mishnah

MISHNAH: If he performed ḥaliṣah and “bespoke”, gave a divorce document and copulated, or copulated and “bespoke”, gave a divorce document and performed ḥaliṣah, nothing comes after ḥalîṣah, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. But in the case of copulation, nothing comes after it when it is at the start’. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, nothing comes after copulation or ḥalîṣah, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end.

MISHNAH: If somebody comes to his sister-in-law, whether in error, or criminally, or under duress, or willingly, even if he is in error and she acts criminally, or he does it criminally but she is in error, or he is under duress but she is not, or she is under duress but he is not, whether he touched or completed, he acquired her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.

“He acquired her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.” What did he acquire? Samuel said, he acquired only the things spelled out in the paragraph: To inherit the deceased’s property, (to be betrothed by a brother), and to permit her co-wife to the outside. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired everything. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, when do they disagree? If he touched her. But if he completed the intercourse, everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when do they disagree? If he had intercourse with her still in her father’s house. But if he had intercourse with her still in her husband’s house, everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said: If he married her, she is his wife in every respect.

MISHNAH: Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women specified in the Torah, or of the disqualified ones, [i. e.,] a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah for a private Cohen, a bastard or Gibeonite female for an Israel, or an Israel woman for a male bastard or Gibeonite, disqualified her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.

MISHNAH: A widow betrothed to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah to a private Cohen are not permitted to eat heave; Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon declare them able. When they were widowed or divorced, after marriage they are disabled, after betrothal they are enabled.

MISHNAH: The High Priest shall not marry a widow, whether a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. He shall not marry an adult; Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon enable the adult. He shall not marry one injured by a piece of wood. If he gave qiddushin and afterwards was elected High Priest, he shall marry her; it happened that Joshua ben Gamla had given qiddushin to Martha bat Boetos when the king appointed him as High Priest and he married her. If a woman was waiting for her Cohen levir when he was elected High Priest, even though he “bespoke” her, he may not marry her. If the brother of a High Priest died, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

MISHNAH: A private priest should not marry a she-ram unless he has a wife and children. Rebbi Jehudah says, even one who has a wife and children should not marry a she-ram since she is the harlot mentioned in the Torah. But the Sages say, a harlot is only a convert, a freedwoman, and one who copulated in harlotry.

MISHNAH: A man should not rest from being fruitful and multiply unless he has children. The House of Shammai say two males, but the House of Hillel say a male and a female, as it is said “male and female He created them.” If he married a wife and she stayed with him for ten years and had no child he is not permitted to rest. If he divorced her, she is permitted to marry another and the second [husband] is permitted to stay with her for ten years, and if she had a miscarriage she counts from the moment of the miscarriage. The man is commanded to be fruitful and multiply but not the woman. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, for both of them it says “God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply,” etc.

HALAKHAH: “A man should not rest from being fruitful and multiply,” etc. The House of Shammai say two males, since “Gershom and Eliezer” are mentioned for Moses. The House of Hillel say a male and a female the way the world was created, as it is said “male and female He created them.” Rebbi Abun said, one has to understand “even a male and a female”. If it were not so, it should have been a Mishnah about the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel. Sons of sons are counted as sons, sons of daughters are not counted as sons. The son’s son and the daughter’s daughter count; the son’s daughter and the daughter’s son do not count. A she-ram, a castrate, and those who cannot have children are not counted.

MISHNAH: If a widow [married] to a High Priest, or a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah [married] to a simple priest, brought him slaves as paraphernalia or as mortmain: The slaves of separate property may not eat heave, the slaves of mortmain may eat heave. These are slaves of paraphernalia: If they died, they died as her property, if they increased, they increased as her property. Even though he is responsible for their upkeep, they may not eat heave. These are slaves of mortmain: If they died, they died as his property, if they increased, they increased as his property. Since he guarantees them, they may eat heave.

MISHNAH: If a daughter of an Israel married a Cohen and brought him paraphernalia or mortmain slaves, they may eat heave. But if a daughter of a Cohen married an Israel and brought him paraphernalia or mortmain slaves, they may not eat.

MISHNAH: If a daughter of an Israel married a Cohen who then died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus. A fetus disqualifies but cannot enable to eat, the words of Rebbi Yose. They said to him, after you testified before us about the daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen, even if a daughter of a Cohen [was married] to a Cohen who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: Her slaves may eat, his slaves may not eat. For if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat! Rebbi Josia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it is from this, she also should not eat. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Not that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, he only said, for if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat. There came a case before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said, go out and look how the public behaves. Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not eat. Rebbi Yose said, this means that [the fetus] does not disable anybody able to eat and does not enable anybody unable to eat.

MISHNAH: The fetus, the levir, the betrothal, the deaf-and-dumb, and the male nine years and one day old disable but do not enable to eat. If there was a doubt whether or not he had reached nine years and one dayt; whether or not he had grown two pubic hairs; when the house fell on him and his brother’s daughter and it is not known who of them died first, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

MISHNAH: The rapist, the seducer, and the insane do neither disable nor enable to eat, but if they are unable to marry in Israel they disable. How is that? If an Israel came upon the daughter of a Cohen, she may eat heave, if she became pregnant she may not eat. If the fetus was cut into pieces in her body she may eat. If a Cohen came upon the daughter of an Israel, she may not eat heave, if she became pregnant she may not eat, if she gave birth she may eat. It turns out that the son’s power is greater than the father’s.

