Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

These categories are all defined in the following three halachot.

A man who never displayed any male physical characteristics and who is sexually impotent. The Aruch interprets the term as meaning ‘‘one who became impotent as a result of fever.’’ Yevamot 80a interprets it as meaning ‘‘one who never saw the light of the sun while potent.’’

A person with both male and female sexual organs.

Since the entire purpose of yibbum is to perpetuate the deceased brother’s name (Deu-teronomy 25:7), when this is not possible there is no obligation for this rite.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 172) quotes opinions that maintain that an androgynous is con-sidered a normal male and may perform either yibbum or chalitzah, as he desires. Althoughthe Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 172:8) also mentions this view, the Rambam’s opinionappears to be favored.

The intent is not that they should be encouraged to perform yibbum, but that if they perform yibbum, they acquire the yevamah as a wife. The rationale is that, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 3, the act of yibbum does not require intent.

In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro emphasizes that this ruling applies only whenthe yevamah’s deceased husband was mentally competent. If the deceased also was a deaf-mute, the deaf-mute yavam may divorce her by signaling with hand motions. Rav YosefCaro reiterates this decision in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 172:12).

See Chapter 5, Halachah 18. Note Chapter 5, Halachah 21, which states that if he didnot enter into relations with his yevamah after he attained majority, he must also performthe rite of chalitzah.

A person consecrated one of two sisters and it is not known which one he consecrated. He is not allowed to marry, because he does not know which of the women is his wife and which is forbidden to him. If he dies, his brother may not perform yibbum, because the same doubt applies with regard to him. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 1.)

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, Chapter 16, for a detailed treatment of this subject.

A person whose genital area is covered by flesh and determination of it’s gender is not possible, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 2:25.

Once the operation is performed and it is determined that he is a male, there is no diffe-rence between him and other males.

These categories are all defined in the following three halachot.

With regard to a minor, see Chapter 4, Halachah 16.

For according to Scriptural and Talmudic Law, neither a woman’s understanding norher consent is necessary for a divorce to be effective.

See Halachah 10. (See also a delineation of the women included in these three categoriesin Hilchot Ishut 1:6-8.)

A severe prohibition punishable by karet. See Hilchot Ishut 1:5; Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 2:1.

I.e., if the brother’s consecration was effective, then the yavam is performing a mitzvah, and if it was not effective, he has no ties to the woman at all, and he may consecrate her as he consecrates any other woman (Yevamot 41b).

Although the marriage of a deaf-mute is not binding according to Scriptural Law, hisbrother may still perform yibbum. Diagram

Note the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 2:3), where he cites a dif-ferent proof-text for this concept, one that is not mentioned in other Rabbinic sources.

For a positive commandment does not supersede the observance of a negative com-mandment punishable by karet. Although it is not necessary to mention a proof-text forthis concept, the Rambam does so, because it represents the simple meaning of the passagefrom the Torah (Maggid Mishneh; Kin’at Eliyahu).

And yet to be permitted to her deceased husband, so that her original marriage wasbinding (in contrast to the instances mentioned in Halachah 12).
Reuven and Shimon werebrothers, and Leah and Rachelwere sisters. Reuven marriedLeah and Shimon married Ra-chel. Shimon died. Rachel is notrequired to perform either yib-bum or chalitzah, because she isthe sister of Reuven’s wife. Diagram

I.e., if the brother’s consecration was effective, then the yavam is performing a mitzvah, and if it was not effective, he has no ties to the woman at all, and he may consecrate her as he consecrates any other woman (Yevamot 41b).

Note the statements of the Beit Shmuel 174:3, who connects this concept with the dif-ference of opinion between the Sephardic and Ashkenazic authorities with regard to whichtakes precedence: yibbum or chalitzah. (See the notes on Chapter 1, Halachah 2.)

