Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 3.1

משנה: אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת. מֵתוּ אֶת הַנְּשׂוּאִין אֶת הָאֲחָיוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. וְאִם קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ יוֹצִיאוּ. רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים יְקַיֵימוּ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים יוֹצִיאוּ.

MISHNAH: There are four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters. If those married to the sisters died, [the sisters] have ḥalîṣah but not levirate. If [the remaining brothers] jumped the gun and married, they must divorce them. Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce.

הלכה: אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כול׳. אִילּוּ אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי נָכְרִיּוֹת שֶׁמָּא אֵינָן מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הָכָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אִיסּוּר אֲחָיוֹת. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יְהוּ צְרִיכוֹת הִימֶּינּוּ חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. עַל יְדֵי זִיקָה. וְאֵין בּוֹ אִיסּוּר אֲחָיוֹת בְּרוּרוֹת.

HALAKHAH: “Four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters,” etc. If there were four brothers, two of whom are married to unrelatedwomen, would they not be subject to levirate? There is a difference, since here there is the prohibition of sisters. In that case, they should not need ḥalîṣah from them! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is because of candidacy and the prohibition of sisters is not clear.

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ אָחִיו אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ. מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן בָּתֵירָה אָמְרוּ. אוֹמֵר לוֹ. הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. חָלְצוּ אַחִים אוֹ כָנְסוּ (…) מֵת הַיָּבָם מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא מֵתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. אֲבָל מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אָסוּר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. [אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זוֹ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתָּר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. מֵתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ.] אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטַל הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטַל הָאִיסּוּר. וּדְרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. אֲפִילוּ בָּטַל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ.

There, we have stated: “If a brother gave qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If [one of the] brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.” It says only: If the sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him. But if his wife died, his sister-in-law is forbidden to him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages hold that for anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for Rebbi Eliezer, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains.

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. מֵתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתָּר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ טַעַם אֲחָיוֹת מָה הֵן. רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ טַעַם אֲחָיוֹת יְבָמוֹת מַה הֵן. רִבִּי הִילָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא דוֹמֶה אִיסּוּר אֲחָיוֹת יְבָמוֹת לְאִיסּוּר אֲחָיוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן יְבָמוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנָּפַל הַבַּיִת עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בָּעֵי. אִם בְּשֶׁנָּפַל הַבַּיִת עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת בְּדָא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵינִי יוֹדֵע טַעַם אֲחָיוֹת יְבָמוֹת [מָהֵן]. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁמֵּתוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מַה צְרִיכָה לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵתָה הַשְּׁנִיָיה לָמָּה אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֲבָל אִם מֵתָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה יְהֵא אָסוּר בַּשְּׁנִיָיה. אָמַר רִבִּי [יוּדָן]. הִיא דָא הִיא דָא. צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. וְלֵית זִיקָה כְּלוּם. אִילּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין. שְׁנַיִם מֵאָב וְלֹא מֵאֵם. שְׁנַיִם מֵאֵם וְלֹא מֵאָב. מֵת בְּנוֹ שֶׁלָּאָב תְּחִילָּה. לֹא הִסְפִּיק הַשֵּׁינִי לְהַחֲלִיץ וּלְיַיבֵּם עַד שֶׁמֵּת וְנָפְלָה לִפְנֵי אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר בָּהּ. אִין מַאֲמָר זִיקָה כְּלוּם. יְהֵא אָסוּר בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, you say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him, and here you say so? He said to him, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law cannot be compared to the prohibition of sisters who are not sisters-in-law. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it that the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time. Rebbi Yose asked, did Rebbi Joḥanan say, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law if the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time? Only if they died one after the other. They wanted to say, what was the problem of Rebbi Joḥanan? If the second one died, why should the first one not be permitted to him? But if the first one died, the second should be forbidden to him. Rebbi Yudan said, both cases are the same problem for him. And candidacy counts for nothing since if there are three brothers,two of them paternal but not maternal halfbrothers, and two maternal but not paternal halfbrothers. If the paternal halfbrother died first and the second brother had no time to perform ḥalîṣah or levirate before he died, and she became eligible for his maternal halfbrother, may he not take her? This shows that candidacy is nothing, [otherwise] she should be forbidden as the maternal halfbrother’s wife.

מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ צָרָה. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲבִינָא. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אִם אָחוֹת חֲלוּצָתוֹ [שֶׁהִיא] מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם נָתְנוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים צָרָה. כָּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן אִיסּוּר אֲחָיוֹת לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. בִּתּוֹ פְּשִׁיטָא לָךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ צָרָה. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲבִינָא. תַּנֵּי תַמָּן. חָלְצוּ הַצָּרוֹת נִפְטְרוּ הָאֲחָיוֹת. (לא) חָלְצוּ אֲחָיוֹת לֹא נִפְטְרוּ הַצָּרוֹת. וּכְמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר. חָלְצוּ הַצָּרוֹת נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֲפִילוּ חָלְצוּ אֲחָיוֹת יִפְטְרוּ צָרוֹת. אֶלָּא כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָָן בֶּן נוּרִי. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר. בּוֹאוּ וּנְתַקֵּן שֶׁיְּהוּ צָרוֹת חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. וְהִתְקִינוּ. לֹּא כֵן תַּנֵּי. לֹא הִסְפִּיקוּ לְהַתְקִין עַד שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה הַשָּׁעָה. אֶלָּא כְבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי מִתִּירִין אֶת הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִין. אָמַר רִבִּי פִינְחָס קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִין כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי (אלא) אֲפִילוּ חָלְצוּ הַצָּרוֹת לֹא נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת. וְתַנִּינָן. רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר אָמַר. מִשּׁוּם בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. יְקַיֵימוּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. יוֹצִיאוּ. הֲווּ תְּרֵין תַּנָּאִין אִינּוּן עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. חַד אָמַר. חָלְצוּ צָרוֹת נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. חָלְצוּ צָרוֹת לֹא נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת.

What if there is a co-wife? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman with whom one performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more? It is obvious that the rule of co-wives applies to his daughter. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Avina: One has stated there, “if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed; if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives were not freed.” But as you say, if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, so it should be that even if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives should be freed. But it must follow Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah without being admitted to levirate. Did they institute that? Was it not stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. But it must follow the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. Rebbi Phineas said to Rebbi Yose: If it follows the House of Shammai, even if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sistersshould not be freed! But we have stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce. There are two Tannaïm interpreting the House of Shammai, one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, the other one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were not freed.

תַּנֵּי. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. קוּל הֲוֵוי בֵּית הִלֵּל בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה. מַה. לִגְנַאי. לִשְׁבָח. מְלִיזִים. מַה אִיסּוּר יֵשׁ כָּאן. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אִם קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ יְקַיֵימוּ. וְהֵן שֶׁבָּעֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל מוּתָּר לִבְעוֹל כַּתְּחִילָּה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְהוּא שֶׁעָבַר וּבָעַל. כָּנַס הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבָעַל אוֹמֵר לַשֵּׁינִי שֶׁיִּבְעוֹל. לֹא בָעַל הַרִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר לִבְעוֹל בְּעִילָה שְׁנִיָיה. שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְנִמְצָא כְבָא עַל אַחוֹת יְבִמְתּוֹ. תַּנֵּי מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי הָרִאשׁוֹן מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה אֲפִילוּ מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי. לֹא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָיה מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. קִיַימְתִּיהָ. כָּל יְבָמָה שֶׁנִּרְאֵית לָצֵאת בַּחֲלִיצָה אֵינָה מוּתֶּרֶת בְּלֹא חֲלִיצָה.

It was stated: “Abba Shaul says, the House of Hillel made this easy.” Is that a criticism? It is a praise, since people were saying, what is the prohibition here? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “If they jumped the gun and married, they should keep them.” But that is only if they had intercourse at the same time. In the opinion of Abba Shaul it is permitted to have intercourse without asking. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon only if he transgressed and had intercourse. If the first [brother] married and had intercourse, he tells the second also to have intercourse. If that one did not have intercourse, the first [brother] is forbidden to have intercourse a second time; maybe one of them will die and it turns out that he had intercourse with the sister of his sister-in-law. It was stated: If the second [brother] died, the first one had to divorce his wife with a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥalîṣah. Even if the second one died? Does this not follow Rebbi Simeon? But Rebbi Simeon frees the second [sister] from ḥalîṣah and levirate! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I confirmed this: Any sister-in-law who was to be freed by ḥalîṣah will never be permitted without ḥalîṣah.

הָיְתָה לָרִאשׁוֹנָה צָרָה חָלַץ לָהּ. נִפְטְרָה צָרָתָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. בִּיאַת אִיסּוּר הִיא וְלֹא נִפְטְרָה צָרָתָהּ. חָלַץ לָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. אִם בַּחֲלִיצָה הִיא תַּתִּיר. אִם בְּבִיאָה הִיא תַתִּיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. קִיַימְּתִּי כְהָדָא. הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ וְנִמְצֵאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן. צָרָתָהּ לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתֵּדַע בְּמַה הִיא נִיתֶּרֶת אִם בְּעוּבָּר אִם בְּבִיאָה. אַף הָכָא צָרָתָהּ לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתֵּדַע בְּמַה הִיא נִיתֶּרֶת אִם בַּחֲלִיצָה אִם בְּבִיאָה.

If the first [sister] had a co-wife, one [of the brothers] performs ḥalîṣah, the co-wife is freed. If then he had intercourse with her, this is forbidden intercourse and the co-wife is not freed. If he performed ḥalîṣah and then had intercourse with her, as you look at it, either ḥalîṣah should free or intercourse should free! Rebbi Yudan said, I confirmed it following “If somebody married his sister-in-law and she turns out to be pregnant”, as you say there, the co-wife should not marry until she knows by which means she is permitted, whether through the fetus or through intercourse; so here also the co-wife should not marry until she knows by which means she is permitted, whether through ḥalîṣah or through intercourse.