MISHNAH: A slave disables because of intercourse but not because of descendants. How is this? A daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen [or] the daughter of a Cohen [married] to an Israel had a son from him. The son went and was pressed on a slave girl who had a son from him; the latter is a slave. If his father’s mother was a daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen, she cannot eat heave, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to an Israel may eat heave.

MISHNAH: A bastard disables and enables to eat. How is this? A daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen [or] the daughter of a Cohen [married] to an Israel had a daughter from him. If the daughter went and married a slave or a Gentile and had a son from him, that is a bastard. If his mother’s mother was a daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen, she can eat heave, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to an Israel cannot eat heave.

MISHNAH: Sometimes the High Priest disables. How is this? A Cohen’s daughter was married to an Israel and had a daughter from him. The daughter went and was married to a Cohen and had a son from him. The latter possibly is a High Priest serving on top of the altar. He enables his mother to eat and disables his mother’s mother. The latter says, not like my son the High Priest who disables me from heave.

So is the Mishnah: “Not like my son the High Priest who disables me from heave.” A Cohen’s daughter was married to an Israel and had a daughter from him; an Israel’s daughter was married to a Cohen and had a son from him. The two married and had a son. The latter possibly is a High Priest serving on top of the altar. He enables his mother to eat and disables his mother’s mother. The latter says, not like my son the High Priest who disables me from heave.

MISHNAH: The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat. Someone injured in his testicles or with cut-off penis and his slaves may eat, his wives may not eat; but if he did not know her carnally after he was injured in his testicles or his penis was cut off, they may eat.

MISHNAH: Who is injured in his lower parts? Everyone whose testicles are injured, even one of them. The one whose urethra is cut off, anyone whose penis is cut, but he is qualified if there is a thread’s [breath] left of the corona. The ones injured in their testicles or with cut-off urethra are permitted [to marry] a convert or a manumitted woman; they are only forbidden to marry into the congregation, as it was said: “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry into the Eternal’s congregation.”

Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said that four congregations are called “congregation”, the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites, the cogregation of converts. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, but is it not written, “one injured in his testicles should not come”? That refers to bodily blemishes. But is it not written, “children that will be born to them, the third generation shall come from them”? That is a positive commandment. But the rabbis said, there are three congregations, the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites; “they shall not come, they shall not come, they shall not come.”

MISHNAH: Ammonites and Moabites are eternally forbidden but their females are immediately permitted. Egyptians and Edomites are forbidden only for three generations, both males and females. Rebbi Simeon said, is it not an argument de minore ad majus? If He permitted the females immediately in a case where the males are eternally forbidden, should we not permit the females in a case where He forbade the males only for three generations? They said to him: If it is practice, we shall accept this; if it is a logical argument, there is a counter-argument. He said to them, in fact, I am declaring practice. Bastards and Gibeonites are eternally forbidden, both males and females.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not investigate a family in which a family disqualification has disappeared. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a Mishnah says so: “There was a family in Bet Ṣerifa in Transjordan who was forcibly distanced by Ben Ṣion. Another [family] was there who was forcibly integrated by Ben Ṣion.” Nevertheless, the Sages did not want to make their names public. But the Sages transmit them to their sons and students two times in a Week. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the Temple service, I know them and the leading personalities of the generation have disappeared in them. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Pashḥur ben Immer the priest had 5000 slaves, and their traces have disappeared in the high priesthood. These are the insolent in the priesthood. Rebbi Eleazar said, their main training: “Your people is like quarrelsome priests.” Rebbi Abbahu said, Samaritans disappeared in thirteen villages in the times of persecution. They said, the village of Moshhan is one of them.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, I heard that the castrate performs ḥalîṣah and one performs ḥalîṣah for his wife, and that the castrate does not perform ḥalîṣah and one does not perform ḥalîṣah for his wife, and I cannot explain. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it. A castrate by human action performs ḥalîṣah and one performs ḥalîṣah for his wife since he had been qualified; a congenital castrate does not perform ḥalîṣah and one does not perform ḥalîṣah for his wife since he never had been qualified. Rebbi Eliezer said, it is not so, but a congenital castrate performs ḥalîṣah and one performs ḥalîṣah for his wife since he might be healed, a castrate by human action does not perform ḥalîṣah and one does not perform ḥalîṣah for his wife since he cannot be healed. Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about Ben Megisa in Jerusalem that he was a castrate by human action and they instructed that levirate be performed for his wife, to endorse the words of Rebbi Aqiba.

