Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 15, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 100

Presentation in PDF format

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Meryll Page in loving memory of her father, George Levine, Yosef Michael HaLevi on his yahrzeit. 鈥淚’m grateful for his enthusiastic support of my Jewish learning. Dad was an expert in creative tzedakah. He was a mensch to emulate and a loving dad.鈥

There are ten types of people who can’t collect teruma from the granary – why? Many of them can get the teruma brought to them in their house, other than some – why? Even though women were included in that list, a braita mentions that they are places where women were permitted to collect in the granary, and in those places, the women would be given first. The Gemara explains that they must be referring to the poor man’s tithe and not teruma. They were given first so it would not be demeaning for them to wait on the line – “ladies first.” When Rava would hold court, he would take the men first, so that they could be let out first to go fulfill their obligation in mitzvot, but when hearing this law, he changed his mind and let the women be judged first. In the case of the Mishna where the kohen was mixed up with a slave, the Gemara understands that when the Mishna mentioned what would happen if they free each other, this is seen as an imperative, in order to allow them each to marry. How would they bring a mincha offering – as a kohen or as a yisrael, as the way it is brought is different (the kohen’s is burned entirely and in the yisrael’s, a kmitza is burned and the rest if given to a kohen? Two possibilities are brought. If a woman got married within three months of being married to her previous husband and gave birth to a child whose lineage is now questionable (from the first husband of the second?) what are laws of yibum for that child? If one husband was a kohen and the other a yisrael, the child must keep the stringencies of both. But regarding financial issues, or punishments we are lenient. If both father’s were kohanim, how does that change matter? Shmuel stated that if ten kohanim were together and one left the group and impregnated a woman, the offspring is a shtuki. They understand this to mean that he cannot work in the Temple as a kohen, even though it is clear he is a kohen. Why? They penalize him because of znut. A question is raised from our Mishna as they prove that the case of not waiting three months must have been after a relationship outside of marriage (znut) and the Mishna states that he can work in the Temple. In the end, the Gemara explains that one can understand the Mishna to be a case where the woman was a minor and was married off by her brother or mother and did mi’un, refusal. However, this possibility is rejected as well, as one young enough to do mi’un, would not be able to get pregnant as found in a Tosefta regarding women who are permitted to use birth control. An alternative explanation is that she was betrothed and married to the first husband but the betrothal was found to be a mistake (perhaps an unfulfilled condition).

 

讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 谞讬谞讛讜 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗住讜拽讬 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 注专诇 讜讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗讬住讬 谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 拽谞住讗 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗

as they are each an unusual creature of their own kind. With regard to a slave it is also clear, since if he is given teruma, perhaps the court will come to elevate him to the presumptive status of priestly lineage. Teruma may not be distributed to an uncircumcised man and a ritually impure man, because these situations are repulsive and it is unseemly to give them teruma in public. One may not distribute teruma to one who marries a woman unfit for him, due to a penalty that expropriates his priestly rights as long as he persists in his transgression. But for what reason is teruma not distributed to a woman?

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讬讞讜讚

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, disagree on this issue. One said that it is due to the case of an Israelite woman who was married to a priest and got divorced, thereby losing her permission to partake of teruma. Teruma is not distributed to women in public at all, lest this divorc茅e continue to receive teruma. And the other one said that it is due to the concern that the owner and the woman might be alone together in the granary.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬 讚专讬 讚诪拽专讘 诇诪转讗 讜诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚诪专讞拽 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case of a granary that is close to town but is not frequented by people. Because it is close to town, the owner of the granary would know if she was divorced. However, since there are not many people there, the concern about their being alone together remains. Alternatively, there is a practical difference in the case of a granary that is distant but is frequented by people. There, there is concern that the owner of the granary might not know if she was divorced, but the concern that they might be alone together does not exist.

讜讻讜诇谉 诪砖讙专讬谉 诇讛诐 诇讘转讬讛谉 讞讜抓 诪讟诪讗 讜谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇讜 讗讘诇 注专诇 诪砖讙专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

It is stated in the baraita under discussion: And with regard to all of them, one may send teruma to them, to their homes, with the exception of a ritually impure man and one who marries a woman unfit for him. The Gemara infers: However, to an uncircumcised man one may send it. What is the reason? How does he differ from an impure man?

诪砖讜诐 讚讗谞讬住 讟诪讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗谞讬住 讛讗讬 谞驻讬砖 讗讜谞住讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讗讜谞住讬讛

The Gemara answers: One may send him teruma. It is because of circumstances beyond his control, i.e., the death of his brothers from their circumcision, that he was not circumcised. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 an impure man also in his state due to circumstances beyond his control? Why is teruma not sent to him? The Gemara answers: This man is uncircumcised because of circumstances entirely beyond his control, as circumcision is considered life-threatening for him, whereas that impure man is not under circumstances entirely beyond his control, as one can protect himself from ritual impurity.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛注讘讚 讜讛讗砖讛 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 诇讛诐 转专讜诪讛 讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 转讞诇讛 讜驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪讬讚 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专

