Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 2.2

משנה: שְׁנֵי אַחִים וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְיִיבֵּם הַשֵּׁנִי אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד לָהֶן אָח וָמֵת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה יוֹצֵאת מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מִשּׁוּם צָרָתָהּ. עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר וָמֵת שְׁנִיָיה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מְיַיבֶּם לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה אוֹ חוֹלֵץ לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה.

MISHNAH: There were two brothers, one of them died and the second took his brother’s widow in levirate; afterwards a brother was born to them, and he died. The first woman leaves as wife of his brother who did not live in his world and the second one as her co-wife. If [the second brother] had bespoken [the widow of the first] when he died, the second performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate. Rebbi Simeon says, he may take in levirate any one he wants or performs ḥalîṣah with any one he wants.

הלכה: שְׁנֵי אַחִים וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן כול׳. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. הַמַּאֲמָר אוֹ קוֹנֶה אוֹ לֹא קוֹנֶה וְאַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵין. וּמְיַיבְּמִין לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא לֹא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְנִמְצָא מִתְחַיֵיב עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. וְחוֹלְצִין לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְנִמְצֵאת הַשְּׁנִיָיה זְקוּקָה לוֹ. הֲוֵויי מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עַל רֵישֵׁיהּ.

HALAKHAH: “If there were two brothers, one of them died”, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, and you say so? May one permit levirate with the “bespoken” woman? One should suspect that “bespeaking” does not acquire; then he would be guilty because of “wife of his brother who did not live in his world.” Can the “bespoken” one perform ḥalîṣah? Should one not suspect that “bespeaking” does acquire; then the second {widow] is a candidate for [the third brother]. It must be that Rebbi Simeon refers to the first case.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי. עוֹד הִיא בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. מַה בֵּין רִאשׁוֹנָה וּמַה בֵּין שְׁנִיָיה. רִאשׁוֹנָה בָּא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּאִיסּוּר. וְהַּשְּׁנִיָיה בָא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּהֵיתֵר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ לִפְנֵי אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק מַה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ בְּהֵיתֵר מוּתֶּרֶת. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי אַחִין מִן הָאַב. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי. אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ לִפְנֵי אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק מַה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ בְּהֵיתֵר מוּתֶּרֶת. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי אַחִים מֵאָב. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. צָרַת אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ לִפְנֵי אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצָאָת בְּהֵיתֵר מוּתֶּרֶת. רִבִּי אָבִין בָּעִין.גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית אַלְמָנָה. אַתְּ אָמַר מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עַל רֹאשָׁהּ.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon agrees in the first case. It was found stated, that also is in disagreement. What is the difference between the first and second cases? In the first case he came and found her forbidden, in the second he came and found her permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if he found his father’s wife married to an outsider, what does Rebbi Simeon say about her? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rebbi Simeon said that only relative to paternal brothers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: His maternal halfbrother’s wife which he found married to an outsider, what does Rebbi Simeon say about her? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rebbi Simeon said that only relative to paternal brothers. Rebbi Yudan asked, a co-wife of his maternal aunt which he found married to an outsider? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rebbi Abin asked, if a divorcee became a widow? You have to say that Rebbi Simeon referred to the first case.

מַה אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. בִּיאָתָהּ וַחֲלִיצָה שֶׁלְּאַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. וְאִם חָלַץ לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר אַף הַשְּׁנִיָיה צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אַתְּ אָמַר. בִּיאָתָהּ אוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ שֶׁלְּאַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. קָנָה מַאֲמָר שְׁתֵּיהֶן נָשָׁיו. נִפְטְרָה בַּחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ. לֹא קָנָה מַאֲמָר אֵין הָרִאשׁוֹנָה צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. וְאִם חָלַץ לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר אַף הַשְּׁנִיָיה צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. שֶׁמָּא לא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְלֹא נָגְעָה בָהּ חֲלִיצָה וְיִיבּוּם שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְנִפְטְרָה בַּחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ. מַה נְפִיק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. חָלַץ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא עַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינָהּ בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה. בָּא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא עַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה צְרִיכָה גֵט וַחֲלִיצָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁתֵּיהֶן צְרִיכוֹת גֵּט. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה צְרִיכָה גֵט שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר. וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה צְרִיכָה גֵט שֶׁמָּא קָנָה יִיבּוּם שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר נִפְטֶרֶת מֵחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ.

What does Rebbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” woman, her colleague also needs ḥalîṣah. You say, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥalîṣah, but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥalîṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥalîṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. What is the difference between them? If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first and cohabited with the second. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah.

רִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְשֵׁם רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. תַּנֵּי תַּמָּן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. וְקַשְׁיָא. קָנָה מַאֲמָר שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לֹא קָנָה מַאֲמָר אֶלָּא זִיקָה. וְקַשְׁיָא. קָנָה זִיקָה שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לֹא קָנָה זִיקָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מוּתֶּרֶת. שֶׁמָּא זִיקַת רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּמַאֲמָר דְּרַבְּנָן. כְּמַה דְרַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי. הַמַּאֲמָר קָנָה וּמְשַׁיֵיר. כֵּן אָמַר. זִיקָה קוֹנָה וּמְשַׁיֶירֶת. וְקַשְׁיָא. צַד שֶׁקּוֹנָה זִיקָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ אָסוּר בַּצָּרָה. צַד שֶׁלֹּא קָוֹנָה זִיקָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ הֵיתֵר בַּצָּרָה. אָמַר שַׁמַּי. וְכִי וּמַה נַפְשֵׁךְ בָּעֲרָיוֹת. מַהִיא בְּהוֹן. כְּהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. כָּל יְבָמָה שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּהּ לִפְנִים צַד הַקָּנוּי שֶׁבָּהּ נִידוֹן לְשֵׁם עֶרְוָה. וְעֶרְוָה פוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ.

Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Sheshet: There, one stated: The words of Rebbi Simeon are that both are forbidden. This is difficult. If “bespeaking” acquires, are not both permitted? This is a question of acquiring not by “bespeaking” but by candidacy. This is difficult. If candidacy acquires, both are permitted. If candidacy does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second permitted. Maybe candidacy for Rebbi Simeon is like “bespeaking” for the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but leaves a remainder, so Rebbi Simeon says, candidacy acquires but leaves a remainder. This is difficult. That aspect which is acquired by candidacy implies a prohibition of an equal part of the co-wife, that part which is not acquired by candidacy implies permission of an equal aspect of the co-wife! Shammai said, is this kind of argument applicable to incest prohibitions? What does he mean? As Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, the aspect acquired in any sister-in-law which is not totally inside [the family] is considered to be under the incest prohibition and an incest prohibition frees her co-wife.