The commentaries raise the question of why, in this clause, the Rambam omits the men-tion of women with whom relations are forbidden by virtue of a positive commandment. They explain that his omission holds the key to the comprehension of a more generalquestion.
Although the observance of a positive commandment supersedes the observance of anegative commandment, the observance of one positive commandment does not supersedethe observance of another positive commandment. And therefore, the question arises: Whydoes yibbum establish a binding marriage bond when the transgression of a positivecommandment is involved? Such a transgression is not mandated by law.
The commentaries explain that indeed the yavam should not— even according toScriptural Law— perform yibbum in such a situation, and therefore the Rambam omitsmention of those forbidden by a positive commandment in this clause. If, however, the yavam does violate the positive commandment, the marriage bond created is binding. Forjust as the positive commandment of yibbum is not greater than the positive commandment involving the prohibition, the positive commandment involving the prohibition is notgreater than the positive commandment of yibbum. See the conclusion of the Responsa ofthe Noda B’Yhudah on Choshen Mishpat and the commentary of the Or Sameach on this halachah.

In which instance the prohibition against further relations is merely Rabbinic in origin.

I.e., the positive commandment of yibbum does not supersede both the prohibition against a High Priest’s marrying a widow, and the positive commandment that he must marry a virgin. For this reason, this halachah mentions an instance when the woman’s marriage was consummated. If she became a widow when she had merely been consecrated, only a negative commandment is involved, and the laws mentioned in the previous halachah apply.

The commentaries infer that the Rambam’s wording implies that if the High Priestdivorces the woman, she herself may marry others; she does not require chalitzah. See theconclusion of the gloss of the Beit Shmuel 174:3.

Who is also her brother.
Reuven, Shimon and Leahwere brothers and sister. Shi-mon transgressed and marriedLeah, and also married Rachel. Shimon’s marriage to Leah isof no consequence whatso-ever, and Reuven is obligatedto perform either yibbum or chalitzah with Rachel. Diagram

E. g., the deceased brother married his maternal sister. She has no family connection whatsoever to the surviving brother, and he is permitted to marry her.

It is not as if he married two yevamot from the same household, because the woman who was forbidden to the deceased is not considered part of his household.

An example of a negative commandment incumbent on the deceased, but not on the yavam, would be a High Priest who married a widow. His brother, an ordinary priest, is notbound by that prohibition. An example of a positive commandment incumbent on thedeceased, but not on the yavam, would be a High Priest who married a woman who hadengaged in relations previously. His brother, an ordinary priest, is not bound by that pro-hibition.

For example, the deceased married his maternal grandmother, who is forbidden to himas a sh’niyah. If the deceased has a paternal brother who had a different mother, that brotheris a yavam and there is no prohibition against his marrying his brother’s grandmother.
Reuven and Shimon were brothers. Rachel, Shimon’s daughter married Reuven as didLeah, a woman with no family connectionto him. Reuven died. Shimon is not obli-gated to perform yibbum or chalitzah withLeah, because she was the other wife of theman married to his daughter. Diagram

Note the Kessef Mishneh, which suggests altering the text of the Mishneh Torah andsubstituting the word ‘‘and’’ for ‘‘or.’’ For, as it explains, if the yevamah is not forbidden tothe yavam, the fact that she was forbidden— or that there was a doubt whether she wasforbidden— to her deceased husband does not prevent the yavam from marrying her, asstated in the previous halachah.

For it is possible that his original kiddushin were binding and he will be transgressingthe prohibition against marrying two sisters by marrying the yevamah.

Chapter 1, Halachah 13. (See also Chapter 7, Halachah 8.) If the kiddushin the yavam gave were definitely binding, the chalitzah would be of no consequence, because the yevamah would not be obligated to him at all. Nevertheless, since that has not been established definitively, the chalitzah is necessary, and as a consequence, the yavam must divorce the woman whom he originally desired to marry.

But not to the deceased — e.g., the yavam’s daughter.

E. g., Reuven married Shimon’s daughter. She is thus forbidden to Shimon and permitted to Levi. Diagram

If Levi had another brother, they would, however, be under obligation to him.

I.e., if Reuven, Shimon, and Levi had another brother and he performed yibbum with the woman who was not previously married to Reuven, that brother had another wife, and then he died without children — his wives are also under no obligation to Shimon. Since one of the wives was once freed from an obligation to him, even if she remarries she can never be obligated to him. Moreover, she frees all the other wives of her second husband from an obligation to him. Diagram

Through the ma’amar, Shimon established a connection with his yevamah. Therefore, our Sages ordained that Levi should not perform yibbum with Shimon’s wife. Nevertheless, since Shimon did not establish a marriage that was binding according to Scriptural Law with his yevamah, Levi is required to perform chalitzah with Shimon’s wife.

