Rambam - 1 Chapter 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.