their brothers-in-law and forbidden to their husbands: a High Priest who betrothed a widow and has a brother who is a common priest; a priest of unimpaired priestly stock who married a woman of impaired priestly stock and has a brother of impaired priestly stock; an Israelite who married a woman that was a bastard and has a brother who is a bastard; a bastard who married the daughter of an Israelite and has a brother wrho is an Israelite; these are the cases in which the women are permitted in marriage to their brothers-in-law and forbidden to their husbands. These are the cases in which the women are forbidden in marriage both to their husbands and to their brothers-in-law; a High Priest who married a widow and has a brother who is a High Priest or a common priest; a priest of unimpaired priestly stock who married a woman of impaired priestly stock and has a brother of unimpaired priestly stock; an Israelite who married a bastard and has a brother who is an Israelite; a bastard who married the daughter of an Israelite and has a bastard brother; these are the cases in which the women are forbidden in marriage both to their husbands and to their brothers-in-law. All other classes of women are permitted in marriage both to their husbands and to their brothers-in-law.
3. In what concerns the secondary grade [of forbidden degrees] enjoined by the Scribes,1 if a woman is within the secondary grade of kinship to the husband but not within the secondary grade of kinship to the brother- in-law', she is forbidden in marriage to the husband, and permitted to the brother-in-law; if she is within the secondary grade of kinship to the brother-in-law but not within the secondary grade of kinship to the husband, she is forbidden in marriage to the brother-in-law and permitted to the husband. If she is within.the secondary grade of kinship to both she is forbidden in marriage to both, and she cannot lay claim to her Ketubah,* or to the increase [on her melog property], or to alimony,3 or to indemnity [for loss on her melog property]; a child that is born is eligible [for the priesthood], but they compel the husband to put her away. If she was4 a widow [married] to a High Priest, a divorced woman or one that had per¬ formed halitzah [married] to a common priest, a bastard or a Nethinah [married] to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite [married] to a bastard or a Nothin, she can lay claim to her Ketubah.
4. If the daughter of an Israelite was betrothed to a priest, or was got with child by a priest, or awaited levitate marriage with a priest (and the same applies to a priest’s daughter and an Israelite) she may not eat of Heave-offering. If the daughter of an Israelite was betrothed to a levite, or was got with child by a levite, or awaited levirate marriage with a levite (and the same applies to a levite ’s daughter and an Israelite) she may not eat of Tithe. If a levite’s daughter was betrothed to a priest, or was got with child by a priest, or awaited levirate marriage with a priest (and the same applies to a priest’s daughter and a levite) she may not eat of Heave¬ offering or of Tithe.
5. If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest she may eat of Heave-offering; if he died and she had a son by him, she may eat of Heave- offering. If she was married to a levite she may eat of Tithe; if he died and she had a son by him, she may eat of Tithe. If she was then married to an Israelite she may not eat of Heave-offering or of Tithe; if he died and 1 Sec above, 2*.
> From the husband’s property after his death.
232 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM she had a son by him, she may not eat of Heave-offering or of Tithe. But if her son by the Israelite died, she may [again] eat of Tithe; if her son by the levite died, she may [again] eat of Heave-offering; if her son by the priest died, she may not eat of Heave-offering or of Tithe.
6. If a priest’s daughter was married to an Israelite she may not eat of Heave-offering; if he died and she had a son by him she may not eat of Heave-offering. If she was married to a levite she may eat of Tithe; if he died and she had a son by him, she may eat of Tithe. If she was married to a priest she may eat of Heave-offering; if he died and she had a son by him, she may eat of Heave-offering. If her son by the priest died, she may not eat of Heave-offering; if her son by the levite died, she may not eat of Tithe; if her son by the Israelite died, she may return to her father’s house; and of her it is written, If she is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's bread.1 10. i. If a woman’s husband had gone beyond the sea and it was told her, ‘Thy husband is dead’, and she married again and her husband then returned, her marriage with them both is annulled, and she must receive a bill of divorce from each of them, and from neither of them can she lay claim2 to her Ketubah, or to the increase [of her melog property], or to alimony, or to indemnity [for loss on her melog property]; if she had taken aught from either of them she must restore it; a child begotten by either husband is a bastard; neither of them may contract uncleanness3 for her [if she died], and neither has a claim to aught found4 by her or to the work of her hands, or the right to set aside her vows.5 If she was the daughter of an Israelite she becomes ineligible for marriage with a priest, or, if the daughter of a levite, to eat of Tithe, or, if the daughter of a priest, to eat of Heave-offering. The heirs of neither husband may inherit her Ketubah. If the husbands die, their brothers must submit to halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage. R. Jose says: Her Ketubah remains a charge on her first husband’s goods. R. Eleazar says; The first husband has a claim to aught found by her and to the work of her hands, and the right to set aside her vows. R. Simeon says: If the first husband’s brother consum¬ mated levirate marriage with her or submitted to halitzah from her she renders her co-wife exempt [from levirate marriage], and a child begotten by him is not a bastard. But if she had married again without the consent [of the court being needful]6 she may return to her first husband.