See Hilchot Ishut 24:18.

As Leviticus 18:24 states: ‘‘Do not become impure through any of these [forbiddenrelationships].’’

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam regarding this matter and maintains that just as the woman’s husband would have to give her a get to terminate their relationship, so too, her yavam must perform chalitzah with her. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 173:11)follows the Rambam’s ruling, while the Rama mentions that of the Ra’avad.

A sotah is not given the bitter waters to drink after her husband’s death, as stated in Hilchot Sotah 2:7.

As explained in Hilchot Sotah 2:2, there are some women whose fidelity should betested by the bitter waters. Nevertheless, because of certain incidental factors, she is notgiven these waters to drink and instead must be divorced by her husband.

According to the Rambam, the difference between these two instances is that the infideli-ty of the sotah has not been proven, while in the former case, the woman’s infidelity is anestablished fact.

Although Rashi offers a different interpretation for this concept, the halachic authoritiesfollow the Rambam’s view.

If the relatives of a woman who performed chalitzah were permitted, one might thinkthat another woman who was married to the deceased husband of the woman whoperformed chalitzah would also be permitted.
Reuven, Shimon and Levi were brothers. Reuven was married to Leah, Shimon toAsnat, and Levi was married to Rachel. Asnatand Rachel are sisters. Shimon died, andReuven performed chalitzah with Asnat. IfLevi dies, Rachel is forbidden to Reuven. Heshould perform chalitzah, but not yibbum. Diagram

Since it is possible that the ervah was never married to the deceased, or that her marriage was already terminated, the yavam must perform chalitzah to enable the other wife to remarry. He may not, however, perform yibbum, for it is possible that the marriage of the ervah was brought about by the kiddushin or not terminated by the divorce, in which instance, the yavam would be forbidden to have relations with the other wife of his deceased brother, as stated in Halachah 15. Diagram

The minor nullifies her marriage retroactively through mi’un, and it is as if she had neverbeen married at all. As such, the obligation of yibbum falls on the other wife. Nevertheless, since this halachic concept might not be known to all, our Sages forbade the other wife of thedeceased from performing yibbum, lest the impression be created that a woman married tothe same man as an ervah is also permitted (Yevamot 13a, 107b).

The other wife of the deceased was under the impression that she did not require chalitzah to be released, as stated in Halachah 15. Afterwards, it was discovered that the woman forbidden to the yavam as an ervah was an aylonit, in which instance the obligation of yibbum falls solely on the other wife, as stated in Halachah 21. Thus, her second marriage involves a transgression and must be terminated. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 18.) Nevertheless, a child fathered by her second husband is not considered illegitimate, because the negative commandment violated is not punishable by karet.

The Or Sameach explains that ordinarily, when a woman is prohibited as an ervah, a get is not necessary. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, lest people think that thedeceased divorced his other wife before his death, and the act of yibbum was binding.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 173) maintains that a get is not required, and indeed suggeststhat this is also the Rambam’s intent, but the text of the Mishneh Torah was flawed by aprinter’s error. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 173:9) does not require a get.

As stated in Halachah 14, the prohibition against relations with a brother’s wife appliesin such an instance. This prohibition is punishable by karet. Hence, any child born to this couple— whether before or after he discovers that the ervah was an aylonit— is illegiti-mate.

His wife’s sister, by contrast, need not perform yibbum or chalitzah. She is free to marryany man.
Reuven, Shimon and Levi were brothers. Reuven was married to Asnat, Shimon to Leah, and Levi was married to Rachel. Asnat andLeah are sisters. Levi died childless, and thenShimon died childless. Reuven should perform chalitzah but not yibbum with Rachel. Diagram

With regard to yibbum, the obligation to perform yibbum is powerful enough to have the woman considered the wife of a man whose other wife is an ervah to the yavam. Nevertheless, this comparison is not complete. For since the deceased brother never actually married her, she is obligated to perform chalitzah.

The Ra’avad and others differ with the Rambam regarding this issue, maintaining thatthe prohibition is not applied when the second brother divorces his first wife.