MISHNAH: The castrate does not perform either ḥalîṣah or levirate; similarly, the she-ram does not perform either ḥalîṣah or levirate. The castrate who performed ḥalîṣah for his sister-in-law did not disable her; if he copulated with her he disabled her because it is incestuous. Similarly, if the brothers performed ḥalîṣah for a she-ram, they did not disable her; if they copulated with her they disabled her because it is incestuous.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: These are the words of Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Joshua. But the words of the Sages are that neither the castrate by human action nor the congenital castrate is able to perform ḥalîṣah nor does one perform ḥalîṣah for his wife. He cannot perform levirate, nor does one marry his wife in levirate. That is the Mishnah: “The castrate who performed ḥalîṣah for his sister-in-law did not disable her; if he copulated with her, he disabled her because it is incestuous.” The hermaphrodite who performed ḥalîṣah for his sister-in-law did not disable her; if he copulated with her, he disabled her because it is incestuous. “Similarly, if the brothers performed ḥalîṣah for a she-ram, they did not disable her; if they copulated with her, they disabled her because it is incestuous.”

MISHNAH: A congenital castrate priest who married an Israel daughter enables her to eat heave. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, an hermaphrodite priest who married an Israel daughter enables her to eat heave. Rebbi Jehudah says, a seemingly sexless who was cut open and found to be a male does not perform ḥalîṣah since he is like a castrate. The hermaphrodite marries but is not married. Rebbi Eleazar says [a male] is guilty to be stoned for [homosexual intercourse] with an hermaphrodite as with a male.

MISHNAH: There exist women permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs, permitted to their levirs but forbidden to their husbands, permitted to both of them, or forbidden to both. The following are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs: If a simple priest was betrothed to a widow and has a brother who is High Priest, or a qualified man married a qualified woman and has a disqualified brother, or an Israel married an Israelite woman and has a bastard brother, or a bastard married a bastard woman and has an Israel brother, [the women] are permitted to their husbands and forbidden for their levirs.

“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women. “If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.

“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women. “If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.

MISHNAH: These are permitted to their levirs and forbidden to their husbands: If a High Priest was betrothed to a widow and has a brother who is a simple priest, or qualified [priest] married a disqualified woman and has a disqualified brother, or an Israel married a bastard woman and has a bastard brother, or a bastard who married an Israel woman and has an Israel brother; [the women] are permitted to their levirs and forbidden to their husbands.

MISHNAH: Forbidden to both of them: If a High Priest married a widow and has a brother who is a High Priest or a simple priest, or a qualified [priest] married a disqualified woman and has a qualified brother, or an Israel married a bastard woman and has an Israel brother, or a bastard married an Israel woman and has a bastard brother; these [women] are forbidden to both of them and all other women are permitted to their husbands and their levirs.

MISHNAH: Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim. If she is secondarily prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. Secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband. Secondarily prohibited to both of them, she is forbidden to both of them. She may claim neither Ketubah nor usufruct nor upkeep nor wear but the child is qualified and one forces him to divorce her. A widow married to the High Priest, a divorcee of one that performed ḥalîṣah married to a simple priest, a female bastard or a Gibeoness married to an Israel, and Israel woman married to a Gibeonite or a bastard have a claim of Ketubah.

MISHNAH: An Israel woman betrothed to a Cohen, or pregnant from a Cohen, or waiting for her Cohen levir, and also a Cohen woman betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave. An Israel woman betrothed to a Levite, or pregnant from a Levite, or waiting for her Levite levir, and also a Levite woman betrothed to an Israel may not eat tithe. A Levite woman betrothed to a Cohen, or pregnant from a Cohen, or waiting for her Cohen levir, and also a Levite woman betrothed to a Cohen may not eat either heave or tithe.

MISHNAH: An Israel woman married to a Cohen shall eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she shall eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she shall eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she shall eat tithe. If [then] she marries an Israel, she may eat neither heave nor tithe.

MISHNAH: If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat neither heave nor tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she may eat tithe. From the Levite, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat neither heave nor tithe.

MISHNAH: A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may not eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may not eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she may eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat tithe. If [then] she married a Cohen, she may eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat tithe; from the Levite, she may not eat tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she returns to her father’s house and for this case it was said: “She returns to her father’s house as in her youth.”

MISHNAH: A woman’s husband went overseas and some persons came and told her, your husband died. If she remarried and then the husband returned, she has to leave both husbands, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A promiscuous priestly woman may eat tithe. Is that not the Mishnah: “the daughter of a Cohen from heave,” this implies that she eats tithe. It may follow him who says that tithe is not given to Cohanim. Rebbi Nasa said, the words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Hila, Simeon ben Yosina, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said: If a Cohen came upon a divorcee, had a son from her, and died. [If the father died] within thirty days [of the son’s birth], the son must redeem himself. After thirty days, the presumption is that his father redeemed him. If he redeems for others, certainly for his son.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose says, her ketubah is from the property of her first husband. Rebbi Eleazar says, the first [husband] is entitled to what she finds and earns and may annul her vows. Rebbi Simeon says, copulation with her or ḥaliṣah with her by a brother of the first [husband] frees her co-wives and a child from him is not a bastard; if she was married without permission she is permitted to return to him. If she married by a decision of the court, she must leave but is free from the sacrifice; without a decision of the court, she must leave but must bring the sacrifice. The power of the court frees her from the sacrifice. If the court instructed her to marry but she misbehaved, she must bring a sacrifice since they permitted her only to marry.

MISHNAH: A woman’s husband and son went overseas and people came and told her, your husband died and after that your son died, and she remarried. After that, they said to her, the sequence was inverted. Then she must leave and the first and the last children are bastards.

