husband's wives). And if he cohabited with the second after the death of the first, [the account of her death being true, and of the death of the others, false], he is permitted to the second and the fourth, and they exempt their tzaroth; and he is forbidden to the third [because of the second] and to the fifth [because of the fourth]. And cohabitation with either one of them (the third or the fifth) does not exempt her tzarah.",
            "\tOne (a yavam) of nine years and one day renders [the yavamah] unfit to the brothers [if he lives with her, for his act is considered \"cohabitation.\" The same is true if he gives her a get or makes a ma'amar in her, both being valid (although his get is not a complete get, and his ma'amar is not a complete ma'amar.)], and his brothers render [her] unfit to him. But he renders unfit in the beginning, whereas his brothers render unfit in the beginning and in the end. [In the gemara it is explained that with a ma'amar, he renders unfit in the beginning, but not in the end. That is, if his older brother made a ma'amar and then he of nine years and one day made a ma'amar, he does not render her unfit to his brothers; but with cohabitation, he renders her unfit both in the beginning and in the end. Our Mishnah is elliptical, and is to be understood thus: \"But he renders unfit (only) in the beginning, whereas they render unfit (both) in the beginning and in the end. When is this so? With a ma'amar, but with cohabitation, he renders unfit in the end, too. How so? etc.\"] How so? If he of nine years and one day cohabited with his yevamah, he renders her unfit to the brothers (who had made a ma'amar first). If the brothers lived with her, or made a ma'amar, or gave her a get or chalitzah, they render her unfit to him (even after he cohabited with her).",
            "\tIf one (a yavam) of nine years and one day cohabited with his yevamah, and then his brother of nine years and one day cohabited with her, he (the latter) renders her unfit to him. [For this is like a ma'amar after a ma'amar, both (cohabitations) \"taking.\"] R. Shimon says: He does not render her unfit. [For the cohabitation of a nine-year-old, according to R. Shimon, either acquires her or does not acquire her. If it acquires her, it acquires her completely, so that the cohabitation of his brother is meaningless. And if it does not acquire her, then it is as if neither he nor his brother had cohabited with her.]",
            "\tIf one (a yavam) of nine years and one day cohabited with his yevamah, and then with her tzarah, he renders (them) unfit to himself. R. Shimon says: He does not render unfit. If one of nine years and one day cohabited with his yevamah and died, she receives chalitzah and is not taken in yibum. [For she has upon her the linkage of two yavmin. For with the cohabitation of his minor, which is like a ma'amar in an adult, she is not released from the linkage of her first falling, and the linkage of the second falls upon her, concerning which we learned (3:9): \"when the linkage of one yavam, and not two, is upon her.\"] If he married a woman and died [and he has brothers], she is exempt [from yibum]. For though his cohabitation is \"cohabitation,\" his acquisition is not \"acquisition\" until he brings two (pubic) hairs. In the instance of a yevamah, however, since she is linked to him, the rabbis made it (his cohabitation) like a ma'amar.]",
            "\tIf one (a yavam) of nine years and one day cohabited with his yevamah, and when he came of age, he married another woman and died — if he did not cohabit with the first from the time he came of age, the first receives chalitzah and is not taken in yibum, [for the linkage of two yavmin is upon her. Since he did not cohabit with her when he came of age, she did not satisfy the first falling (for yibum).], and the second either receives chalitzah or is taken in yibum. R. Shimon says: He takes whichever he wishes in yibum, [the linkage of two yavmin not obtaining according to R. Shimon (And thus do we find it in 3:9)], and he gives chalitzah to the second. [For (it may be that) they are not tzaroth for one to be exempt by the yibum of the other. And he cannot take both in yibum either. Since she is her tzarah by partial ma'amar according to the rabbis, the impression is given of two yevamoth coming from one house.] Both one who is nine years and a day, and one who is twenty years and has not brought two (pubic) hairs [are alike in respect to all that is stated above. For so long as he has not brought two hairs, he is a minor, until he reaches the age of thirty-five. And if he reaches that age without having brought two hairs, even though the aforementioned signs of a saris (8:4) are not observable in him, he is regarded as a seris-chammah.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tOne may marry the kin of a woman that he ravished or seduced. [He is permitted to marry her daughter, her mother, or her sister, it being written (Leviticus 20:14): \"And a man, if he takes a woman and her mother\" — With all of the others \"lying\" is written, and here, \"taking,\" to teach that it is by way of \"taking\" (in marriage) that they are interdicted.] If one ravishes or seduces (the kin of) one to whom he is married, he is liable. One may marry a woman who has been ravished by his father or seduced by his father; ravished by his son or seduced by his son. R. Yehudah forbids a woman ravished by his father or seduced by his father, [it being written (Deuteronomy 23:1): \"A man shall not take the wife of his father, and he shall not uncover the lap of his father\" — the \"lap\" that his father has seen, he may not uncover. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah. But the sages forbade one suspected of (illicit relations with) a woman to marry her daughter, or sister, or mother, or one of her kin; for she is wont to be with them, and they might come to sin. And if he transgressed and married one of the kin of a woman he ravished or seduced or one of the kin of a woman he is suspected of, she is not taken from him. As to our Mishnah, \"One may marry, etc.\", which implies that he may do so ab initio — this is so after the death of the one he ravished or seduced, where it is not to be feared that after marrying the daughter, he will live with the first.]",
            "\tIf the sons of a proselyte woman became proselytes with her, they do not give chalitzah, and they do not take in yibum, [\"brotherhood\" from the father being required (for yibum), and proselytes having no kinship from the father.] (This is so) even if the first were conceived in non-holiness (i.e., before proselytization) and born in holiness, and the second, conceived in holiness and born in holiness. And the same applies to a bondswoman, whose children were freed together with her.",
            "\tFive women whose children were mixed up with each other [and each had a son, who did not become mixed up with them] — if those who had been mixed together grew up, married and died, four give chalitzah to one of them, and the fifth takes her in yibum. [The known son of each one of the four gives chalitzah to one of them, each possibly being his brother's wife; and the fifth marries her in any event — If she is his brother's wife, he takes her in yibum; and if not, her yavam has given her chalitzah.] He (the one who performed yibum) and three give chalitzah to another woman, and the fifth takes her in  to another woman, and the fifth takes her in yibum [in any event. And these two (who have taken wives in yibum) give chalitzah to the third woman, the other two with them, and the fifth takes her in yibum, and so with the others.] It is found, then, that there are four chalitzoth and one yibum for each woman. [Four chalitzoth first, for neither is permitted to take her in yibum until the other four give her chalitzah, so that he not be in violation of \"a yevamah to the marketplace.\" And the four may also give chalitzah to all of them and the fifth marry them, but the first procedure is preferable, for it may be that each will take his linked one and fulfill the mitzvah of yibum.]",