See Halachah 21.
Reuven and Shimon were brothers. Reuven marriedLeah and Rachel, Shimon’s daughter. He then divorc-ed Rachel. If Reuven dies, Shimon may perform either yibbum or chalitzah with Leah. Diagram

And, as reflected in Halachah 14, it is of Scriptural origin.
Reuven, Shimon and Levi were brothers. Reuven was married to Leah, Shimon toRachel, and Levi was married to Asnat. Reuven died childless. Shimon gave a ma’a-mar to Leah, and then died childless. Levishould perform chalitzah, but not yibbum withboth women. Diagram

I.e., since she did not perform yibbum with the brother who gave her the ma’amar, she is still obligated to perform yibbum because of her first husband, and since a ma’amar is considered equivalent to consecration, she is also obligated to perform yibbum because of the second brother who died.

If, however, the second brother performed yibbum before dying, this restriction doesnot apply.

It was stated above that the prohibition against marrying a woman who is obligated toperform yibbum because of two men is derived from a verse. Nevertheless, as reflected bythe fact that chalitzah is required (Yevamot 31b), that verse is only an asmachta, a support. The source of the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. (Note Tosafot, who differ and main-tain that the prohibition is of Scriptural origin.)

See Chapter 1, Halachah 12, which states that once a yavam has foregone the privilegeof yibbum by performing chalitzah, neither he nor his brothers may perform yibbum withany of the wives of that brother.

For the only obligation incumbent on her is due to the brother who died first. The third brother must also perform either yibbum or chalitzah with the wife of the second brother.

Chapter 5, Halachah 18.

E. g., a Canaanite maid-servant who was owned by two partners, and one partner sether free, but the other did not.
Reuven, Shimon and Levi were brothers. Reuven was married to Rachel, and diedchildless. Shimon, a minor, engaged in rela-tions (which is equivalent to a ma’amar) withRachel, and then died childless. Levi shouldperform chalitzah, but not yibbum with Rachel. Diagram

The consecration of such a woman is discussed in Hilchot Ishut 4:16.

The laws that apply when we do know which brother died first are stated in Halachot 3and 4.

According to Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to marry two sisters. As an extension of thisprohibition, when one is obligated to perform yibbum with two sisters according to RabbinicLaw, one is not allowed to marry either of them and must perform chalitzah with both.

For according to Scriptural Law, the obligation of yibbum applies in all these instances, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 10.

In Halachah 1
Yehudah, Reuven, Shimon and Leviwere brothers. Reuven was marriedto Leah, and Shimon to Rachel. Yehudah was married to Rivkahwho was the mother of Leah, Reuven’s wife. Levi was married to Sarah who was the mother of Rachel, Shimon’s wife. If both Reuven and Shimon die childless, Yehudah may perform either yibbum or chalitzah with Rachel and Levi may perform either yibbum or chalitzah with Leah. Diagram

The Kessef Mishneh (and the Beit Shmuel 175:2) explain that this ruling applies onlyafter the fact— i.e., he performed chalitzah with the second yevamah without asking Rab-binical guidance. Had he in fact asked the Rabbis, they would have prohibited it, lest heerr and perform chalitzah with the other sister. Once, however, the chalitzah is performed, we do not fear that a mistake will be made by others on a subsequent occasion.

Since he was never permitted to marry the wife of the first brother who died, the wife of the second never became forbidden to him.

Since he is not permitted to marry the wife of the second brother, the wife of the first never became forbidden to him. Hence, he should perform yibbum. Diagram

The Rambam mentions both yevamot to teach that even if the brother who marries thefirst yevamah dies, she remains forbidden to his brothers.

See the previous halachah.

This applies to both couples. The first yavam who marries a yevamah is forced to separate because he has transgressed a Rabbinic prohibition. Even though he did not transgress in marrying his yevamah, the second yavam is forced to separate from her, because his marriage to her was made possible by a forbidden act, the first yavam’s marriage.