MISHNAH: They came and told her, your son died and after that your husband died, and she was married in levirate. After that, they said to her, the sequence was inverted. Then she must leave and the first and the last children are bastards.

MISHNAH: If they told her, your husband died, and she remarried, and then they told her, he was alive but died, she must leave and the first child is a bastard, but the last is not a bastard. If they told her, your husband died; she was betrothed and after that her husband returned, she is permitted to return to him. Even though the second [husband] gave her a bill of divorce he did not disable her from priesthood. This Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthew explained, “a woman divorced from her husband,” and not a woman divorced from a non-husband.

MISHNAH: A man’s wife went overseas, they came and told him: your wife died, and he married her sister. If after that his wife returned, she is permitted to return to him. He is permitted [to marry] the relatives of the second, the second is permitted his relatives. If the first [sister] died, the second one is permitted to him. They said to him, your wife died, and he married her sister; if afterwards they said to him that she was still alive but died later, the first child is a bastard, the last is not a bastard. If they said to him “your wife died,” and he married her paternal sister, “she died” and he married her maternal sister, “she died” and he married her paternal sister, “she died” and he married her maternal sister, but it turned out that all were alive, the first, third, and fifth are permitted to him and they would release their co-wives; the second and fourth are prohibited to him and intercourse of any one of these does not release the co-wife. If he has intercourse with the second one after the death of the first, the second and fourth are permitted to him and they would release their co-wives; the third and fifth are prohibited to him and intercourse of any one of these does not release the co-wife.

MISHNAH: [A male] nine years and one day old disables for the brothers and the brothers disable for him; only that he disables at the beginning and the brothers disable at beginning and end. How is that? [A male] nine years and one day old who copulated with his sister-in-law disabled her for the brothers. If [any one of] the brothers copulated with her, “bespoke” her, divorced her, or performed ḥalîṣah with her, they disabled her for him.

MISHNAH: If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and after that his brother, who [also] was nine years and one day old, copulated with her, [the brother] disabled her for [the first levir]. Rebbi Simeon says, he did not disable. If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law, and after that he copulated with her co-wife, he disabled her for himself. Rebbi Simeon says, he did not disable. If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and died, she performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. If he married a woman and died, she is free. If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and after he became an adult married another woman and died, if he never had intercourse with the first after he became an adult, the second [wife] either performs ḥalîṣah or levirate, the first performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. Rebbi Simeon says, he takes in levirate the one he likes and performs ḥalîṣah with the other. It makes no difference whether he is nine years and one day or twenty years old, as long as he did not grow two pubic hairs.

Can a woman waiting for a levir who became available to several brothers-in-law not be married in levirate? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one dead [husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, “any one who cannot marry me in levirate, cannot marry my co-wife in levirate.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar formulated what he had heard from me. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “If [a male] nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and after he became an adult married another woman and died, if he never had intercourse with the first after he became an adult, the second [wife] either performs ḥalîṣah or levirate, the first performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. The first one must perform ḥalîṣah and cannot be married in levirate.” Here you say, she performs ḥalîṣah; there you say, she is married in levirate! Where you say she performs ḥalîṣah, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon; where you say, she is married in levirate, Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis.

The following is obvious: If a person younger than twenty years of age developed two pubic hairs, he becomes a man retroactively. Older than twenty years of age, he becomes a man from that point into the future. Where do they disagree? If he is twenty. Samuel said, he becomes a man retroactively. Rav said, he becomes a man from that point into the future. A baraita disagrees with both of them: The castrate cannot become a rebellious son since he has no pubic hair. Should one not warn him, maybe he will develop two pubic hairs within the next three months? Following him who says, one does not accept conditional warnings. Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: Does it make no difference whether he is nine years and one day or twelve years and one day old, if by then he did not grow two pubic hairs, he becomes a man retroactively? Could you say: If he did grow two pubic hairs between the ages of nine years and one day until twelve years and one day, he becomes a man retroactively? Similarly, if he is older than twenty years of age and did not grow two pubic hairs, he becomes a man from that point into the future. How does Samuel handle this? He explains it: soon after he turns twenty.

MISHNAH: One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman. He who rapes or seduces [a relative of] a married woman is guilty. A person may marry his father’s rape victim or seduced woman, his son’s rape victim or seduced woman. Rebbi Jehudah prohibits his father’s rape victim or seduced woman.

HALAKHAH: “One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman,” etc. So is the Mishnah: One may marry after a rape victim or seduced woman. If he raped a woman, her mother is permitted; if he seduced a woman, her daughter is permitted.

There, we have stated: “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterwards her daughter, he absorbs forty [lashes]. Symmachos said in Rebbi Meïr’s name, he absorbs eighty.” Rebbi Eleazar said, [Symmachos] and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he who copulates with his mother-in-law may be guilty because of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him, all three fall under the same law.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Symmachos agrees to the earlier [part of the Mishnah]. If was found stated, it still is in dispute. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s reason? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions. What is the reason of the rabbis? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition.

MISHNAH: The sons of a female convert who converted with her do neither perform ḥalîṣah nor levirate even if a first [son] was not conceived in holiness but born in holiness and a second [son] was conceived and born in holiness. The same applies to a slave girl who was freed together with her sons.