            "\tA woman whose child became mixed up with that of her daughter-in-law — If those who had been intermixed grew up, married and died, the (known) sons of the daughter-in-law give chalitzah, but do not take in yibum, each woman possibly being his brother's wife or the wife of his father's brother. And the sons of the mother-in-law either give chalitzah or take in yibum, each woman possibly being his brother's wife or the wife of his brother's son. If the known sons died, the mixed up sons give chalitzah to the (wives of) the sons of the mother-in-law but do not take in yibum, each woman possibly being his brother's wife or the wife of his father's brother. And the sons of the daughter-in-law — one gives chalitzah [first] and [then] the other takes in yibum [— in any event. If the one who gave chalitzah is the son of the daughter-in-law, and he gave chalitzah to his brother's wife, he permits her thereby, and the other, the son of the mother-in-law, may marry her, the wife of one's brother's son being permitted to him. And if the one who gave chalitzah is the son of the mother-in-law and he gave chalitzah to the wife of his brother's son, it is as if she has received chalitzah from a stranger, so that when the son of the daughter-in-law takes her in yibum, he does so properly.]",
            "\tIf the child of the daughter of a Cohein were mixed up with the child of her bondswoman, they eat terumah, [for both a Cohein and the bondsman of a Cohein eat terumah. And they share one share on the threshing floor. [The gemara explains that they share as one. If both come as one to the threshing floor, they are given (the produce), but it is not given to one without the other, this tanna holding that terumah is not allocated to a bondsman unless his master is with him.] And they do not become unclean for the dead, and they do not marry, neither fit women (i.e., women who are fit for the priesthood) nor unfit ones. [For each one is possibly a Cohein-possibly a bondsman. The fit ones are forbidden to the bondsman, and the unfit ones are forbidden to the Cohein, and (the ruling in the instance of) \"something possibly forbidden is for stringency.\" When the mixed up ones grow up and free each other, they marry women fit for the priesthood and they do not make themselves unclean for the dead. And if they do make themselves unclean, they do not receive forty stripes, [for each one can say: I am not a Cohein.] And they do not eat terumah. And if they did eat, they do not pay the principal and a fifth, [for each one can say: I am not a Cohein, and money is not taken from one on the basis of a doubt], and they do not share on the threshing floor, and they sell the terumah. [They do not give the terumah of their produce to a Cohein, for each one can say: Bring proof that I am not a Cohein. But, in any event, they are not permitted to eat it, but they sell it to a Cohein and the money is theirs.], and they do not share in what was consecrated to the Temple [such as the hides of offerings; for to each one we can say: Bring proof that you are a Cohein and take.] And we do not give them offerings [to sacrifice], and we do not take them from their hands [e.g., if a first-born (beast) were born to them, we do not take it from them, but allow it to graze until it is blemished.] And they are exempt from (giving a Cohein) the shoulder, the cheeks, and the maw. And his first-born grazes until it is blemished, and there are imposed upon him the stringencies of Cohanim and the stringencies of Israelites. [The gemara explains that the fistful is taken of their meal-offerings as in the meal-offerings of Israelites, and is offered by itself, and what is left over is not eaten as with the meal-offering of an Israelite, but is burned, as with the meal-offering of a Cohein, which is entirely burned.]",
            "\tIf one did not wait three months after her husband (died), and she remarried and bore a son, and it is not known whether he is a nine-month birth to the first husband, or a seven-month birth to the second — If she had sons from the first and sons from the second, they give chalitzah, but do not take in yibum [the wife of the doubtful son. One of the sons of the first gives chalitzah on the possibility that he is their father's son; but they do not take in yibum, it being possible that he is the son of the second, so that he is their brother from their mother, but not from their father, in which instance his wife is kareth-interdicted to them. And, likewise, with the sons of the second.] And he, likewise, with them. He gives chalitzah [to their wives], but he does not take in yibum. If he had brothers from the first and brothers from the second, not from the same mother, he either gives chalitzah [to the wife of the son of the first] or takes her in yibum. If he is his brother, all well and good; if not, she is a stranger to him. (This, when there is no other brother but him, where there is no possibility of \"a yevamah to the marketplace.\") And the same applies to the wife of the son of the second.] And they — one gives chalitzah and the other takes in yibum. [Either the son of the first or the son of the second gives chalitzah, and the other takes in yibum. If she is his yevamah, all well and good; if not, she is a stranger to him. And there is no problem of \"a yevamah to the marketplace,\" for her yavam has given her chalitzah.]",
            "\tIf one [of the husbands (in the above instance) were an Israelite and the other a Cohein, he (the doubtful son) must marry a woman fit for a Cohein, and he may not make himself unclean for the dead [see 11:5 for this and for what follows.] If he did make himself unclean, he does not receive forty stripes. And he does not eat terumah. If he did eat, he does not pay the principal and a fifth. And he does not share on the threshing floor, and he sells the terumah and the money is his. And he does not share in the offerings of the sanctuary, and he is not given offerings, and we do not take his from his hand, and he is exempt from the shoulder, the cheeks, and the maw, and his first-born (beast) grazes until it is blemished, and there are imposed upon him the stringencies of Cohanim and the stringencies of Israelites. If both were Cohanim, he mourns (each of them) [on the possibility that he is his father; and on the day of his death, he is forbidden to eat consecrated food.] and they mourn him [and on the day of his death, consecrated food is forbidden to both of them. Such an instance, where he sees the death of both and yet is a fit Cohein (not having been made a chalal by marriage to a Cohein after a divorce), so that he may not become unclean for them — such an instance obtains when she were betrothed (to the first) mistakenly, on condition, the condition not having been fulfilled, in which instance she leaves him without a get, and where she remarried within three months (of the death of the first). In such an instance he sees the death of both and yet is a fit Cohein, for which reason he may not become unclean for them.] He may not become unclean for them and they may not become unclean for him. He does not inherit them, [for the heirs push him off, one to the other], but they inherit him [for who can stop them? And they divide the money between themselves]. He is not liable for striking or cursing the one or the other, and he may go up for the watch (mishmar) of the one or the other [to serve, and the men of that watch cannot stop him], but he does share (in the offerings), [for all the men of one watch can push him off to the other.] If both (husbands) were in one watch, he takes one share."