The Sages taught: One may not distribute teruma to a slave or a woman if they are in the granary. And in a place where people do distribute it to them, the woman is given first and released immediately. The Gemara asks: What is this saying? If one may not distribute teruma to them, how can there be a place where it is distributed?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 诪注砖专 注谞讬 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 转讞诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗

The Gemara explains that this statement is not referring to teruma. This is what it is saying: In a case where the poor man鈥檚 tithe is distributed to the poor from the owner鈥檚 house, the woman is given teruma first. What is the reason? She is given the tithe first because it is demeaning for a woman to have to wait in the company of men for a lengthy period of time.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪专讬砖讗 讻讬 讛讜讜 讗转讜 讙讘专讗 讜讗转转讗 诇讚讬谞讗 拽诪讗讬 讛讜讛 砖专讬谞讗 转讬讙专讗 讚讙讘专讗 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘诪爪讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讗 砖专讬谞讗 转讬讙专讗 讚讗转转讗 讘专讬砖讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗

Rava said: Initially, when a man and a woman would come for judgment before me, each for a different case, I would resolve the man鈥檚 quarrel first. I would say that since he is obligated in many positive mitzvot I should not waste his time by causing him to wait. However, since I heard this baraita, I resolve the woman鈥檚 quarrel first. What is the reason? I resolve her quarrel first because it is demeaning for her to be waiting in the company of men.

讛讙讚讬诇讜 讛转注专讜讘讜转 讜讻讜壮 砖讬讞专专讜 讗讬 讘注讬 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬 诇讗 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜诪砖讞专专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

搂 It is stated in the mishna: If the mixed sons matured and freed each other, they may marry women fit for the priesthood. The use of the past tense indicates that this halakha applies after the fact. If one of the sons desires to free the other, he may, but if he does not desire to do so, he is not obligated. And why not? Neither of them can marry a maidservant in case he is a priest, nor can either of them marry a free woman, as he might be a slave. They are therefore unable to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply in their current state and should be obligated to free each other. Rava said: Say that the mishna means that we coerce them and they free each other.

谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讞讜诪专讬 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪谞讞转诐 谞拽诪爪转 讻诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讻诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讛拽讜诪抓 拽专讘 讘注爪诪讜 讜讛砖讬专讬诐 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘注爪诪谉

It is stated in the mishna that we place upon them both the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated, beyond those cited specifically in the mishna? Rav Pappa said: It is stated with regard to their meal-offering: The handful is taken from it like the meal-offering of an Israelite, unlike that of a priest, which is burned in its entirety. However, the offering does not get eaten, like the meal-offering of priests. How so? How is the practice performed so that both stringencies are kept? The handful is sacrificed and burned by itself, and the remainder of the offering is offered by itself.

讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 讻诇 砖诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜

The Gemara asks: How can it be performed in this manner? There is a principle that should apply here, that whatever is partly burned in the fire on the altar is subject to the prohibition of 鈥測ou may not make鈥s an offering鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). This principle states that if part of an item, e.g., the blood of an animal offering or the handful of a meal-offering, is burned on the altar, then burning any of its other parts, which are not designated for burning, is prohibited. How, then, can the remainder of the meal-offering be sacrificed?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讚诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the remainder is brought up to the altar only for the purpose of wood, i.e., as fuel for the altar, not as an offering. In this manner, it is permitted. This answer is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: 鈥淏ut they shall not come up for a sweet savor on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 2:12). This verse indicates that you may not bring up leaven and honey as a 鈥渟weet savor,鈥 i.e., an offering. However, you may bring up leaven, and honey, and other materials for the purpose of wood.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚注讘讬讚 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛拽讜诪抓 拽专讘 诇注爪诪讜 讜讛砖讬专讬诐 诪转驻讝专讬谉 注诇 讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讚讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Elazar. However, according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar and hold that it may not be burned for the purpose of fuel, what can be said? What is to be done with the remainder? The Gemara answers that the offering is treated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is scattered over the place of the ashes. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, only with regard to a sinner鈥檚 meal-offering that belongs to priests, as it is fit to be sacrificed in its entirety. However, here, in the case of an uncertain priest, even the Rabbis agree that the remainder is scattered over the ashes, as it cannot be offered in case he is a non-priest.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖诇讗 砖讛转讛 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜谞砖讗转 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讗诐 讘谉 转砖注讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讗诐 讘谉 砖讘注讛 诇讗讞专讜谉 讛讬讜 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖谞讬 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 诇讛诐 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who did not wait three months after separating from her husband, and remarried and gave birth to a son, and it is not known if he was born after nine months of pregnancy to the former husband or if he was born after seven months to the latter husband, if she had sons of certain patrilineage from the first husband and sons of certain patrilineage from the second one, and the son of uncertain patrilineage married and died childless, then the brothers from both husbands must perform 岣litza with his wife, as they might be his paternal brothers. But they may not perform levirate marriage with her, in case he is only their maternal half brother, and his wife is forbidden to them. And similarly, with regard to him and their wives, if one of them dies childless, he performs 岣litza and not levirate marriage.