2. If she had married again with the consent of the court [and her first husband then returned], the [second] marriage is annulled, and she is not liable to a Sin-offering;7 but if [she had married again] without the consent of the court, the marriage is annulled and she is also liable to a Sin-offering. [Thus] the authority of the court exempts from the Sin-offering. If the court gave her instruction that she could marry again but she contracted a forbidden union, she is liable to the Sin-offering,8 since their permission was but that she could marry again.
3. If a woman’s husband and son had gone beyond the sea and it was told her, ‘Thy husband died and then thy son died also’, and she married again and they then said to her, ‘It was otherwise: [thy son died first and 1 Lev. 221*. 1 See above, 9s. 3 If they were priest*. See Lev. 2iu.
4 See B.M. t* s Num. 307’. 6 If two had testified to her of her husband’s death.
7 Since it was an unwitting transgression as the result of the court’s decision. SeeHor.i1.
* For unwitting transgression (Lev. 4**®.) of Lev. 18*.
then thy husband]’, the marriage must be annulled and a child born before or after [the second testimony] is a bastard. If they had said to her, ‘Thy son died and then thy husband died also’, and she thereupon contracted levirate marriage, and they then came and said, ‘It was otherwise’, the marriage must be annulled, and a child born before or after [the second testimony] is a bastard. If they had said to her, ‘Thy husband is dead’, and she married again, and they then came and said, ‘He was then alive but he has since died’, the marriage must be annulled, and if a child was born before [the second testimony] it is a bastard, but if it was born afterward it is not a bastard. If they had said to her, ‘Thv husband is dead’, and she became betrothed and her husband then returned, she is permitted to return to him. Although her [betrothed] husband gave her a bill of divorce he has not thereby disqualified her [for marriage with a priest]. This did R. Eleazar b. Mattai expound: [It is written,] Neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband;' and not ‘from a man that is not [yet fully] her husband’.
4. If a man’s wife had gone beyond the sea and it was told him, ‘Thy wife is dead’, and he married her sister, and his wife then came back, she is permitted to return to him; and he is permitted to marry the near of kin to the second woman, and the second woman is permitted to marry his near of kin; and if the first died he is permitted to marry the second. If they had said to him, ‘Thy wife is dead', and he married her sister, and they then said to him, ‘She was then alive but she has since died’, if a child was born before [the second testimony] it is a bastard, but if it was born afterward it is not a bastard. R. Jose says: Whosoever disqualifies [his wife] for [marriage with] others, disqualifies her for himself, and whosoever does not disqualify her for [marriage with] others does not disqualify her for himself.
5. If they had said to him, ‘Thy wife is dead’, and he married her sister by the same father,* [and they then said to him], ‘She too is dead’, and he married her sister by the same mother,3 [and they then said to him,] ‘She too is dead’, and he married her sister by the same father,* [and they then said to him,] ‘She too is dead’, and he married her sister by the same mother,3 and it is then found that they are all alive, he is permitted [to continue] with the first, with the third, and with the fifth;4 and these render their co-wives exempt [from levirate marriage]; and he is forbidden [to continue] with the second and the fourth, and although he consummated the union with either of them they do not render their co-wives exempt. If he had connexion with the second after the death of the first, he is then permitted to marry the second and the fourth, and these render their co¬ wives exempt; but he is then forbidden [to continue] with the third and with the fifth, and although he consummated the union with either of them they do not render their co-wives exempt.
6. A boy nine years old and a day can render a deceased brother’s wife ineligible for [marriage with] his brothers;5 and his brothers can render her ineligible for [marriage with] him, save that he can render her ineligible 1 Lev. 2i\ * But another mother.
3 And another father and so unrelated to the previous wife but one.
* Since these are not related to each other. Though the third is sister to the second, the second's marriage is no marriage; and the near kin of a woman who has had extra-marital relations with a man are still permitted to that man. See below, 1 11.
s If he had connexion with her or had bespoken her (p. 219, n. 4).