MISHNAH: If the children of five women were mixed up, and the mixed-up became adults, married wives, and died, then four perform ḥalîṣah and one marries in levirate. This one and three others perform ḥalîṣah for another one and another one marries in levirate. It turns out that there are four ḥaliṣot and one levirate marriage for every one.

MISHNAH: If a woman’s child was mixed up with her daughter-in-law’s child, the mixed-up children became adults, married wives, and died. The other sons of the daughter-in-law must perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate since for them it is doubtful whether [the widow was] a brother’s wife or an uncle’s wife. But the sons of the old woman may either perform ḥalîṣah or levirate since for them she was either a brother’s wife or a nephew’s wife. If one of the identified ones died, the mixed-up ones must perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate for a son of the old woman since there is a doubt whether [the widow was] a brother’s wife or an uncle’s wife. But for the sons of the daughter-in-law, one performs ḥalîṣah; the other may marry in levirate.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman’s child was mixed up,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So is the Mishnah: The sister-in-law’s sons’ wives, the old woman’s sons’ wives. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this implies that a man may marry a nephew’s ex-wife.

MISHNAH: If the child of a priestly woman was mixed up with the child of her slave girl then both may eat heave; they together take one part from the threshing floor, they may not defile themselves by becoming impure for the dead, and they may not marry women enabled or disabled [for the priesthood].

MISHNAH: When the mixed-up children became adults and manumitted one another they may marry women appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile themselves for the dead, but if they became defiled they do not suffer forty lashes. They may not eat heave, but if they ate they do not have to pay its value and and additional fifth. They cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor; they have to sell their heave, but the money is theirs. They have no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give them sacrifices, but one cannot take theirs from them. They are exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. Their firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. One charges them with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: “If the mixed-up children became adults,” after it happened. Does that mean, not from the start? So is the Mishnah: It is permitted from the start to manumit. Even Rebbi Yose the Galilean, who said that one is forbidden to manumit, will agree here that it is permitted for the benefit of children. What means “appropriate”? Not disabled.

From where that a Cohen presents his sacrifices during [the period of duty of] any watch he chooses? The verse says, “he may come as his heart desires … and serve”. If he was old or sick, he may give it to any watch he likes but the hide and meat are his. If he was impure or had a bodily defect, he must give it to the acting watch, and the hide and meat are theirs. These mixed-up ones, how do you treat them? Comparing them to the old or sick, or to the impure or to those with a bodily defect. It seems reasonable to compare them to the impure or those having a bodily defect; but the Mishnah compares them to the old or sick, since we have stated: “One cannot take his from him.”

MISHNAH: [A woman] did not wait three months after [the death of] her husband, married, and gave birth, and it is not known whether it is a nine months’ child of the first or a seven months’ child of the second. If she had sons from the first and the second, they perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate. Similarly, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. If he had brothers from the first or from the second not from the same mother, he may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate and they may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate. If one was an Israel and the other a priest, he may marry a woman appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile himself for the dead, but if he became defiled he does not suffer forty lashes. He may not eat heave but if he ate, he does not have to pay its value and additional fifth. He cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor. He has to sell his heave but the money is his. He has no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give him sacrifices but one cannot take his from him. He is exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. His firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. One charges him with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim. If both were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them and they for him. He may not defile himself for them, they may not defile themselves for him. He does not inherit from them but they inherit from him. He is not prosecutable if he injures or curses either one of them. He may serve on the watch of either one but does not participate in distributions. If both were of the same watch, he takes one part.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One mourns deeply and defiles himself in a case of doubt. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “He has to mourn intensely for them and they for him.” Rebbi Ashian bar Yaqim had a case. He asked Rebbi Yose, who told him, you do not have to. He said to him, but did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say, one mourns deeply and defiles himself in a case of doubt? His signs were clear. But did not the colleagues say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not act on the signs of an eight months’ child? He had a sign that he had intercourse and then separated.

MISHNAH: The commandment of ḥalîṣah is to be executed before three judges; all three may be lay people. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a shoe, the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a felt slipper it is invalid. With a sandal having a heel it is valid, without a heel it is invalid. Below the knee the ḥalîṣah is valid, above the knee it is invalid.

So is the Mishnah: “If he ties lower than the knee, it is valid, above the knee it is invalid.” It is written: “Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet from it.” It was stated about this: The hand up to the wrist, the foot up to the calf; and here you say so? There is a difference, since it is written “from above his foot”. In that case, even higher than the knee should be valid! There is a difference, since it is written “from above his foot”, and not from higher than above his foot. Cahana objected: Is it not written, “and the afterbirth which comes out from between her feet;” does it come out from between her feet? It looks as if it was between her feet; as we have stated there: “The water pit was between the Temple hall and the alter drawn towards the South.” Was it put between the hall and the altar? Only it looked as if between hall and altar.

MISHNAH: If she performed ḥalîṣah with a sandal that was not his, with a wooden sandal, or with a left [foot sandal] on the right [foot], the ḥalîṣah is valid. If she performed ḥalîṣah with [a sandal that was] too large but he could walk in it, or one too small which covers most of his foot, the ḥalîṣah is valid. If she performed ḥalîṣah in the night, the ḥalîṣah is valid; Rebbi Eliezer declares it invalid. [If she performed ḥalîṣah] with her left hand, the ḥalîṣah is invalid but Rebbi Eliezer declares it valid.