This law is fundamentally the same as Halachah 3. The yavam is forbidden to perform yibbum with either of the sisters. There is one added element: the fact that a ma’amar was given.
As explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3, a ma’amar does not establish a completemarriage bond. If it established such a bond, the third brother would not be required todivorce his yevamah (and he would not be required to perform chalitzah with her sister). But since it does not, he cannot consummate his relationship with his yevamah. He must, however, divorce her, because of the connection established by the ma’amar.
Reuven, Shimon, and Levi were brothers. Reuven was married to Leah, and Shimon toRachel. Leah and Rachel were sisters. Shimondied, and Levi gave a ma’amar to Rachel. ThenReuven died. Levi must divorce Rachel andperform chalitzah with her, and then he mustperform chalitzah with Leah. Diagram

As reflected in Chapter 6, Halachah 25, even if the yavam who died had not given ama’amar to the other yevamah, this woman would not have been able to perform yibbum. The new dimension contributed by this halachah is that the ma’amar does not free herfrom the obligation of chalitzah.

I.e., had the ma’amar established a full marriage bond, she would not have been obligated at all. Since it does not, she must perform chalitzah.

This law applies if he consecrates her after his brother has died and the obligation of yibbum is already incumbent upon him. If he consecrated her before his brother dies, andthen he dies, he may marry her (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 159:6).

At present, the woman he consecrates is forbidden to him, because he is obligated to perform yibbum with her sister. Nevertheless, he is not required to divorce her, because it is possible that the prohibition will be lifted.

Or he has no other brothers.

The fact that he was forbidden to marry her while her sister was alive does not preventhim from marrying her after her sister’s death (Beit Shmuel 159:13).

From Yevamot 41a, it appears that whenever a yavam cannot perform yibbum with his yevamah, the chalitzah he performs with her is deemed ‘‘inferior.’’
Reuven, Shimon, and Levi were brothers. Reuven was married to Leah and Sarah, and Shimon to Rachel and Asnat. Sarahand Rachel were sisters. Both Reuven andShimon died. Levi thus must perform chalitzah with Leah and Asnat. Thisapplies even if he performs chalitzah withRachel and Sarah. Diagram

Chapter 5, Halachah 12.

This expression is employed by the Rambam in reference to a law that has no directsource in the Rabbinic works of the previous generations. The Rambam’s rationale is that just as the Rabbinic prohibition against performing yibbum with the sister of a woman towhom one is obligated is sufficient to cause a chalitzah to be considered ‘‘inferior,’’ so too, the prohibitions mentioned in this halachah should have a similar effect.
There are several early halachic authorities who rule differently from the Rambam on thisissue. The Rambam’s decision is, however, accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer174:1).

This represents a reversal of the Rambam’s opinion in his Commentary to the Mishnah(Yevamot 3:7), where he states that the deceased’s other wife should perform chalitzah, because there is a doubt whether or not an obligation falls upon her.

For the prohibition forbidding a woman divorced by her husband to her yavam is ofScriptural origin, while her remarriage is binding according to Rabbinic Law alone.
Reuven, Shimon, and Levi were brothers. Reuvenwas married to Leah, Shimon to Rachel, and Levito Asnat. Leah and Rachel were sisters. Shimondied and Levi performed yibbum with Rachel. Leah, Reuven’s wife then died. Afterwards, Levi died. Both Rachel and Asnat are free of the obligation to perform either chalitzah or yibbum.
The Ra’avad and Rabbenu Asher rule that the minor must perform chalitzah when sheattains majority. The Ma’aseh Rokeach states this might also be the Rambam’s intent (asreflected by the fact that he states that ‘‘she is forbidden to her yavam,’’ and in the nexthalachah he adds that she ‘‘should not perform either chalitzah or yibbum’’). Most com-mentaries do not, however, accept this interpretation. Diagram

The Rambam’s wording is somewhat imprecise. The kiddushin the husband gives thefather are binding according to Scriptural Law, because the Torah granted him the right toconsecrate her, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:11. If the girl is able to distinguish between a getand another object, she can be divorced according to Scriptural Law, as stated in Hilchot Gerushin 2:19.

Until she reaches the age of twelve and manifests signs of physical maturity, she is notable to bring about kiddushin that are binding according to Scriptural Law. (Moreover, thegirl’s father also does not have the potential to consecrate her again according to ScripturalLaw once she has been divorced, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:12.)