234 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM only from the outset, whereas they can render her ineligible whether from the outset or at the end. Thus if a boy nine years old and a day had con¬ nexion with his deceased brother’s wife, he renders her ineligible for [marriage with] his brothers [although they had bespoken her]; but whether the brothers had connexion with her, or bespoke her, or gave her a bill of divorce, or submitted to halitzah from her, they render her ineligible for him.
7. If a boy nine years old and a day had connexion with his deceased brother’s wife, and then his brother who was nine years old and a day had connexion with her, he renders her ineligible for the former. R. Simeon says: He does not render her ineligible.
8. If a boy nine years old and a day had connexion with his deceased brother’s wife, and he then had connexion with her co-wife, he renders [both] ineligible for [marriage with] himself. R. Simeon says: He does not render them ineligible. If a boy nine years old and a day had con¬ nexion with his deceased brother’s wife, and he then died, she must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage. If he had married [some other] woman and then died, she is exempt [from halitzah and levirate marriage].
9. If boy nine years old and a day had connexion with his deceased brother’s wife and after he was come of age he married another woman and then died, if he had not known the first one after he has come of age, the first one must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage, and the second may either perform halitzah or contract levirate marriage. R. Simeon says: He may contract levirate marriage with which of them he will and submit to halitzah from the other. It is all one whether he is nine years old and a day or whether he is twenty years old and has not grown two hairs.1 11. 1. A man may marry the near of kin of a woman that was violated or seduced [by him]. He that violates or seduces the near of kin of his married wife is culpable.2 A man may marry a woman that was violated or seduced by his father, or a woman that was violated or seduced by his son. R. Judah forbids a man to marry a woman that was violated or seduced by his father.
2. If the sons of a female proselyte became proselytes with her, they3 are not subject to the law of halitzah or of levirate marriage, even if the one son was born in holiness4 but not conceived in holiness while the second was both born and conceived in holiness. So, too, if the sons of a bond- woman have been freed with her.
3. If the [newly-born] children of five women were confused together and grew up still confused,s and married wives and then died, four [of their other brothers who were not confused] must submit to halitzah from one of the wives, and the one [other brother] may then contract levirate marriage with her; then he and three others [of the surviving brothers] must submit to halitzah from the next wife and another brother may then contract levirate marriage with her, [and so, too, with the three remaining wives]; thus each wife four times performs halitzah and once contracts levirate marriage.
1 If he had not the recognized signs of puberty he still counts as not of age see Nidd. 5*.
2 Lit. ‘liable’, namely to death by burning or Extirpation. Lev. 201*; 18”.
3 If one of the sons died childless. « i.e. after the mother became a proselyte.
5 And each had another son not confused.
4. If a woman’s newly-born child was confused with the newly-born child of her daughter-in-law, and they grew up still confused, and married wives and then died, the [unconfused] sons of the daughter-in-law must submit to halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage, since [for each] it is in doubt whether the widow is the wife of his brother or of his father’s brother; but the [unconfused] sons of the grandmother may either submit to halitzah or contract levirate marriage, since [for each] it is only in doubt whether the widow is his brother’s wife or his brother’s son’s wife. If the unconfused sons died, the confused sons must submit to halitzah from the widows of the sons of the grandmother, and may not contract levirate marriage, since [for each] it is in doubt whether the widow is his brother’s wife or his father’s brother’s wife; and [as touching the widows of] the sons of the daughter-in-law, [of the two confused sons] one submits to halitzah and the second may then contract levirate marriage with the other.
5. If the child of a priest’s wife was confused with the child of her bondwoman, both may eat of Heave-offering and take their share together at the threshing-floor;* they may not contract uncleanness because of the dead;2 and they may not marry women that are eligible or that are in¬ eligible [for marriage with a priest].3 If they grew up still confused and then freed one another, they may only marry women eligible for [marriage with] the priestly stock,4 and they may not contract uncleanness because of the dead; but if they do contract uncleanness they do not incur the Forty Stripes;5 they may not eat of Heave-offering, but if they have eaten thereof they do not pay the value and the [Added] Fifth;6 they may not share at the threshing-floor; they may sell the Heave-offering7 and keep the price; they may take no share in the Hallowed Things8 of the Temple; none may give them Hallowed Things, but none may take away from them what they have; they are exempt from [giving to the priests] the shoulder, and the two cheeks and the maw;9 and their Firstlings10 must be left to pasture until they suffer a blemish; and the more stringent rulings touching priests and touching Israelites apply to them."