It was stated: But he may walk on it until he reaches the entrance of his courtyard. Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Ze‘ira were walking on the highway. The sandal of Rebbi Aḥa was torn. When they came to the city gate, Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, that is the entrance of your courtyard. Rebbi Aḥa wound a fiber around. Rebbi Abbahu wound a bundle of Jew’s mallow. Rebbi Abbahu was of the opinion that a bundle of Jew’s mallow is ready to be used. Rebbi Jonah threw them away before the fried food store. That is little honor. The honor of Rebbi Eleazar obliged him to take it off. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: May one switch? He said to him, it is permitted. Nevertheless, he told him: go and look for an Elder and rely on him. He went out and found Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, asked him, and he permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said that this is clothing, since we have stated: “Or with a left [foot sandal] on the right [foot], the ḥalîṣah is valid.” That means, in width. But in length it must cover most of the foot.

What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? “Before the Elders’ eyes.” How do the rabbis uphold “before the Elders’ eyes”? That excludes a court of blind people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems to be inverted. There, he says that the right hand is obligatory, but here, he says that the right hand is not obligatory. Rebbi Yose said, there it is written “the right hand”, the right hand is obl;igatory, but here, where “the right hand” is not written, the right hand is notobligatory. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: “His ear”, “his ear”. Since “his ear” mentioned there refers to the right ear, so “his ear” mentioned here means the right ear. It also says “his foot”, “his foot”. He who infers from “his ear”, “his ear” infers from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not infer from “his ear”, “his ear” does not infer from “his foot”, “his foot”. But it was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “his foot”, “his foot”. That means, there are two statements about the words of Rebbi Eliezer. He who argues from “his ear”, “his ear” argues from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not argue from “his ear”, “his ear” does not argue from “his foot”. And this Mishnah accepts neither “his ear”, “his ear” nor “his foot”, “his foot”.

MISHNAH: If she stripped off and spat but did not recite, the ḥalîṣah is valid. If she recited and spat but did not strip off, the ḥalîṣah is invalid. If she stripped off and recited but did not spit, Rebbi Eliezer says, the ḥalîṣah is invalid, but Rebbi Aqiba says, the ḥalîṣah is valid. Rebbi Eliezer said, “so it shall be done”, anything which is an action is preventing. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, is that a proof? “So it shall be done to the man”, any activity of the male [is preventing.]

MISHNAH: ḥalîṣah is invalid if performed for a deaf-mute man, or by a deaf-mute woman, or for an underage male. The underage woman who performed ḥalîṣah should repeat ḥalîṣah once she becomes of age but if she did not repeat it, the ḥalîṣah is valid.

MISHNAH: If she performed ḥalîṣah in front of two [judges] or of three when it turned out that one was a relative or unfit, the ḥalîṣah is invalid; Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian declare it valid. If happened that she performed ḥalîṣah between herself and him in jail; the case came before Rebbi Aqiba and he declared it valid.

MISHNAH: The commandment of ḥalîṣah: He and his sister-in-law come to the court of law and they give him appropriate counsel, as it is said: “The Elders of his city shall call him and speak to him”. She says: “My levir refuses to erect a name in Israel for his brother, my levir does not want;” and he says: “I do not desire to take her.” They have to speak in the holy language. “His sister-in-law comes to him before the Elders’ eyes, strips his shoe from his foot, and spits out before him,” spittle that is visible to the judges. She has to declare and say: “So should be done to a man who would not build his brother’s house.” Up to this sentence they were reading to them but when it was read for Rebbi Hyrkanos under the oak tree in Kefar Abus he finished the paragraph; they established to finish the entire paragraph, “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.” The obligation is on the judges, not on the students. Rebbi Jehudah said, everyone present has the obligation to say,” the one stripped of shoe, the one stripped of shoe”.

The people of Simonia came to Rebbi and told him, please give us a man who preaches, judges, runs the synagogue, teaches reading, teaches Mishnah, and looks after all our needs. He gave them Levi bar Sisi. They made him a big platform and sat him on it. They came and asked him, how does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? He did not respond. If she spat blood” He did not respond. They said, maybe he is not competent in studies, let us ask him in homiletics. They came and asked him, what is that which is written: “Truly, I shall tell you what is traced in writing, it is true.” If it is true, why is it traced, and if traced, why is it true? He did not respond. They came to Rebbi and told him, that required one we asked you for? He told them, by your lives, I gave you one who is my equal! He sent to bring him and examined him. He asked him, what if she spat blood. He said, if it contains some fluid of spittle it is valid. How does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? He said, with her teeth. What is that which is written: “Truly, I shall tell you what is traced in writing, it is true.” If it is true, why is it traced, and if traced, why is it true? He said, until the decision of the court is sealed, it is traced. After it has been sealed, it is true. He asked him, and why did you not give any answers? He said to him, they made me a big platform and sat me on it; by that my spirit became bloated. He quoted about him: “If you became subject to contempt when you rose, if you planned, hand to mouth”; why did you become contemptible in the words of the Torah? That you used them to aggrandize yourself.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.” He who says that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them”. Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.” He who says that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them”. Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.” He who says that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them”. Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.” He who says that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them”. Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one makes only betrothed girls repudiate. The House of Hillel say, betrothed or married. The House of Shammai say, the husband, but the House of Hillel say, the husband or the levir. The House of Shammai say, in his presence, but the House of Hillel say, in his presence or in his absence. The House of Shammai say, in a court of law, but the House of Hillel say, in a court or outside a court. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: An underage girl may repudiate even four or five times. The House of Shammai said to them: The daughters of Israel are not abandoned property! But she repudiates, waits until she is of age, or repudiates and is married.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The husband she may repudiate since she married him with her consent. The levir to whom she was given by an act of God she cannot repudiate. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? If she can repudiate the principal, so much more the levir! Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother and to permit the co-wife to her father and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother and to permit the co-wife to her father and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates. If she says, I can stand marriage with you but not with your brother? Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died and did not repudiate since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so and died, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Eudaimon said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if there is no levir besides her father.