        ],
        [
            "\tThe mitzvah of chalitzah is before three judges, even three hedyototh (non-learned men). [The reason they are called \"judges\" is that, like judges, they must know how to read the verses. And though it is stated that the mitzvah of chalitzah is before three, two others must join them so that the chalitzah, being before five, is more greatly publicized. And the two that are added need not even know how to read. If she performed chalitzah with a minal [(a foot-covering) of soft leather], her chalitzah is kasher; [but he should not do so ab initio — a decree lest he give chalitzah with a minal torn from above. For even if the torn one sits on his foot, since it is soft, it does not satisfy the requirement of affording protection. But a sandal (a shoe) is of stiff leather, and since, when it is torn it does not sit on his foot, there is no reason to forbid (an intact sandal) lest he come to give chalitzah with a torn sandal — for which reason chalitzah is essentially with a sandal.] If she performed chalitzah with anfilin [foot-coverings of cloth], her chalitzah is invalid, for something that affords protection is required, it being written here (Deuteronomy 25:9): \"his shoe,\" and, elsewhere (Ezekiel 16:10): \"And I shod you with tachash,\" which is leather.] (If he gave her chalitzah) with a heeled sandal, it is kasher; with an unheeled sandal, it is invalid. From the knee-joint down, her chalitzah is kasher; from the knee-joint up [i.e., if the laces of the shoe were tied above the knee-joint], it is invalid.",
            "\tIf she performed chalitzah with a sandal that was not his or with one of wood [provided that it was covered with leather] or with the left shoe on the right foot, her chalitzah is kasher. If she performed chalitzah with a large shoe in which he could walk, [If the shoe were larger than his size, if he could walk in it, her chalitzah is kasher], or with a small shoe [smaller than his size], if it covered most of his foot, her chalitzah is kasher. If she performed chalitzah at night, her chalitzah is kasher. R. Eliezer rules that it is invalid. (If she performed chalitzah) on his left foot, it is invalid. R. Eliezer rules that it is kasher. [The halachah is according to R. Eliezer re invalidating chalitzah at night, and not in accordance with him re ruling chalitzah on the left foot to be kasher].",
            "\tIf she removed the shoe and spat, but did not recite (the prescribed formula), her chalitzah is kasher. [For when the Torah wrote: \"Thus,\" implying a constraint, it was written relative to the act, viz. (Deuteronomy 25:9): \"Thus shall be done with the man,\" and recitation is mere speech.] If she recited and spat, but did not remove the shoe, her chalitzah is invalid. If she removed the shoe and recited, but did not spit — R. Eliezer says: Her chalitzah is invalid. R. Akiva says: Her chalitzah is kasher. R. Eliezer said: \"Thus shall be done\" — Everything which is an act constrains. R. Akiva rejoined: Does that prove it? (It is written:) \"Thus shall be done with the man\" — everything which is an act in the man [such as chalitzah, where the woman performs an act on the man's body, as opposed to spitting which is not an act on the man's body.]",
            "\tA deaf-mute who was given chalitzah, and a deaf-mute who performed chalitzah, and a woman given chalitzah by a minor — her chalitzah is invalid. [(\"A deaf-mute who was given chalitzah, his chalitzah is invalid\":) For he does not release her (from yibum linkage) where there is another brother who is fit. (\"And a deaf-mute who performed chalitzah, her chalitzah is invalid\":) For she herself is not released by her chalitzah, and there is no amendment for her except through yibum. And if he wishes to send her away thereafter, he does so by a get. (\"And a woman given chalitzah by a minor, her chalitzah is invalid.\":) Wherever \"invalid chalitzah\" (chalitzah p'sulah) is spoken of in our chapter, it is only in that she cannot be taken in yibum after that chalitzah, and she requires a bona fide chalitzah to permit her to others. And that tanna who calls the chalitzah of a minor \"chalitzah p'sulah,\" which implies that it renders her unfit for yibum — that tanna is R. Meir; for the rabbis say that the chalitzah of a minor is meaningless and does not render her unfit for yibum. And the halachah is in accordance with the sages.] If a minor performed chalitzah, she must do so (again) when she comes of age; and if she did not, her chalitzah is invalid.",
            "\tIf she performed chalitzah before two [fit] judges, or three, and one [of them] were found to be kin or unfit, [so that only two fit ones remained], her chalitzah is invalid, [and this is the halachah, chalitzah not being valid with fewer than three.] R. Shimon and R. Yochanan Hasandler rule it to be valid. And it once happened that chalitzah was performed between the man and the woman (alone) in prison, and when R. Akiva was apprised of it he ruled it valid.",
            "\tThe mitzvah of chalitzah: He and his yevamah come to beth-din, and they counsel him as befits him. [If he were young and she old; or he, old, and she, young, they tell him: What do you want with someone so young (or with someone so old) — find someone your own age!], viz. (Deuteronomy 25:8): \"Then the elders of his city shall call to him and they shall speak to him.\" She says (Ibid. 7): \"My yavam does not desire to invest for his brother a name in Israel; he does not desire to have me in yibum,\" and he says (Ibid. 8): \"I did not desire to take her.\" And in the holy tongue they (the yavam and the yevamah) would say (Ibid. 9): \"Then his yevamah shall draw near to him before the eyes of the elders, and she shall remove his shoe from his foot, and she shall spit in his face\" (spittle that is visible to the judges) \"and she shall answer and say: 'Thus shall it be done with the man who would not build the house of his brother.'\" Until this point they (the judges) would read for them. And when R. Horkanos read (for the yevamah) under the terebinth in Kfar Ittam and concluded the entire section, it was established that the entire section be concluded, viz. (Ibid. 10): \"And his name shall be called in Israel: 'the house chalutz hana'al' ('of the removed shoe').\" It is a mitzvah for the judges (to answer after her: \"chalutz hana'al\"), and it is not a mitzvah for the disciples (to do so). R. Yehudah says: It is a mitzvah for all who stand there to say: \"chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al!\" [And the halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tBeth Shammai say: Refusal [miun] obtains only with the betrothed. [An orphan girl who was wed by her mother and her brothers can refuse only from betrothal (and not from marriage).] Beth Hillel say: Both with the betrothed and with the married. Beth Shammai say: With the husband, but not with the yavam. [If her husband died without her having refused him, and she fell before the yavam, she is not released with miun, but she waits until she comes of age and she performs chalitzah]. Beth Hillel say: (Refusal obtains) with both the husband and the yavam. Beth Shammai say: (Only) before him. Beth Hillel say: (Both) in beth-din and not in beth-din. Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: She may refuse when she is a minor, even four or five times. Beth Shammai rejoined: \"The daughters of Israel are not hefker\" (\"abandoned ones\") [and even from betrothal she cannot refuse and betroth herself to another and refuse again], but she refuses [this one] and waits [to become betrothed to another] until she comes of age, and she refuses and marries. [Not that she refuses another time, but that she refuses and waits to betroth another until she comes of age. Or, if she wishes to marry, she refuses her husband and marries immediately, for being married, she can no longer refuse according to Beth Shammai.]",