6. If a woman had not delayed three months after [separation12 from] her husband and married again and gave birth, and it is not known whether it was a nine-months’ child by the former [husband] or a seven-months’ child by the latter [husband], if she has sons both by the earlier and the later husbands these must submit to halitzah [from the widow of the son whose father is in doubt] and may not contract levirate marriage; so, too, he [whose father is in doubt] must submit to halitzah [from their widows] and may not contract levirate marriage. If he has brothers by both the first husband and the second husband, but not by the same mother, he may either submit to halitzah or contract levirate marriage; but as for them, [if he died childless and left a widow] a son [by the first or else by the 1 Where the portion for Heave-offering was allotted. According to Lev. 22“ a priest’s bondman may eat of Heave -offering. 2 Lev. 21*. Since either may be a priest.
* Since each might be a priest or might be a slave. 4 See Kidd. 4'®.
J See Maklc. 31*. Stripes are the punishment incurred for transgression of a negative command where the Law has not specified a particular punishment.
* Lev. 2211; see B.M. 4*. 7 From their own harvest.
* Not even the hides of the offerings or what is devoted (Num. x8“) to the Temple.
* See Deut. 18’; Hull. io‘fl.
10 Num. 181*. They cannot consume them since they may not be priests, and they cannot be forced to give them to priests since they themselves may be priests.
11 According to Gem. 100a this refers to the Meal-offering, and both Lev. a1-1 and 6“~lJ apply. ** By divorce or death.
236 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM second husband] must submit to halitzah, then a son [by the second or else by the first husband] may contract levirate marriage.
7. if one [of these husbands] was an Israelite and the other a priest, he [whose father is in doubt] may marry none save a woman eligible for [marriage with] a priest; and he mav not contract uncleanness because of the dead, but if he contracts uncleanness he does not incur the Forty Stripes; he may not eat of Heave-offering, but if he has eaten thereof he does not pay the value and the [Added] Fifth; he may take no share at the threshing-floor; he may sell the Heave-offering and keep the price; he may take no share in the Hallowed Things of the Temple; none may give him Hallowed Things, but none may take away from him what he has; he is exempt from [giving to the priests] the shoulder, and the two cheeks and the maw; and his Firstlings must be left to pasture until they stiffer a blemish; and the more stringent rulings touching priests and touching Israelites apply to him. If both [the husbands] were priests, he must perform mourning for them and they must perform mourning for him,' but he mav not contract uncleanness because of them nor may they con¬ tract uncleanness because of him; he may not inherit from them, but they may inherit from him,2 and He is not culpable if he smites or curses either of them,3 he may go up [to serve in the Temple] during the [weekly] Course4 of either of them; he mav not share with them [in the offerings]; but if they both serve in the same Course he may take a single portion.
12. r. The rite of halitzah must be performed before three judges, s even though the three are laymen. IF the wdman performed halitzah with a shoe it is valid, but if with a felt sock it is not valid; if with a sandal that has a heel-piece it is valid, but if with one that has no heel-piece it is not valid. [If the straps of the sandal were fastened] below the knee, her halitzah is valid; but if above the knee, it is not valid.
2. If she performed halitzah with a shoe that did not belong to the brother-in-law, or with a wooden sandal, or with a left-foot shoe worn on the right foot, her halitzah is valid; if she performed it with a shoe that was too large for him but such that he could walk in it, or with a shoe that was too small for him but such that it covered the greater part of his foot, her halitzah is valid. If she performed it by night her halitzah is valid. But R. Eliezer declares it invalid. If she performed it with the left foot her halitzah is invalid. But R. Eliezer declares it valid.
3. If she drew off the shoe and spat but did not pronounce the prescribed words her halitzah is valid. If she pronounced the words and spat but did not draw off the shoe, her halitzah is invalid. If she drew off the shoe and pronounced the words but did not spit, according to R. Eliezer her halitzah is invalid, but according to R. Akiba it is valid. R. Eliezer said: [It is written,] So shall it be done...;6 hence aught that is a ‘deed’ [if unper¬ formed] impairs [the validity of the rite]. R. Akiba answered: [My] proof is from the same verse; So shall it be done to the man...; hence [the validity of the rite depends on] any deed that needs to be done to the man.
4. If halitzah was performed on a deaf-mute or by a woman that was a deaf-mute, or if a woman performed halitzah on a minor, her halitzah is not valid. If a girl that was still a minor performed halitzah she must 1 If they or he died. On the day of the death of his near of kin a priest is forbidden to minister in the Temple or to eat of Hallowed Things. * B.B. 8*.
[again] perform halitzah when she is of age, and if she does not do so her [first] halitzah becomes invalid.