Rav Hamnuna in the name of Assi: The Mishnah speaks about a sister-in-law who has two levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her, she may repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry on the market place. Why can she not repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry his brother? Explain it, if she says, I cannot stand you. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yosina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah speaks about a sister-in-law who has five levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her, she may repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry his brother. Why can she not repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry on the market place? Explain it if her father had married her off, this was a marriage by biblical standards.

Rav Hamnuna in the name of Assi: The Mishnah speaks about a sister-in-law who has two levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her, she may repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry on the market place. Why can she not repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry his brother? Explain it, if she says, I cannot stand you. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yosina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah speaks about a sister-in-law who has five levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her, she may repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry his brother. Why can she not repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry on the market place? Explain it if her father had married her off, this was a marriage by biblical standards.

So is the Mishnah: Or she should repudiate him and marry. Therefore, she cannot get herself betrothed. That means, if she transgresses and repudiated after marriage, the House of Shammai recognize her act of repudiation. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: A rumor spreads for a married woman but not for a betrothed one. A woman might hide herself and say, I was not betrothed, but she will not be able to hide herself and say, I did not marry.

MISHNAH: Which underage girl needs to repudiate? Anyone whom mother or brothers married off with her knowledge. If they married her off without her knowledge she does not have to repudiate. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos says, any girl who is unable to watch over her marriage gift does not have to repudiate. Rebbi Eliezer says, in all legal respects, the underage girl is like one seduced: The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen may not eat heave; the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel may eat heave.

Rebbi Yoḥanan had a difficulty with the words of Rebbi Joshua. Is her marriage valid by biblical standards? The dissolution of her vows must be by biblical standards! And you say so! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there is no dissolution of vows here, because of what Rebbi Joḥanan had against the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Nissa asked: Would it be the same for prohibitions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions. Would that be as we stated there: “Before that time, even though they said, we know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are no vows and their dedications no dedications. After that time, even though they said, we do not know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are vows and their dedications dedications.” What is the status of that Mishnah? For Cahana it is in dispute, for Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, every impediment that comes from the man makes her as if she were his wife; every impediment that does not come from the man makes her as if she were not his wife.

MISHNAH: If [a girl] repudiates a man, he is permitted [to marry] her relatives and she is permitted [to marry] his relatives; he did not disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce, he is forbidden [to marry] her relatives and she is forbidden [to marry] his relatives; he did disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce and later took her back, then she repudiated him and married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is permitted to return to him. If she repudiated him and he took her back, then he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is prohibited to return to him. That is the principle: By divorce after repudiation she is prohibited to return to him; by repudiation after divorce she is permitted to return to him.

MISHNAH: If [a girl] repudiates a man and marries another who divorces her, another and she repudiates him, another who divorces her, another and she repudiates him, she is forbidden to return to anyone who had divorce her but permitted to return to those she had repudiated.

MISHNAH: If somebody divorced his wife and later took her back, she is permitted to the levir but Rebbi Eliezer forbids her. Similarly, if somebody divorced an orphan girl and took her back, she is permitted to the levir but Rebbi Eliezer forbids her. If an underage girl who was married off by her father was divorced, she is like an orphan during her father’s lifetime. If she was taken back, she is prohibited to the levir. The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer in case he divorced her as a minor and took her back as a minor, since her divorce is a total divorce but her return was not complete. But if he divorced her as a minor and took her back as an adult or she became an adult while married to him, she is permitted to the levir.

MISHNAH: Two brothers are married to two underage orphan [sisters]. If the husband of one of them dies, the other one has to leave as wife’s sister. And so for two deaf-mute [sisters]. If one is adult and the other underage, if the husband of the underage girl died, she has to leave as wife’s sister. If the husband of the adult one died, Rebbi Eliezer said, one teaches the underage one to repudiate him. Rabban Gamliel says, if she repudiated, she repudiated; otherwise she should wait until she becomes of age and the other one has to leave as wife’s sister. Rebbi Joshua says, woe to him for his wife, woe to him for his brother’s wife! He has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥalîṣah.