            "\tWho is a minor that requires miun? One whose mother and brothers wed her with her knowledge. If they wed her without her knowledge, miun is not required. R. Chanina b. Antignos says: Any young girl who is not able to care for her betrothal (money or deed) does not require miun. R. Eliezer says: The act of a minor is of no significance; it is as if she has [not been married, but] seduced — the daughter of an Israelite to a Cohein does not eat terumah; the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite eats terumah. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer, but with R. Chanina b. Antignos. And one who is less than six is assumed not to be able to care for her betrothal and does not require miun. If she is older than ten, it is assumed that she is able to care for her betrothal, though she be extremely foolish. From six until ten it must be ascertained whether or not she is able to care for her betrothal. She may exercise the miun option until she reaches the age of twelve years and one day and shows (pubertal) signs. After that she cannot refuse, even if he did not cohabit with her. And if he lived with her after twelve years and one day, even if she did not show signs, we entertain the apprehension that the signs have fallen and that he has acquired her.]",
            "\tR. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: (With) any detention (of the woman) which comes from the man — it is as if she is his wife. And (with) any detention which is not from the man — it is as if she is not his wife. [If he gave her a get, this is \"detention\" which comes from the man. For her not having exercised the miun option shows that her \"detention\" with him stemmed from (her desire to remain with) him. If she did exercise the miun option, this is \"detention\" which does not come from the man, her \"detention\" with him having stemmed from her desire to remain with him. The Mishnah is explained below.]",
            "\tIf one refuse [hamemaeneth] a man, he is permitted to her kin and she is permitted to his kin, and he does not render her unfit for the priesthood. If he gave her a get, he is forbidden to her kin and she is forbidden to his kin and he renders her unfit for the priesthood. If he gave her a get and took her back, and she refused him and married another and was widowed or divorced, she is permitted to return to him. [Even though if he did not take her back and she married another out of divorce and was widowed, she is forbidden to the first, still, if he took her back and she refused him, this refusal shows her to be a minor and annuls the get, so that in taking her back, it is not as if he is taking back his divorcée after she wed another.] This is the rule: get after miun — she is forbidden to return to him; miun after get, she is permitted to return to him. [That is, even if he divorced her many times and he took her back, and she refused him — if she married the other out of a get, she is forbidden to return to him; if out of miun, she is permitted to return to him.]",
            "\tIf one refused a man and married another and he divorced her; another, and she refused him, [that is, she then married a third and she refused him]; another, and he divorced her; another, and she refused him — whoever she left by get, she may not return to. [Even though she left the one after him by miun, this does not annul her get.]; whoever she left by miun, she may return to.",
            "\tIf one divorces a woman and takes her back, she is permitted to the yavam. [And we do not say that the original marriage causes the yevamah to fall before the yavam, and from the time his brother divorced her she is forbidden to him as \"his brother's wife,\" being the divorcée of his brother.] R. Eliezer forbids her, [decreeing against all of these by reason of \"an orphan in her father's lifetime,\" concerning whom it is stated later in our Mishnah that she is considered a divorcée even according to the rabbis. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.] Likewise, if one divorced an orphan and took her back, she is permitted to the yavam. R. Eliezer forbids her. A minor who was betrothed by her father and was divorced is like \"an orphan in her father's lifetime.\" [Even though her father is living, she is like an orphan relative to betrothal, her father no longer having the power to accept her betrothal.] If he took her back [when she was a minor], all say that she is forbidden to the yavam [if her husband died when she was still a minor, for her \"return betrothal\" was meaningless, her father's authority in her having lapsed, and she having no authority of her own, for which reason she remains in the status of a divorcée.]",
            "\tIf two brothers were married to two sisters, [if they were] orphans-minors, and the husband of one of them died, she leaves by reason of \"his wife's sister,\" [and she is exempt from chalitzah and yibum.] The same applies to two deaf-mutes, (whose marriage is, likewise, by rabbinic ordinance). If one (sister) were an adult and the other, a minor, if the husband of the minor dies, the minor leaves by reason of \"his wife's sister.\" If the husband of the adult dies, [and she fell for yibum before the husband of the minor, the linkage of the adult, which is Torah-based, forbids the minor to him because her marriage is (only) by rabbinic ordinance, and she is \"the sister of his linked one.\" What, then, should be done?] R. Eliezer said: The minor is taught to refuse him [and dissolve the marriage, after which he takes the adult in yibum. And this is the halachah.] R. Gamliel says: If she refused, she refused; and if not, she waits until she comes of age, when the other leaves by reason of \"his wife's sister.\" [The linkage of the adult does not forbid the minor to him, R. Gamliel holding that linkage is not strong enough to forbid his wife to him. Therefore, if she refused, all well and good, and he takes the adult in yibum. And if not, the minor abides with him until she comes of age and her marriage becomes Torah-based, whereupon the adult leaves by reason of \"his wife's sister.\" But he does not give chalitzah to the adult, for he would thereby forbid his wife to himself by reason of \"the sister of his chalutzah.\"] R. Yehoshua says: Woe to him for his wife [Woe to him who sends out his wife with a get. For we do not teach her to refuse, holding that \"one should distance himself from refusals\"], and woe to him for his brother's wife! He sends out his wife with a get, and his brother's wife with chalitzah.",
            "\tIf one were married to two orphans-minors [strangers], and he died, the cohabitation of chalitzah of one of them [after she came of age] exempts her tzarah. Likewise, with two deaf-mutes. [That is, just as with two minors, the cohabitation of one exempts her tzarah, so with two deaf-mutes. But chalitzah is not mentioned in respect to a deaf-mute, chalitzah not obtaining with her.] (If he were married to) a minor and a deaf-mute, the cohabitation of one of them does not exempt her tzarah. [Even though the marriage of both is not bona fide marriage, still, we do not know which he preferred, and which was regarded more as his wife.] A pikachath (one in possession of all her faculties) and a deaf-mute — the cohabitation of the pikachath exempts the deaf-mute; but the cohabitation of the deaf-mute does not exempt the pikachath. An adult and a minor — the cohabitation of the adult exempts the minor, but the cohabitation of the minor does not exempt the adult. [For cohabitation with one whose marriage was bona fide exempts her whose marriage was not bona fide, but the opposite is not the case.]",
