In the first clause of the mishna, the legal presumption is that this widow is obligated to enter into levirate marriage, but in a majority of cases she will actually be permitted to marry a man from the general public, because it is statistically probable that her rival wife had a child. A legal presumption is not as significant as a majority, meaning that the majority carries more weight than the presumption, and she should be permitted to marry immediately. But bring the minority who miscarry into consideration, and join this to the legal presumption, and it becomes similar to an even balance of half and half. Those who miscarry detract from the strength of the majority, causing it to be equal in legal significance to the legal presumption. Therefore, the ruling is that she shall not marry any man who is not her yavam and she shall not enter into levirate marriage either.

However, in the latter clause, the legal presumption is that the widow is permitted to marry a man from the general public, since her late husband had no brothers initially. And in a majority of cases her mother-in-law will not have had another son, and therefore the widow will actually be permitted to marry a man from the general public. Consequently, the possibility that her husband has a brother, necessitating levirate marriage, is not taken into account because it is a minority of a minority, i.e., it is a minority and it contradicts the legal presumption, and even Rabbi Meir is not concerned about a minority of a minority.

§ It was taught in the mishna that in the case of a woman whose husband and rival wife went overseas and then her husband died, she shall not marry and shall not enter into levirate marriage until she knows whether her rival wife is pregnant. The Gemara asks: But must she wait indefinitely? She should be permitted to perform ḥalitza on account of the uncertainty and then marry another man.

Ze’eiri said: In order for herself [le’atzma] to be permitted to marry, she must wait three months after performing ḥalitza, since every woman must wait three months after her husband’s death before she marries again. Additionally, due to the concern for the possibility that her fellow wife may be pregnant, she must wait nine months, after which time that wife would have given birth had she been pregnant, and then she performs ḥalitza whichever way you look at it. If her rival wife gave birth in the meantime, she is permitted to marry anyone she wishes, and the ḥalitza is superfluous; if her rival wife did not give birth, necessitating levirate marriage, she is exempted by the ḥalitza. However, she may not perform ḥalitza earlier because ḥalitza performed while any wife of the deceased husband is pregnant is ineffective.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: For those concerns relating to herself she must wait three months, as explained, but for concerns related to her fellow wife’s possible pregnancy she must wait indefinitely, until it is verified whether or not that wife gave birth. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Ḥanina’s opinion: But let her perform ḥalitza whichever way you look at it, since, whatever happened, after nine months she may certainly perform ḥalitza.

Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avin both say in explanation of Rabbi Ḥanina’s opinion: It is a rabbinic decree lest there be viable offspring of that other wife. If so, her ḥalitza is superfluous, since she was exempt from both levirate marriage and ḥalitza; and then it transpires that you necessitate an announcement on her behalf stating that she is permitted to the priesthood, as a woman who has undergone ḥalitza is forbidden to a priest, but in this case it has become clear retroactively that she did not undergo ḥalitza.

The Gemara asks: And so let an announcement be necessary for her if a viable offspring is found. The Gemara answers: Perhaps there will be people who were present at the ḥalitza ceremony but were not present at the announcement that she is permitted to marry a priest, and if this woman marries a priest they will mistakenly say: They are permitting a ḥalutza to marry a priest.

The Gemara deliberates further about this: We learned in a mishna (Yevamot 118b): If a woman says: A son was born to me in a country overseas, and she also said: My son died, and then my husband died, she is deemed credible. However, if she said: My husband died and then my son died, she is not deemed credible about the sequence of events, but even so one must be concerned about her statement that her husband died childless. Consequently, she must perform ḥalitza, but she may not enter into levirate marriage.

The Gemara says: Just as there is concern about an announcement for the priesthood, let us be concerned that perhaps witnesses will eventually come and testify that the sequence of events was as she said, rendering her ḥalitza superfluous. And then it transpires that you necessitate an announcement on her behalf stating that she is permitted to the priesthood, and nevertheless the mishna instructs her to perform ḥalitza. Rav Pappa said: There it is referring only to a divorced woman, who was divorced from a previous husband, so that she is already prohibited from marrying a priest in any case. Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: It is referring to a case where she said: He and I were hiding alone with our son in a cave. Consequently, there is no concern that witnesses will come and testify about the sequence of the events.

MISHNA: If there are two sisters-in-law married to two childless brothers who testify about their marital status, and this one says: My husband died, and that one says: My husband died, although each one of them is deemed credible with regard to her own status as a widow, this one is prohibited from marrying due to the possibility that the husband of that other sister may be alive, obligating her in levirate marriage, and that one is prohibited from marrying due to the husband of this sister, according to the same rationale. Although each is accorded credibility as to her own husband’s death, the halakha is that sisters-in-law are among the five types of women not accorded credibility with regard to each other’s permissibility to marry because of possible conflicts of interest.

If this one has witnesses to her husband’s death, and that one does not have witnesses, then the one who has witnesses is prohibited from marrying, as there are no witnesses to the death of her yavam to exempt her from levirate marriage; but the one who has no witnesses is permitted to marry based on her own testimony that her husband died combined with the witnesses’ testimony exempting her from levirate marriage. If this one has children and that one has no children, then the one with children is permitted to marry, as she herself is deemed credible with regard to her husband’s death, and her children exempt her from levirate marriage. But the one without children is prohibited from marrying, as the death of her yavam has not been corroborated independently of her sister-in-law’s testimony.

If there were two additional yevamin with whom these two widows entered into levirate marriage, and then the yevamin died childless, the women are prohibited from marrying, since the concern about an additional living yavam still remains. Rabbi Elazar says: Since these women were permitted to marry the living brothers-in-law, as the testimony of each was deemed credible with regard to her own status, they are permitted, from then on, to marry any man because their statements, taken together, indicate that neither one is obligated to enter into levirate marriage.

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita: If this one has witnesses that her husband died and also has children, and the other has neither witnesses nor children, they are both permitted to marry. This is because the woman who has children is exempt from levirate marriage, and the woman who has no children may rely upon the witnesses’ testimony that her yavam died.

It was taught in the mishna: If they both entered into levirate marriage and then the yevamin they married died, they are prohibited from marrying. Rabbi Elazar says: Since they were permitted to marry the yevamin, they are permitted to any man.

Rava raised a dilemma: What is Rabbi Elazar’s reasoning? Is it because he holds in general that one rival wife may testify for another rival wife about her husband’s death, and he similarly holds that all of the five types of women who are presumed to have a conflict of interest with each other may testify for one another nonetheless? Or perhaps it is because she would not cause herself injury. Although she would be suspected of lying and saying that her husband died in order to harm her rival wife, if she herself enters into levirate marriage it can be assumed that she was telling the truth, because if she does so while her husband is actually alive, she would be committing incest with her brother-in-law. Consequently, her rival wife is also permitted to marry on the basis of her testimony.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two reasons?