Source: http://halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_35.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:19:07+00:00

Document:
That three months must be allowed to pass.
Though she is not capable of conception.
A proselyte and an emancipated slave who were minors are, however, exempt. because, being cases of rare occurrence, no preventive measure is required.
The ordinance in our Mishnah.
[H] lit., 'a ruling of the hour'.
But our Mishnah, 'IF THEY WERE MINORS etc. Obviously speaks of a contingency and not of a fact.
And no preventive measure is. therefore, necessary.
Before they are allowed to marry again.
That in such circumstances she need not wait three months.
To avoid conception and the mingling of legitimate with illegitimate children.
In the original the noun is in the sing.
Cf. supra note 1; and has always some absorbent in readiness.
Cf. supra notes 1 and 5.
V. Ex. XXI, 26, where the liberation of the slave comes suddenly. and no previous care would have been exercised by her.
Lit., 'of itself', when the woman was not likely to have been prepared with an absorbent.
That a waiting period of three months must be allowed.
Which shews that even when the unexpected happens R. Jose requires no waiting period!
The reading in Keth. 372 is 'Rabbah'. Others, 'Raba' (v. Alfasi).
Keth. loc. cit. No absorbent is needed. Similarly in the case of a liberated captive or slave. Hence no waiting period is required.
Why then does he require a waiting period?
And conception might have taken place. V. Keth. loc. cit.
The wife of a priest. Surely she also is forbidden to her husband!
Are forbidden to marry priests.
Lit., 'and lit up our eyes'.
I.e., the Mishnah infra 53b which was under discussion.
A priest's daughter who on the death of her husband returns to her father's house and is permitted again to eat terumah. V. Lev. XXII, 12-13.
Infra 56af. She may not marry a priest even after the death of her husband.
PRIESTHOOD in our Mishnah referring to the right of eating terumah on their return to their parents' home in their widowhood (v. Lev. XXII, 13). V. supra n. 8, and the reading of cur. edd. supra p. 211, n. 8.
MISHNAH. IF A LEVIR PARTICIPATED IN HALIZAH WITH HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE1 WHO WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND TO BE PREGNANT, AND SHE GAVE BIRTH, HE IS, WHEREVER THE CHILD IS VIABLE,2 PERMITTED TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES,3 AND HE DOES NOT RENDER HER UNFIT FOR THE PRIESTHOOD;4 BUT WHEREVER THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE,5 THE LEVIR IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES, AND HE RENDERS HER UNFIT TO MARRY A PRIEST.
GEMARA. It was stated: In the case of a levir who participated In halizah with a pregnant woman who subsequently miscarried, R. Johanan said, She need not perform the halizah with the brothers; and Resh Lakish said: She must perform halizah with the brothers. 'R. Johanan said, She need not perform halizah with the brothers', because the halizah of a pregnant woman11 is deemed to be proper halizah and marital contact with a pregnant woman is deemed to be proper marriage.12 'Resh Lakish said: She must perform halizah with the brothers', because the halizah with a pregnant woman is not deemed to be a proper halizah, nor is marital contact with a pregnant woman deemed to be a proper marriage. On what principle do they13 differ? — If you wish I might say: In the interpretation of a Scriptural text. And if you prefer I might say: On a logical point. 'If you wish I might say: In the interpretation of a Scriptural text';14 R. Johanan is of the opinion that the All Merciful said, And have no child,15 and this man16 surely has none; while Resh Lakish is of the opinion that And have no [en lo] child17 implies. 'Hold an inquiry18 concerning him'.19 'And If you prefer I might say: On a logical point'; R. Johanan argues: Had Elijah20 appeared and announced that the woman would miscarry. would she not have been subject to halizah or levirate marriage?21 Now also22 the fact is established retrospectively. And Resh Lakish maintains that a fact cannot be said to have been established retrospectively.
Others say: Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: IF THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE HE MAY RETAIN HER. This is quite correct according to my view; since I maintain that the halizah of a pregnant woman is not a valid halizah and marital contact with a pregnant woman is not a valid marriage, it was rightly stated HE MAY RETAIN HER, [meaning that] he must repeat contact and then HE MAY RETAIN HER, since otherwise this37 would not have been permitted.38 According to you,39 however, it should have been stated, 'If he wishes he may divorce her and if he prefers he may continue to live with her'! — It should have been indeed;40 only because in the earlier clause it was stated HE MUST DIVORCE HER, it was also stated in the latter clause HE MAY RETAIN HER.
Whose husband died without issue.
Although the child died soon after.
Since a viable child was born the halizah is rendered void.
She, unlike any other haluzah, may marry a priest. V. n. 3 supra.
I.e., if it was of a premature birth.
Prior to the levirate marriage.
Since the levirate marriage should not take place where the deceased brother has had any issue.
A sin-offering for their unwitting transgression in contracting a forbidden marriage (one's brother's wife) where the precept of the levirate marriage did not apply. V. supra n. 7.
Since in either case he has been born from a lawful union: If he is a nine-months child he is the legitimate offspring of the deceased brother; and if he is a seven-months child of the surviving brother, the deceased had died without issue and the marriage between the widow and the surviving brother was accordingly lawful.
The offering prescribed for doubtful trespass. V. Lev. V, 17ff and cf. Ker. 17b.
The miscarriage proved that the previous halizah or marriage were lawful.
R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.
V. BaH a.l. Cur. edd. reverse the order.
The deceased whose widow has now miscarried.
[H] 'consider', 'investigate'. The 'Ayin ([H]) of [H] is interchanged with the Aleph ([H]) of [H].
Inquire whether the deceased has been survived by any kind of child. Even a miscarriage is deemed to be a child. Cf. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 474. nn. 6ff.
The prophet, who could predict the future.
That she has actually miscarried, though after the halizah or levirate marriage.
The prohibition for the woman to marry a priest.
One not knowing the circumstances of this particular case would erroneously assume that any other haluzah may also be married to a priest.
V. supra n. 2. Had not this been specifically stated it might have been assumed that, as the halizah is invalid, she is not rendered unfit at all.
Who regard the halizah as valid.
And the prohibition to marry each other's relatives and his rendering her unfit for a priest would be inferred as self-evident.
The ruling concerning halizah not being applicable in this context, since a viable child was born.
So in old editions. Cur. edd. omit 'also'.
Thus, as in the first clause, omitting all reference to halizah.
Emphasis on MAY. No second contact is necessary after the miscarriage, (since the first was valid) and the levir may also, if he wishes, divorce her.
Lit., 'it is not enough without such'. V. Emden, a.l. Cur. edd. omit the last two words.
The option of either retaining or divorcing her.
Who deem the marriage to be valid.
And free to marry. since her deceased husband is now survived by a living child, and neither she nor the other widow is subject to halizah or levirate marriage.
So that his mother as well as her rival would be subject to the levir, the former's previous marital contact, during her pregnancy. being invalid.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 

V. 

V. 
 V.