In this instance as well, the divorce is binding according to Scriptural Law, while theremarriage is merely a Rabbinic institution.

Since the remarriage of the minor or the deaf-mute is only a Rabbinic institution, whilethe marriage of the deceased’s other wife is based on Scriptural Law, the remarriage of theminor or the deaf-mute has no effect on the other wife’s obligation to her yavam. See Shul-chan Aruch (Even HaEzer 173:23).

If her husband engaged in marital relations with her after she attained majority orregained control of her faculties, he acquires her as a wife according to Scriptural Law.(See Hilchot Gerushin 11:6.) Therefore, there is no difference between her and anotherwoman who was married, divorced and remarried.

Since both sisters share the same status, we allow the marriage of the sister whose husband is alive to continue. There is no mandate for him to perform yibbum, for the marriage to his yevamah would still be Rabbinical in origin.

Since the marriage of the older sister is binding according to Scriptural Law, the younger sister has no obligation to the yavam.

The yibbum of the older sister is given priority over the marriage of the younger sister, because the older sister’s first marriage is binding according to Scriptural Law, and the obligation of yibbum is mandated by that authority. The marriage of the younger sister, by contrast, is binding only according to Rabbinic Law. Therefore, the younger sister is advised to perform mi’un, thus dissolving her marriage as if it had never existed. At this point, there is nothing preventing her husband from marrying her sister, his yavam. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 30.)

As long as one of the parties involved is a deaf-mute, a marriage is binding only accord-ing to Rabbinic Law. For this reason, there is no advantage for the yibbum of the deceased’swife over the existing marriage.

Since both the husband and wife are mentally competent, their marriage is bindingaccording to Scriptural Law. The deceased’s wife is, therefore, freed of all obligations.

And it is forbidden to marry the sister of a woman with whom one is obligated to perform yibbum.

For it is forbidden to marry the sister of one’s divorcee.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.

I.e., the court, the agent of the Jewish people as a whole, does not have the respon-sibility to admonish a child who violates the Torah’s laws. The child’s parents, by contrast, do and must train him in the observance of the Torah’s ways. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot17:27-28.

Since both partners are mentally competent, their marriage is binding according to Scriptural Law.

Since his marriage to the deaf-mute is only a Rabbinic institution, his obligation to the wife of his deceased brother, a requirement of Scriptural Law, takes priority. Nevertheless, since he must divorce his deaf-mute wife with a get, he may not perform yibbum, for the yevamah is the sister of his divorcee.

In contrast to the deaf-mute yavam mentioned in Halachah 18.

I.e., one might think that although the mitzvot of yibbum and chalitzah do not applywith regard to the woman forbidden as an ervah, they do apply with regard to her deceasedhusband’s other wife.
Generally, when a woman is forbidden as an ervah, her husband’s other wives are notobligated, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 14. Nevertheless, since the deaf-mute’s marriageis only a Rabbinic institution, one might think that the marriage to the woman forbidden asan ervah is not powerful enough to negate the obligation of yibbum. The Rambam’sexplanations that follow above are intended to counter this supposition.
Reuven and Shimon were brothers. Shimon was adeafmute. Rachel, Shimon’s daughter marriedReuven as did Leah, a woman with no family connection to him. Reuven died childless. Both ofhis wives are free from the obligations of yibbum and chalitzah. Diagram

I.e., any other woman permitted to his brother, but forbidden to him as an ervah. This includes the brother’s mother-in-law and his daughter-in-law, after they were widowed ordivorced from their first husbands.

If it were a fully binding marriage, the deceased’s other wife would be freed of theobligation of chalitzah as well, as mentioned in note 40. Nevertheless, yibbum is not permit-ted because the marriage is effective according to Rabbinic Law.

Note the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 176:1), which states that this law applies even ifthe deceased brother never knew which sister he consecrated, and thus it was forbidden forhim to consummate the marriage. Nevertheless, chalitzah is required.

This and the laws that follow are based on the Rambam’s conception (see Chapter 1, Halachah 2) that when possible, the mitzvah of yibbum takes precedence over the mitzvahof chalitzah. According to the Ashkenazic authorities, different laws apply.

This is a Rabbinic prohibition.