5. If she performed halitzah before two judges only, or before three of whom one was found to be near of kin or ineligible [as a judge], her halitzah is invalid. R. Simeon and R. Johanan the Sandal-maker declare it valid. Once a man submitted to halitzah when he and she were alone together in prison; the case came before R. Akiba and he declared it valid.
6. This is the prescribed rite1 of halitzah: When the man and his deceased brother’s wife are come to the court the judges proffer such advice to the man as befits him, for it is written, Then the elders of the city shall call him and speak unto him. And she shall say: My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel: he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me. And he shall say. I like not to take her. And they used to say this in the Holy Language.2 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders and loose his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face — such spittle as can be seen by the judges; and she shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house. Thus far used they to rehearse [the prescribed words]. But when R. Hyrcanus under the terebinth in Kefar Etam3 rehearsed it and completed it to the end of the section, the rule was established to complete the section.4 [To say the words] And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed, was a duty that fell upon the judges and not upon the disciples. But R. Judah says: It was a duty that fell upon all them that stood there to cry out, ‘The man that hath his shoe loosed! The man that hath his shoe loosed! The man that hath his shoe loosed!’
13. 1. The School of Shammai say: Only they that are betrothed may exercise right of Refusal.5 And the School of Hillel say: Both they that are betrothed and they that are married. The School of Shammai say: [They may exercise the right] against a husband [only], and not against a brother- in-law.6 And the School of Hillel say: Either against a husband or against a brother-in-law. The School of Shammai say: [It must be exercised] in his presence. And the School of Hillel say: Either in his presence or not. The School of Shammai say: It must be before the court. And the School of Hillel say: Either before the court or not. The School of Hillel said to the School of Shammai: While she is yet under age she may exercise right of Refusal four or five times. The School of Shammai answered: The daughters of Israel are not [such] ownerless property! but, rather, she exercises right of Refusal and waits until she is come of age, or she exercises right of Refusal and [forthwith] marries [some other].
2. Who is the minor that must exercise right of Refusal? Any whose mother or brothers have with her consent given her in marriage. If they did so without her consent she need not exercise right of Refusal. R. Hanina b. Antigonus says: Any girl that is unable to keep safe her be¬ trothal-gift7 does not need to exercise right of Refusal. R. Eliezer says: The act of a minor is in no wise valid: she is but as one that has been s If a girl that was a minor was, after her father’s death, given in marriage by her mother or brothers, she may abjure the contract before two witnesses, and be set free without the need of a bill of divorce. *> With whom she is bound by the levirate tie.
7 See Kidd. a1*.
238 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM seduced; if she was the daughter of an Israelite and married to a priest she may not eat of Heave-offering; and if she was a priest’s daughter married to an Israelite she may eat of Heave-offering.1 3. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: If any hindrance [in the marriage] arose from the husband, it is accounted as though she had been his wife; but if any hindrance arose not from the husband, it is accounted as though she had not been his wife.
4. [Thus] if she exercised right of Refusal against a man, he is permitted to marry her near of kin, and she is permitted to marry his near of kin; and he has not thereby disqualified her for marriage with a priest. If he gave her a bill of divorce, they are forbidden to marry each other’s near of kin, and he thereby disqualifies her for marriage with a priest. If he gave her a bill of divorce and afterward remarried her, or if she exercised right of Refusal against him and married another and then became a widow or was divorced, she is permitted to return to him. If she exercised right of Refusal against him and he afterward married her, or if he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another, and she then became a widow or was divorced, she is forbidden to return to him. This is the general rule: if the bill of divorce followed after that she exercised right of Refusal she is forbidden to return to him; if she exercised right of Refusal after the bill of divorce, she is permitted to return to him.
5. If sheexercised right of Refusal against a man and married another and he divorced her, and she was [then] given in marriage to another, and she exercised right of Refusal against him, and she then married another and he divorced her, and she was then given in marriage to another and she exercised right of Refusal against him, from whatsoever man she was separated by a bill of divorce to him she is forbidden to return; but if [she was separated] by her exercise of right of Refusal, to him she is permitted to return.
6. If a man divorced his wife and married her again, she is permitted to marry her deceased husband’s brother; but R. Eliezer forbids it. So, too, if a man divorced [his wife who was] an orphan and married her again she is permitted to marry her deceased husband’s brother; but R. Eliezer for¬ bids it. If a minor was given in marriage by her father and she was divorced, she is deemed ‘an orphan in her father’s lifetime’;2 if he married her again all agree that she is forbidden to marry her deceased husband’s brother.