So is the Mishnah: The underage girl should wait until she grows up, reaches puberty, and is being married. Rebbi Eleazar said, there is no “being married” here, only “being betrothed.” Rebbi Joḥanban said, these are the words of Rabban Gamliel: If somebody gave qiddušin to his sister-in-law’s sister, his sister-in-law was freed from ḥalîṣah and levirate. It follows that what we had stated there, “if somebody gave qiddušin to the sister of a woman waiting for her levir” does not follow Rabban Gamliel.

MISHNAH: If somebody was married to two underage orphan girls and died, intercourse or ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. The same holds for two deaf-mutes. An underaged girl and a deaf-mute: Intercourse of neither of them frees her co-wife.

MISHNAH: A hearing wife and a deaf-mute: The intercourse of the hearing woman frees the deaf-mute but the intercourse of the deaf-mute does not free the hearing woman.

MISHNAH: An adult wife and an underage wife. The intercourse of the adult woman frees the underage girl but the intercourse of the underage girl does not free the adult woman.

MISHNAH: Somebody was married to two underage orphan girls and died. If the levir had intercourse with the first one and then had intercourse with the second, or his brother had intercourse with the second, the first one was not disabled. The same holds for two deaf-mutes. An underage girl and a deaf-mute. If the levir had intercourse with the underage girl and then had intercourse with the deaf-mute, or his brother had intercourse with the deaf-mute, the underage girl was not disabled. If the levir had intercourse with the deaf-mute and then had intercourse with the underage girl, or his brother had intercourse with the underage girl, the deaf-mute was disabled.

MISHNAH: A hearing wife and a deaf-mute. If the levir had intercourse with the hearing woman and then had intercourse with the deaf-mute, or his brother had intercourse with the deaf-mute, the hearing woman was not disabled. If the levir had intercourse with the deaf-mute and then had intercourse with the hearing woman, or his brother had intercourse with the hearing woman, the deaf-mute was disabled.

MISHNAH: An adult wife and an underage one. If the levir had intercourse with the adult and then had intercourse with the underage one, or his brother had intercourse with her, the adult was not disabled. If the levir had intercourse with the underage widow and then had intercourse with the adult one, or his brother had intercourse with her, the underage one was disabled. Rebbi Eleazar says, one teaches the underage girl that she should repudiate him.

MISHNAH: If an underage levir had intercourse with an underage sister-in-law, they should grow up together. If he had intercourse with an adult sister-in-law, she should raise him. If the sister-in-law claims within thirty days that she was not copulated with, one forces him to perform ḥalîṣah with her. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah with her. But if he confesses, one forces him to perform ḥalîṣah with her even after twelve months. If a woman made a vow during her husband’s lifetime forbidding herself any usufruct from her levir, one coerces him until he performs ḥalîṣah with her. After her husband’s death, one begs him that he should perform ḥalîṣah with her. If she had [ḥalîṣah] in mind even during her husband’s lifetime, one begs him that he should perform ḥalîṣah with her.

“If a woman made a vow forbidding herself any usufruct,” etc. Consider the following: He said, I copulated, but she says, I was not copulated with. Even if he changed and then said, I did not copulate, he cannot be believed since from the start he had said, I copulated. But if from the start he said that he had not copulated, the two together can uproot the presumption. The colleagues asked: What are we talking about? If following the early Mishnah, we have understood that one may marry in levirate. If following the later Mishnah, we have understood that one may perform ḥalîṣah. Where did we hear that one coerces? Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Yose asked, after thirty days, the presumption is that he copulated and you say one coerces? But it must be the following: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to performḥalîṣah. The following: If he says, I copulated, and she says, I was not copulated with, it is obvious that he has to sustain her. It is obvious that he does not inherit from her. The problem is whether he inherits his brother’s property. If she says, I was copulated with, and he says, I did not copulate, it is obvious that he does not have to sustain her. It is obvious that he inherits his brother’s property. The problem is whether he inherits from her.

“If a woman made a vow forbidding herself any usufruct,” etc. Consider the following: He said, I copulated, but she says, I was not copulated with. Even if he changed and then said, I did not copulate, he cannot be believed since from the start he had said, I copulated. But if from the start he said that he had not copulated, the two together can uproot the presumption. The colleagues asked: What are we talking about? If following the early Mishnah, we have understood that one may marry in levirate. If following the later Mishnah, we have understood that one may perform ḥalîṣah. Where did we hear that one coerces? Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Yose asked, after thirty days, the presumption is that he copulated and you say one coerces? But it must be the following: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to performḥalîṣah. The following: If he says, I copulated, and she says, I was not copulated with, it is obvious that he has to sustain her. It is obvious that he does not inherit from her. The problem is whether he inherits his brother’s property. If she says, I was copulated with, and he says, I did not copulate, it is obvious that he does not have to sustain her. It is obvious that he inherits his brother’s property. The problem is whether he inherits from her.

MISHNAH: A deaf-mute man who married a hearing woman or a hearing man who married a deaf-mute woman may divorce or stay married at will; just as he marries with sign language so he divorces with sign language. A hearing man who married a hearing woman who then became deaf-mute may divorce or stay married at will. If she became insane he shall not divorce. If he became deaf-mute or insane, he can never divorce.