            "\tIf one were married to two orphans-minors and he died — if the yavam cohabited with the first and then with the second, or if his brother cohabited with the second, the first is not rendered unfit. [For their cohabitation is equal. If the first is acquired (through it), she is his wife, and the cohabitation of the second is one of z'nuth. And if she is not acquired, both are strangers to him, for they were (likewise) not acquired by his brother. And he keeps the first, for she was not rendered unfit to him. But he does not keep the second, for it may be that they were acquired, so that after he cohabited with the first, the second was forbidden to him by reason of \"two houses.\"] The same applies to two deaf-mutes. A minor and a deaf-mute — if the yavam cohabited with the minor and then with the deaf-mute, or if his brother cohabited with the deaf-mute, the minor is not rendered unfit to him. If the yavam cohabited with the deaf-mute and then with the minor, or if his brother cohabited with the minor, the deaf-mute is rendered unfit to him. [For it may be that the minor is completely acquired and the deaf-mute is partially acquired, so that (the interdict of) \"two houses\" obtains. For thus do we conclude in the gemara, that a minor is either totally acquired in that she is fit for cohabitation in the future — or not acquired at all. And a deaf-mute is acquired and \"left over\"; that is, partially and not absolutely acquired. And even so, if he cohabited with the deaf-mute after cohabiting with the minor, he does not render the minor unfit, whatever the case, viz.: If the minor is completely acquired, he has acquired her, and the subsequent cohabitation with the deaf-mute is of no significance in this regard. And if she is not acquired at all, neither was she acquired by his brother, so that she is a stranger. But if he cohabited first with the deaf-mute and then with the minor, he renders the deaf-mute unfit. For it may be that the minor was completely acquired, in which instance the acquisition of the deaf-mute, which is only a partial one, is invalidated. (Some versions read thus: If he cohabited with the minor and then with the deaf-mute, he renders the minor unfit to him, this being a decree in respect of his cohabiting with the deaf-mute and then cohabiting with the minor.)]",
            "\tAn adult and a minor — if the yavam cohabited with the adult and then cohabited with the minor, or if his brother cohabited with the minor, the adult is not rendered unfit. If the yavam cohabited with the minor and then cohabited with the adult, or if his brother cohabited with the adult, the minor is rendered unfit. R. Elazar says: We teach the minor to refuse him. [And the halachah is in accordance with R. Elazar.]",
            "\tIf a yavam-minor cohabited with a yevamah-minor, they are to \"grow up\" with each other [and he cannot divorce her until he comes of age, for the get of a minor is not a get.] If he cohabited with a yevamah-adult, she is to wait until he comes of age. If the yevamah said in the midst of thirty days [after the yavam took her]: I was not cohabited with, [and the yavam says: I did cohabit with you, and a get suffices for you], he is compelled to give her chalitzah. [For she is believed. For until thirty days one can restrain himself and not cohabit.] After thirty days, he is requested to give her chalitzah. [After thirty days he is believed; for a man cannot restrain himself from cohabiting for more than thirty days. However, she is not thereby permitted, having rendered herself forbidden and in need of chalitzah, so that he is requested to give her chalitzah. But he is not compelled, for he says that he did cohabit with her. As to his being compelled to give chalitzah in the midst of thirty days and being requested to give chalitzah after thirty days, and not being compelled and requested to take her in yibum — the gemara posits this to be an instance where she presents a get; for having given a get to his linked one, she is rendered unfit to him. But she still requires chalitzah to permit her to others. And if (after thirty days) she says: I was cohabited with, and he says: I did not cohabit with her, we pay no heed to his word, and she does not require chalitzah.] And when he concedes (that he did not cohabit with her), even after twelve months, he is compelled to give her chalitzah.",
            "\tIf one vows, in her husband's lifetime, to derive no enjoyment from her yavam, he is compelled to give her chalitzah. [For (when she made the vow) it did not enter her mind that her husband would die and that she would fall before him for yibum, and she receives her kethubah.] After her husband's death, he is requested to give her chalitzah. And if she intended this (to shun yibum), even in her husband's lifetime, he is requested to give her chalitzah. [After her husband's death, she is a rebel (in vowing thus), and we rule that a writ of rebellion is written against one awaiting yibum (and refusing it). We request that he give her chalitzah, and he gives her her kethubah if he wishes to. And if he does not wish to give her chalitzah and she rebels against him and consents to lose her kethubah, we compel him to give her chalitzah.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tA deaf-mute who married a pikachath, and a pikeach who married a deaf-mute — if he wishes, he sends her away, and if he wishes, he keeps her. Just as he (the deaf-mute) marries by gesticulation, so he sends away by gesticulation. [That is, as betrothal, so is divorce. And, likewise, a pikeach who married a deaf-mute. He married her by gesticulation, gesturing to her until she accepted; and he sends her away by gesticulation, if he wishes to send her away.] If a pikeach married a pikachath and she became a deaf-mute [Even though her betrothal was bona fide, in that she was a pikachath at that time], if he wishes to send her away, he sends her away, [the woman's consent not being required], and if he wishes, he keeps her. If she becomes deranged, he may not send her away. [Even though she knows how to care for her get and, by Torah ordinance, is divorced, the sages instituted that he not divorce her, so that men not \"make free\" with her.] If he became a deaf-mute or deranged [after betrothal], he never sends her away. [Since his betrothal was bona fide betrothal, he can never send her away, incomplete divorce not dissolving complete betrothal.] R. Yochanan b. Nuri asked: Why is it that a woman who became a deaf-mute can be divorced, whereas a man who became a deaf-mute cannot divorce? They answered: A man divorcing cannot be compared to a woman being divorced. A woman is divorced either consentingly or non-consentingly. A man divorces only by volition.",
            "\tR. Yochanan b. Godgada testified about a deaf-mute whose father had betrothed her [when she was a minor, and who had accepted her betrothal, so that her betrothal was complete in spite of her being a deaf-mute (since she was betrothed by her father's knowledge and not her own)] that she goes out with a get. [Even after she had become of age and her father's authority had lapsed, she receives her get.] They said to him: This one, too, [a pikachath who became a deaf-mute] is like her.",
            "\tTwo deaf-mute brothers married to deaf-mute sisters or to two deaf-mute pikchoth, or to two sisters, one, a deaf-mute; the other, a pikachath, or two deaf-mute sisters married to two brothers, pikchim, or to two deaf-mute brothers, or to two brothers, one, a deaf-mute; the other, a pikeach, are exempt from chalitzah and from yibum. [For since both men are deaf-mutes or both women deaf-mutes, as the betrothal of one, so is the betrothal of the other, and the betrothal of his wife (the sister) comes and dissolves the linkage of his yevamah, which is not a complete linkage.] And if they were strangers, they can marry them [for there is no chalitzah with a deaf-mute man or woman, \"and he shall say,\" \"and she shall say\" not obtaining with them]; and if they wish to send them away, they send them away [with a get, a get by gesticulation coming and dissolving his betrothal and his brother's linkage, which was by gesticulation.]",
            "\tTwo brothers, one, a deaf-mute; the other, a pikeach, married to two sisters, pikchoth: If the deaf-mute, the husband of the pikachath, died, what does the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath, do? She goes out by reason of \"his wife's sister.\" If the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath, died, what does the deaf-mute, the husband of the pikachath, do? He sends out his wife with a get [For the linkage of her sister, deriving from complete betrothal, forbids her to him. And there is no power in his betrothal to reject the yevamah by reason of \"his wife's sister\"], and his wife's brother is forbidden forever. [For a deaf-mute cannot give chalitzah, and he cannot marry her, by reason of \"his wife's sister.\"] ",