הָיָה לַשְּׁנִיָיה צָרָה. כוֹנֵס אֶת הַצָּרָה וּמְקַיֵים אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁנִיָיה. הָדָא הִיא מוּתָּר הוּא אָדָם בַּאֲחוֹת צָרַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. וִיהֵא אָסוּר בַּצָּרָה מִשּׁוּם צָרַת אֲחוֹת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. אִילּוּ בִיקֵּשׁ לִבְעוֹל אֶת הַצָּרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא כָנַס שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר בָּהּ. כַּתְּחִילָּה הוּא מוּתָּר בָּהּ וּבְסוֹף הוּא אָסוּר. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאתָה עוֹשֶׂה צָרָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה. וְאֵין צָרָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

If the first [sister] had a co-wife, he can marry the co-wife, keep his wife, but the second [sister] is forbidden to him. That is “the sister of the co-wife of one for whom he performed ḥalîah is permitted to a person.” Should the co-wife not be forbidden to him as co-wife of the sister of one for whom he performed ḥalîṣah? Rebbi Yudan said, if he wanted to have intercourse with the co-wife before he married, would he not have been permitted? At the start, he is permitted; at the end, he is prohibited? If you say so, you are making a co-wife after death and there can be no co-wife after death.

הָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה אַחִין שְׁלֹשָׁה מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין לְשָׁלֹשׁ אֲחָיוֹת וָמֵתוּ. רַב אָמַר זֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת וְזֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית חוֹלֶצֶת מֵאֵי זֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. זֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת וְזֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית חוֹלֶצֶת מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן. רַב אוֹמֵר חֲלִיצָה קִינְיָין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר. חֲלִיצָה קִינְיָין. רִבִּי הִילָא אָמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה בֵין חוֹלֵץ וּמַה בֵין מְגָרֵשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּחוֹלֵץ אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַמֵּת. לֵוִי אָמַר. זִיקָה קִנְיָין. וְכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן.

If there were five brothers of whom three married three sisters and died: Rav said, each one [of the remaining brothers] performs ḥalîṣah for one of them, and the third [sister] performs ḥalîṣah with whom she wants. Samuel says, each one [of the remaining brothers] performs ḥalîṣah for one of them, and the third performs ḥalîṣah with both of them. Rav said that ḥalîṣah is acquisition. Samuel said that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Rebbi Ze‘ira said that ḥalîṣah is acquisition. Rebbi Hila said that ḥalîṣah is freeing. The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”. Levi said, candidacy is acquisition and each [sister] has to perform ḥalîṣah with both [brothers].

מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל שְׁמוּאֵל. הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ הוּא אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה בִקְרוֹבָיו. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הָכָא שֶׁכְּבָר נִרְאֶה לִפְטוֹר בָּהּ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ וְנָשָׂא אָחִיו אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ וָמֵת חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְמָאן דְּּאָמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. בְּרַם הָכָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. חֲלִיצָה קִינְיָין. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מִתְכַּוֵּין לִקְנוֹת שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כְּאַחַת. פָּתַר לָהּ. לְאַחַר מִיתָה. אֵין לְאַחַר מִיתָה יִיבּוּם. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. אֲף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְאֶחָד מוּפְנֶה. מֵת אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֶי אֲחָיוֹת וְעָשָׂה בָהּ הַמּוּפְנֶה מַאֲמָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָחִיו הַשֵּׁינִי. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ וְהַלֵּזוּ תֵצֵא מִשּׁוּם אַחוֹת אִשָּׁה. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט [וּבַחֲלִיצָה] וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְמָאן דְּאָמַר. חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין. [בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּּאָמַר חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין.] וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מִתְכַּוֵּין לִקְנוֹת שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כְּאַחַת. פָּתַר לָהּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. וְאֵין לְאַחַר מִיתָה יִיבּוּם. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ אָחִיו אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ. מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן בָּתֵירָה אָמְרוּ. אוֹמֵר לוֹ. הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. חָלְצוּ אַחִין אוֹ כָנְסוּ יַכְנִסוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מֵתָה הַיְּבָמָה יַכְנִיס. מֵת הַיָּבָם מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְמָאן דְּאָמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּּאָמַר חֲלִיצָה קִינְיָין. יֵשׁ אָדָם מִתְכַּוֵּין לִקְנוֹת שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כְּאַחַת. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. אֲף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת אָחִיו. חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַיבֵּם. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְמָאן דְּּּאָמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. עֲבוֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. הָתִיב רִבִּי חָמָא חֲבֵרִין דְּרַבָּנָן. וְהָא מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין. שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת אוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבַת בִּתָּהּ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבַת בְּנָהּ. הֲרֵי אֵילוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא אִיסּוּר אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ בֵּין בַּחַיִּים בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. אִילֵּין תְּרֵין אַחֲרִיָיתָא פְלִיגֵי עַל רַב וְלֵית לְהוֹן קִייוּם.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.