משנה: מִצְוָה בַגָּדוֹל לְייַבֶּם וְאִם קָדַם הַקָּטָן זָכָה. הַנִּטְעָן עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה אוֹ עַל הַנָּכְרִית וְנִתְגַּייְרָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנוֹס וְאִם כָּנַס אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. הַנִּטְעָן עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּנַס יוֹצִיא. MISHNAH: The obligation of levirate is on the oldest [brother] but if a younger one got the start on him, he acquired. If somebody is accused in matters of a slave woman166That he has an affair with the slave. and she was manumitted, or of a Gentile and she converted, he should not marry her but if he married her one does not remove her from him. If somebody is accused in matters of a married woman and she was forcibly divorced from [her husband], even if he married her he must divorce her167An adulteress is permanently forbidden both to the husband and the adulterer (Sotah 5:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.5.1.1">Mishnah Soṭah 5:1)..
הלכה: מִצְוָה בַגָּדוֹל לְייַבֶּם וְאִם קָדַם הַקָּטָן זָכָה כול׳. מִצְוָה בַגָּדוֹל לְייַבֶּם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד. מַה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּנוֹלָד. יֹאמַר קִרְייָא יָקוּם עַל שֵׁם אָבִיו הַמֵּת. אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַנּוֹלָד בְּכוֹר. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ הָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים וּמֵתוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הוּא לֹא תִהְיֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ זְקוּקָה לְיִיבּוּם. וְיֹאמַר קִרְייָה וּבָנִים לֹא הָיוּ לוֹ. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְייָן לַנּוֹלָד תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְייָן לַמְייַבֶּם. מִצְוָה בַגָּדוֹל לְייַבֶּם. HALAKHAH: “The obligation of levirate is on the oldest [brother] but if a younger one got the start on him, he acquired, etc.” “The obligation of levirate is on the oldest,” since it is said168Deuteronomy.25.6">Deut. 25:6: “The firstborn she will bear shall rise in the name of his dead brother.” This seems to imply that the child should be called X son of Y, where Y is not the biological father but the dead first husband.
The Yevamot.24a">Babli, 24a, discusses the same verse in a different manner, based on Sifry Deut. #289., “the firstborn she will bear shall …”. How do we hold? If about the newborn, the verse should read “he should rise in the name of his dead father.169The first hand in the ms. had יקוּם על שם אחיו המת which is exactly the biblical text and therefore cannot have been meant. The corrector changed this into יקוּם על שם אחיו המת as given in the text. Ms. A reads יקוּם על שם אחיו אביו המת “shall rise on the name of his dead brother-father” and this seems to be the superior reading; cf. Yevamot 2:10:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.2.10.2">Note 168.” But it must be that the newborn is a firstborn. In that case, even if he had children and they died before he died, his widow should not be a candidate for levirate! Then the verse should have said, “he never had children164Since one of them might marry the sister of a candidate of levirate with him. But if they married without asking, one of them certainly executed a valid levirate and the other married an unrelated woman.”. But if it cannot refer to the newborn; let it refer to the levir, “the obligation of levirate is on the oldest.”
הַנִּטְעָן עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה אוֹ עַל הַנָּכְרִית וְנִתְגַּייְרָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנוֹס. קִידֵּשׁ כְּמִי שֶׁכָּנַס. אָמַר [מִדִּין] שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס וְכָנַס מוֹצִיאוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. גֵּירַשׁ מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן לֹא נִמְצֵאת מוֹצִיא לִיזָה עַל בָּנֶיהָ. הַנִּטְעָן עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. רַב אָמַר בְּנִטְעָן בְּעֵדִים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. אִם בְּנִטְעָן בְּעֵדִים בְּהָא תַנֵּי [וְהוֹצִיאָהּ] מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּנַס יוֹצִיא. וּמִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר יְקַייֵם. אִם נִטְעָן בְּעֵדִים אֲפִילוּ מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר יוֹצִיא. אֶלָּא כֵּן אֲנָן קַייָמִין בְּנִטְעָן שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים [וְהוֹצִיאָהּ] מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר יְקַייֵם. “If somebody is accused in matters of a slave woman and she was manumitted, or of a Gentile and she converted, he should not marry her but if he married her one does not remove her from him.” If he agreed lawfully not to marry her and [nevertheless] married her, she is forcibly removed from him173But without a confession of guilt by the husband, the rabbinic authority cannot interfere.. If he divorced her, may he take her back? If you would say that, would you not defame her children174If she was divorced and one would prohibit remarriage (as long as she had no other husband in between), at the same time one would declare her children from that man as bastards. This is unacceptable.? “If somebody is accused in matters of a married woman,” Rav said, that is, he was accused by witnesses175Only for adultery proven in court is the marriage with the presumed adulterer forbidden. A parallel statement in Yevamot.24b">Babli, 24b.. Rebbi Yose asked, if he was accused by witnesses, is that what was stated: If he176The husband. He may divorce her for suspected adultery and refuse to pay her anything. If she goes to court for the money, he can defend himself by circumstantial evidence permitted in civil law. divorced her, even if he177The adulterer. married her, he must divorce her? If somebody else divorced her178After her divorce, she married a party other than the presumed adulterer., he can keep her! If he was accused by witnesses, even if somebody else divorced her, he must divorce her167An adulteress is permanently forbidden both to the husband and the adulterer (Sotah 5:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.5.1.1">Mishnah Soṭah 5:1).! But that is what we deal with: If he was accused not by witnesses, if somebody else divorced her, he may keep her179Tosephta 4:5..