            "Two brothers, pikchim, married to two sisters, one, a deaf-mute; the other, a pikachath: If the pikeach, the husband of the deaf-mute, died, what does the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath, do? She goes out by reason of \"his wife's sister.\" If the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath, died, what does the pikeach, the husband of the deaf-mute, do? He sends out his wife with a get, and his brother's wife, with chalitzah. ",
            "Two brothers, one a deaf-mute; the other, a pikeach, married to two sisters, one a deaf-mute; the other, a pikachath: If the deaf-mute, the husband of the deaf-mute, died, what does the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath do? She goes out by reason of \"his wife's sister.\" If the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath, died, what does the deaf-mute, the husband of the deaf-mute, do? He sends out his wife with a get, and his brother's wife is forbidden forever. ",
            "Two brothers, one, a deaf-mute; the other, a pikeach, married to two strangers, pikchoth: If the deaf-mute, the husband of the pikachath, died, what does the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath, do? He gives either chalitzah or yibum. If the pikeach, the brother of the pikachath, died, what does the deaf-mute, the husband of the pikachath do? He marries her and never sends her away, [for his get cannot come and dissolve the original linkage of his brother.] ",
            "Two brothers, pikchim, married to two strangers, one a pikachath; the other, a deaf-mute. If the pikeach, the brother of the deaf-mute, died, what does the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath, do? He marries her; and if he wishes to send her away (with a get) he does so. If the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath, died, what does the pikeach, the husband of the deaf-mute, do? He gives either chalitzah or yibum. ",
            "Two brothers, one a deaf-mute; the other, a pikeach, married to two strangers, one a deaf-mute; the other, a pikachath: If the deaf-mute, the husband of the deaf-mute, died, what does the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath, do? He marries her; and if he wishes to send her away (with a get), he does so. If the pikeach, the husband of the pikachath, died, what does the deaf-mute, the husband of the deaf-mute, do? He marries her and never sends her away."
        ],
        [
            "\tA woman who went abroad with her husband — if there were peace between him and her, and peace in the world, and she came and said: My husband died, she may remarry. [(\"If there were peace between him and her\":) For if there were strife between him and her, (we entertain the apprehension that) perhaps she is motivated by hatred to forbid herself to him. (\"and peace in the world\":) For if it were a time of danger, perhaps, when she saw that he was long in returning, she assumed that he had certainly been killed by bandits. Or else, she had seen him struck down in battle and assumed that he had certainly been killed. But, in peace-time, if she had not seen him killed, she would certainly apprehend the obloquy of his returning after she had remarried (so that she would not remarry unless she were certain that he were dead.)] If there were peace between him and her, and war in the world, or strife between him and her and peace in the world, and she came and said: My husband died, she is not believed. R. Yehudah says: She is never believed unless she came crying with her clothes rent. [The halachah is not in accordance with him.] They said to him: [Should a pikachath, then, (who is clever enough to dissimulate mourning) be permitted to remarry, and a shotah (one who is not a pikachath) not be permitted to remarry? Rather,] both the one and the other may remarry.",
            "\tBeth Hillel say: We did not hear (that a woman is permitted to remarry) except when she came from the wheat harvest, and in the same province, and as in the (same) event that transpired, [where men went to harvest wheat, and a snake bit and killed one of them, and his wife came and apprised beth-din of it, and they sent and found her account to be correct. And the sages permitted (a woman to remarry) only in like circumstances — that it have occurred close at hand; but she was not believed (to testify) about what had transpired abroad.] Beth Shammai said to them: (She may remarry) whether she came from the wheat harvest, or the olive harvest, or the grape harvest, and from one province to another. The sages stated \"wheat harvest\" only in that such happened to be the case, [but the same applies to all places] — whereupon Beth Hillel retracted (their ruling) to rule according to Beth Shammai.",
            "\tBeth Shammai say: She marries and she takes her kethubah (payment). Beth Hillel say: She marries and does not take her kethubah — whereupon Beth Shammai said to them: You permitted an ervah, which is more stringent, and you did not permit money, which is less stringent! Beth Hillel answered: We have found that her brothers do not enter the inheritance [of her husband] by her testimony, [it being written (Deuteronomy 19:15): \"By word of two witnesses, etc.\", but vis-à-vis her marrying, the rabbis were lenient, so that she not remain an agunah.] Beth Shammai rejoined: But should we not learn (the ruling) from the scroll of her kethubah, [i.e., from the formula of the kethubah deed], where he writes to her: \"If you marry another, take what is written (over) to you,\" [and she did remarry, wherefore she should take her kethubah!] — whereupon Beth Hillel retracted (their ruling) to rule according to Beth Shammai.",
            "\tAll are trusted to testify (that her husband had died) except her mother-in-law, the daughter of her mother-in-law, her tzarah, her yevamah, and her husband's daughter. [The reason for all is that they hate her and desire her undoing. Her mother-in-law hates her, thinking: This one will \"eat\" all of my toil! The daughter of her mother-in-law hates her, thinking: This one will inherit all the toil of my father and mother! Her yevamah fears lest in the end she will be her tzarah. Her husband's daughter thinks: This one came in my mother's place and \"ate\" all of her toil!] What is the difference between get and death, [that we say that even those women who are not trusted to say that her husband has died are trusted to bring her get]? For the writing confirms it, [i.e., for we rely primarily upon the get (even though we also rely upon them, their being required to say: \"Before me it was written, and before me it was signed.\")] If one witness came and said: \"He died, and she remarried,\" [not necessarily that she remarried, but that they permitted her to remarry], and another came and said that he did not die, she does not leave [her first sanction.] If one witness said that he died, and two said that he did not die, even if she had remarried, she is sent out. [This, in an instance where the two are unfit to testify. We are being apprised that since the Torah believed one witness (in this regard), the institution of witnesses does not (technically) obtain here, and that just as (the testimony of) one witness is entertained here, so (the testimony of) those unfit to testify is also entertained, and the majority deposition is followed, whether (the witnesses are) fit or unfit.] If two said he died, and one said that he did not die, even if she had not yet remarried, she may do so. [We are hereby apprised that the majority deposition is followed in an instance of unfit witnesses, whether for leniency or for stringency.]",