Our translation is based on the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.). If a Rabbinical opinion wassought and then ignored, the yevamim are required to divorce their wives.

Although one of them surely violated a Rabbinic prohibition, since we are unable todetermine which of them it was, they are both allowed to remain married. This follows theprinciple sefeka d’rabbanan l’kula, ‘‘When a doubt arises regarding the violation of a Rab-binic prohibition, the more lenient perspective is followed.’’

Even after the brother of one of the deceased performs chalitzah with both women, the brother of the other deceased may not perform yibbum with one of the sisters, because she is the sister of the woman with whom he is obligated to perform yibbum (or with whom he performed chalitzah).

This and the clause that follows are restatements of the principles mentioned in theprevious halachah.
Reuven and Shimon are brothers. Levi, Yehudah, and Yosef are brothers. Leah and Rachel are sisters. Shimon and Yehudah both consecrated either Rachel or Leah, but it is not known which consecrated which. Both Shimon and Yehudah died. Reuven should perform chalitzah with Leah and with Rachel, and then Levi should perform chalitzah with Rachel. Afterwards, Yosef may perform yibbum with Leah. Diagram

In most instances, if there is a doubt with regard to a Rabbinic prohibition, one may apriori perform the act in question. In this instance, it is only after the fact that yibbum ispermitted. The reason for this stringency is that chalitzah is performed in public, and whenpeople see that a woman who performed chalitzah married a priest, they may notappreciate the details of the particular instance and come to the false conclusion thatthere is no prohibition in doing so (Maggid Mishneh).

This also is basically a restatement of the principles mentioned in the first halachah.
Benyamin, Reuven and Shimon are brothers. Levi, Yehudah, and Yosef are brothers. Reuven and Yehudah both consecrated either Rachel or Leah, but it is not known which consecrated which. Both Reuven and Yehudahdied. Shimon should perform chalitzah with Leah, and then Levi shouldperform chalitzah with Rachel. Afterwards, Yosef may perform yibbum with Leah, and Benyamin with Rachel. Diagram

Although the woman may be his yevamah, she may also be the sister of the woman with whom he is obligated to perform yibbum, and whom he is therefore forbidden to marry.

For it is unknown who should perform either yibbum or chalitzah, the sons of the mother or the sons of the daughter-in-law.

See Hilchot Gerushin 11:18, which states that a woman should wait three months after her husband’s death, so that it will be possible to determine who fathered her child.
Leah had two sons, Reuven and Shimon. Shimon married Rachel, and they had two sons Yosef and Benyamin. Leah and Rachel gave birth at the same time, and it was not known who gave birth to Gad, and who gave birth to Asher. Diagram

For example, the woman remarried two months after her first husband’s death andgave birth seven months after her second marriage. Thus, it is unknown whether her childwas fathered by her first husband or her second.
Reuven was married to Rachel and they gavebirth to Shimon. Afterwards, Reuven died, andRachel married Benyamin without waiting theappropriate time. She then gave birth to Gad, and we do not know if Gad’s father wasReuven or Benyamin. Afterwards, Benyaminand Rachel gave birth to Yosef. Gad thenmarried Leah. Diagram

The law that follows applies when the woman’s husbands have each fathered only oneother son with another wife.

It is, however, forbidden for one of the sons to perform yibbum first, because it is possible that the deceased’s wife is obligated to the other brother and must perform chalitzah. Diagram

Even if only one of the husbands dies childless, his brother still must perform chalitzah and may not perform yibbum

Yibbum is prohibited because, as stated in Hilchot Gerushin 10:5, such a woman is forbidden to both her husbands and must be divorced by both of them. The chalitzah performed by the brother of the first husband is required by Scriptural Law, while the chalitzah performed by the brother of the second husband is mandated by Rabbinic decree.

I.e., each of the sons whose identity is known should marry one of the widows instead of having one marry more than one. When one son marries more than one widow, we are certain that he did not perform yibbum twice. Either — or neither — of the women he married could have been his brother’s widow, but there was only one widow, not two. Our Sages preferred having each of the sons marry one woman and thus take the chance that they were all fulfilling yibbum, rather than have one marry more than one. See Yevamot 98b.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 10.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.