            "\tIf one said that he died and one said that he did not die [(Two tzaroth came from abroad. One said: \"My husband died\"; the other: \"He did not die.\")] — the one who says that he died may remarry and take her kethubah. The one who said he did not die may not remarry and may not take her kethubah. If one said that he died (naturally), and the other, that he had been killed, R. Meir says: Since they contradict each other, they may not remarry. [The halachah is not in accordance with him.] R. Yehudah and R. Shimon say: Since both admit that he is not living, they may remarry. If one witness said that he died, and another that he did not die; if one woman said that he died, and another that he did not die, she may not remarry.",
            "\tIf a woman went abroad with her husband, and she returned and said: My husband died, she may remarry and take her kethubah, and her tzarah is forbidden (to remarry). If she [the tzarah] were the daughter of an Israelite (married) to a Cohein, she eats terumah [on the assumption that her husband is alive, the testimony of her tzarah not being entertained vis-à-vis her; for since she is not believed to allow her to remarry, she is not believed to render her unfit for terumah. And this is the halachah.] These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva said: In this way she will not be removed from transgression; but she is forbidden to remarry, and she is forbidden to eat terumah.",
            "\tIf she said: My husband died and then my father-in-law died, she may remarry and take her kethubah; and her mother-in-law is forbidden (to remarry). If she (her mother-in-law) were the daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohein, she eats terumah. These are the words of R. Tarfon. [In this instance, too, the halachah is in accordance with R. Tarfon; but in the instance of his betrothing one of five women and not knowing which one he betrothed, and, likewise, in the instance of his robbing one of five and not knowing which one, in both cases the halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.] R. Akiva said: In this way she will not be removed from transgression; but she is forbidden to remarry and she is forbidden to eat terumah. If he betrothed one of five women and did not know which he betrothed, and each says: He betrothed me, he gives a get to each one, places a kethubah among them, and \"betakes himself.\" These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says: In this way he will not be removed from transgression; but he must give a get and a kethubah to each one. If he robbed one of five and did not know which one he robbed, and each says: He robbed me, he places the stolen object among them, and \"betakes himself.\" These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says: In this way he will not be removed from transgression, but he must pay each one (the amount of) the stolen object.",
            "\tIf a woman and her husband went abroad, their son with them, and she returned and said: My husband died and then my son died, she is believed. [Since she had a son, and was not in a status of (potential) yibum linkage when she left, now, too, when she says: My husband died and then my son died, claiming not to have yibum linkage, she is believed.] (But if she said:) My son died and then my husband died, [desiring to be taken in yibum], she is not believed. And [if she wishes to marry \"in the marketplace\" (i.e., outside of yibum)], we are apprehensive of her words, [for she had declared herself to be forbidden to others]; and she receives chalitzah and is not taken in yibum.",
            "\t(If she said:) A son was given (i.e., born) to me abroad, and my son died and then my husband died, [not releasing herself from her original status, still requiring yibum according to her words], she is believed [and she is permitted to be taken in yibum. (If she said:) My husband died and then: My son died, she is not believed [to marry \"in the marketplace\" without chalitzah; for when the sages believed a woman, it is only in relation to her husband that they believed her, assuming that she would remarry only after making certain (that he had died): but they did not believe her relative to releasing herself from yibum, in that she might possibly be motivated by hatred (for the yavam).] And we are apprehensive of her words [i.e., that they are designed to free her from yibum], and she receives chalitzah and is not taken in yibum.",
            "\t(If she said:) A yavam was given to me abroad [i.e., her mother-in-law had had a son abroad (and she had left in the status of not having a yavam)] — if she said (either): My husband died and then my yavam died, or: My yavam died and then my husband died, [permitting herself \"to the marketplace\" in both instances], she is believed [and is permitted \"to the marketplace\" as per her original status, \"the mouth that forbids (by apprising us of the yavam) being the mouth that permits.\"] If she, her husband, and her yavam had gone abroad — if she said [either:] My husband died and then my yavam died, or: My yavam died and then my husband died, she is not believed, a woman not being believed to say: My yavam died, (for it is possible that she says so only) that she might remarry; and (she is not believed to say): My sister died, (for it is possible that she says so only) that she might enter his house (i.e., \"the house\" of the one who had married his sister.) And a man is not believed to say: My brother died, that he might take his wife in yibum; and (he is not believed to say): My wife died, that he might marry her sister."
        ],
        [
            "\tIf a woman's husband and her tzarah went abroad, and they came and said to her: Your husband died, she may not remarry [(since her husband had left without children)], and she may not be taken in yibum until she knows that her tzarah had not been pregnant, [lest her tzarah had given birth. And if one would ask, let her be given chalitzah and then let her marry \"to the marketplace\" whatever the case — the gemara answers: A chalutzah is unfit for the priesthood, and if she were given chalitzah and then it were found that her tzarah had borne a \"surviving\" child and that the chalitzah were meaningless, she would have to be proclaimed as kasher for the priesthood, not having been rendered unfit by that chalitzah. And if one had been present at the chalitzah, but not at the \"rescinding\" proclamation, and thereafter saw her married to a Cohein, he would say that a chalutzah is permitted to a Cohein.] If she had a mother-in-law [abroad], she need not fear [that she had been \"given\" a yavam. Even though above we do fear lest her tzarah might have given birth, that is because whatever she bore, male or female, it would release her from yibum; but, as to the mother-in-law, where even if she did bear, the first is yibum-linked only if she bore a son, we entertain the possibility that she might have miscarried, or (even if we assume that she had not miscarried,) that she might have borne a female.] If she (the mother-in-law) went out \"full\" (i.e., pregnant), she does fear [that she might have been given a yavam.] R. Yehoshua says: She does not fear. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehoshua.]",
            "\tTwo yevamoth [wives of two brothers] — one says: My husband died; the other says: My husband died — the first is forbidden (to remarry) because of the husband of the second, and the second is forbidden because of the husband of the first. [Perhaps he is living and she is linked to him. And even though his wife says that he is dead, she is not believed to permit the other \"to the marketplace\" by her testimony, one yevamah not testifying for another.] If one has witnesses [that her husband has died] and the other does not have witnesses, the one who has witnesses is forbidden [to marry \"to the marketplace\"] and the one who has no witnesses is permitted. [She is not forbidden by reason of her husband, for she is believed to say: My husband has died; and she is also not forbidden by reason of her yevamah, for witnesses have come (to testify) that he died.] If one has children and the other does not have children [and neither had witnesses] — the one who has children is permitted, and the one who does not have children is forbidden. If they were taken in yibum [If there were two yavmin here, and they were taken in yibum], and the yavmin died, they are forbidden to marry [\"to the marketplace\" — one because of the first husband of the second; the second, because of the first husband of the first. Even though both are married to their yavmin on the premise that their husbands have died, it is by their own testimony that they are married. And they were believed, for a woman who says, \"My husband has died\" is taken in yibum. But now, they are not permitted to marry \"to the marketplace.\" For if they marry \"to the marketplace,\" the testimony of the one will be found to have helped the other, and yevamoth do not testify one for the other.] R. Elazar says: Since they were permitted to the yavmin [on the premise that their husbands have died], they were permitted to marry \"to the marketplace,\" for we do not apprehend any more that they might be alive. (The halachah is not in accordance with R. Elazar.)]",
            "\tTestimony is given only on the full face with the nose even though there are (identifying) signs on his body and on his clothing. [If one did not see his full face, or if his nose were missing, he cannot testify (that he is dead) so that his wife can remarry, it being possible that it is not he.] Testimony is not given until his soul departs, even if they saw him meguyad [\"cut\" (i.e., with severed arteries) as in (Daniel 4:11): \"Godu ilana\" (\"Cut down the tree\")], and impaled, and an animal eating him [(only in a place from which the soul does not depart; but in a place from which the soul departs, they may testify that he has died.)] Testimony is given only until three days. [If they did not see him until three days after his death, they do not testify, for it is possible (after that time) that his appearance has changed, and that he is not the one they think him to be.] R. Yehudah b. Bava says: Not every man, and not every place, and not all times are the same. [Some men (such as those who are obese) swell rapidly. And there are places (such as hot places) where a body decays and changes more quickly. And there are times when it is hot, when decay and change are more rapid — all according to the man, the place, and the time. (The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.)]",
            "\tIf one fell into (a body of) water, whether it has an end or does not have an end, his wife is forbidden (to remarry). R. Meir said: It once happened that a man fell into the great pit and came up after three days. [\"water that has an end\" — where all four sides are visible around the water; \"water that does not have an end\" — where one cannot see all around it. R. Meir makes no distinction between the one and the other, but the sages do in the baraitha, saying that (if he fell into) water that has an end, his wife is permitted if he remained there longer than the optimal survival time; and (if he fell into) water that does not have an end, his wife is forbidden, for it may be that he may have come up (on the other side) and continued on, as per R. Yossi in our Mishnah. The halachah is in accordance with the sages. (\"And he came up after three days\":) R. Meir holds that one can survive in water many days. Therefore, even in water which has an end, where if he emerged he would have been seen, we apprehend that he may have emerged after many days and not been seen. And R. Yossi disagrees and says: \"It happened with a certain blind man that he went down to bathe in a cave, etc.\"; and the instance of a cave is one of water which has an end, and they waited until they would have died and married their wives.] R. Yossi said: It happened with a certain blind man that he went down to bathe in a cave, and his attendant went down after him, and they waited (the amount of time it would take) for them to die, and they married their wives. Another incident (which occurred) in Assia. They lowered someone into the sea and came up only with his leg. The sages said: (If the leg were severed) above the knee-joint, she may remarry; below the knee-joint, she may not remarry. [Since he can live (in that condition), she may not remarry, for it may be that he had emerged and not been seen, it being water that did not have an end.]",
            "\tEven if he overheard women saying: \"That man died\" [(where it is not their intention to testify)], it is sufficient [i.e., he may go to testify to marry his wife.] R. Yehudah says: Even if he overheard children saying: \"We are going to mourn and bury that man.\" [The gemara states that they must say: \"We are returning from mourning and burying that man.\" And he must also hear them speaking about the eulogy, viz.: \"These and these rabbis were there, and these and these eulogists were there.\" For it is the custom of the young to play and to invent names. And it may be that they have buried an ant or a grasshopper, whom they call by the name of a certain man.] (The speaker is believed) whether or not he intended (to testify.) R. Yehudah b. Bava says: With a Jew, (he is not believed) until he intends (to testify); with a gentile, if he intends to testify, his testimony is no testimony.",
            "\tOne may testify (to a man's death) by the light of a candle and by the light of the moon, and a woman may remarry on the basis of a voice [(if they heard a voice crying: \"This and this man has died!\")] Once a man stood on top of a mountain and called out: \"This man, the son of this man, from this place died!\" They went and found no one there, and they married his wife. Another incident in Tzalmon: A man said: \"I am this man, the son of this man. A snake has bitten me, and I am dying.\" They went (to the spot), but could not recognize him; and they married his wife.",
            "\tR. Akiva said: When I went down to Neharda'a to intercalate the year, I found Nechemiah of the house of Dali: He said to me: \"I have heard that only according to R. Yehudah b. Bava do they marry a woman in Eretz Yisrael on the testimony of one witness,\" and I said to him that it is so [i.e., that all his colleagues differ with him]. He said: \"Tell them in my name: You know that the country is beleaguered by troops [and that I cannot go to you to testify as to what I have heard, but tell them this in my name:] I have received it from R. Gamliel the elder that they marry a woman on the testimony of one witness.\" And when I came and set forth these words before R. Gamliel, he rejoiced at my words and said: \"We have found a colleague for R. Yehudah b. Bava.\" In the midst of these words, R. Gamliel remembered that men had been killed at Tel Arza and that R. Gamliel the elder had married their wives on the testimony of one witness; and they accepted it (among themselves) to marry on the testimony of one witness, to marry on the testimony of one witness from (i.e., from overhearing) another witness, from (the testimony of) a bondsman, from a woman, from a bondswoman. R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua say: We do not marry a woman on the testimony of one witness. R. Akiva says: Not on the testimony of a woman, of a bondsman, or of a bondswoman, or of kin. [And the halachah is as none of them, but we marry a woman on the testimony of a woman and even of kin (except for the five women mentioned in our Mishnah (15:4). And the testimony of a witness from a witness, from a woman, from a bondsman, from a bondswoman is kasher for marrying a woman.] They (the sages) said to him (R. Akiva): It happened with the sons of Levi that when they went to Tzoar, the city of dates, that one of them took sick on the road, whereupon they brought him to an inn. When they returned, they asked the hostess: \"Where is our friend?\" She answered: \"He died and I buried him\" — and they married his wife. They said to him: \"Should a daughter of the priesthood not be believed as the hostess of an inn!\" [That is, should a prestigious Jewess not be believed as a gentile innkeeper! If they believed the gentile woman, speaking casually, they certainly should believe a Jewess!] He answered: \"Would that the innkeeper were believed!\" [i.e., she, too, is not believed] — \"She took out to them his staff, and his traveling bag, and the Torah scroll that he used to carry!\""
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}