讛讬讜 诇讜 讗讞讬诐 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖谞讬 砖诇讗 诪讗讜转讛 讛讗诐 讛讜讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诪讬讬讘诐 讜讛诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐

If he had half brothers from the first husband and half brothers from the second, not from the same mother but from the same father, he performs 岣litza or levirate marriage with their widows. If he is indeed their paternal half brother, then the widows are his yevamot; if not, he may marry them like any other man. And similarly, with regard to them and his wife, one half brother from one father performs 岣litza and one from the other father performs levirate marriage.

讛讬讛 讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谉 谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 讗讻诇 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 注诇 讛讙讜专谉 讜诪讜讻专 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讛讚诪讬诐 砖诇讜

If one of his two uncertain fathers was an Israelite and one was a priest, he may marry only a woman fit to marry a priest, due to the possibility that he is a priest. And he may not become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse because he might be a priest. But if he became impure, he does not receive the forty lashes, as he might be a non-priest. Likewise, he does not partake of teruma, in case he is a non-priest. However, if he ate teruma he does not pay the principal and the additional fifth, as he might be a priest. And he does not receive teruma at the granary. However, he may sell the teruma of his own produce and the money is his. It cannot be taken away from him due to the uncertainty with regard to his status.

讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 讘拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讗转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗转 砖诇讜 诪讬讚讜 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讬讘讛 讜讘讻讜专讜 讬讛讗 专讜注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讜诪专讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讞讜诪专讬 讬砖专讗诇讬诐

And he does not receive a share of the sacred of the consecrated offerings, and one may not give him the consecrated offerings to sacrifice. However, the hides of his own offerings may not be appropriated from his possession. And he is exempt from giving a priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw of his non-consecrated animals. And the firstling of his animal should graze until it becomes unfit to be sacrificed because it gets a blemish. And in general, we place upon him the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讜谞谉 注诇讬讛诐 讜讛诐 讗讜谞谞讬诐 注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诇讛诐 讜讛诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬诐 诇讜 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖 讗讜转谉 讗讘诇 讛诐 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗讜转讜

If both uncertain fathers were priests, then if they die he is in a state of acute mourning over each of them, in case the deceased is his father. And if he dies, they are both in a state of acute mourning over him, as one of them is his father. He may not become ritually impure to bury them, as each one may not be his relative, and they may not become ritually impure to bury him for the same reason. He does not inherit from them, as the heirs of both husbands can reject his claims. However, they inherit from him if he has no sons and split his inheritance equally.

讜驻讟讜专 注诇 诪讻转讜 讜注诇 拽诇诇转讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜砖诇 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讘诪砖诪专讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜砖诇 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 讗诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪砖诪专 讗讞讚 谞讜讟诇 讞诇拽 讗讞讚

And he is exempt from capital punishment for striking and for cursing both this father and that one. Although one who strikes or curses his father or mother is liable to receive the death penalty, he cannot be held liable, as it is unknown which of the men is his father. He must ascend to the Temple service with the priestly watch of this father and of that one, as he belongs to one of these watches and is obligated to serve with them. However, he does not receive a share of the portion of the offerings that gets eaten, as the members of each watch can claim that he is a member of the other watch. If both uncertain fathers were in one priestly watch, he receives one share, as he certainly belongs to that watch.

讙诪壮 讚讜拽讗 诪讬讞诇抓 讜讛讚专 讬讘讜诪讬 讗讘诇 讬讘讜诪讬 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 驻讙注 讘讬讘诪讛 诇砖讜拽

GEMARA: The mishna stated that if the son has paternal half brothers from each of his two uncertain fathers and he dies childless, a half brother from one father performs 岣litza and the other performs levirate marriage. The Gemara comments that 岣litza is specifically performed first and only afterward levirate marriage. However, levirate marriage is not performed first, as that would breach the prohibition against a yevama engaging in intercourse with a member of the public in the event that she is not his yevama but rather the yevama of the other half brother.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注砖专讛 讻讛谞讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 讜驻讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜讘注诇 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 诪讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诪砖转拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讘讜讛 诪谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪砖转拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讚讬谉 讻讛讜谞讛

Shmuel said that if ten priests were standing in one place, and one of them, who is unidentified, left the group and engaged in intercourse with a woman, and she gave birth, the child is a silenced one, i.e., a child whose father鈥檚 identity is not known. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase silenced one [shetuki] in this regard? If we say that he is silenced from any claim to his father鈥檚 property, this is obvious; do we know who his father is? Rather, it means that he is silenced from the status of priesthood, as well. Although his father certainly is a priest, he is not given this status.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 讗讞专讬讜 讘注讬谞谉 讝专注讜 诪讬讜讞住 讗讞专讬讜 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be to him and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood鈥 (Numbers 25:13). It is derived from 鈥渁nd to his seed after him鈥 that we require a priest鈥檚 descendants to be attributed to his lineage, and here that is not the case, as there is no certain father.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 讗讘专讛诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛讬讜转 诇讱 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讜诇讝专注讱 讗讞专讬讱 讛转诐 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讝讛专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转谞住讘 讙讜讬讛 讜砖驻讞讛 讚诇讗 诇讬讝讬诇 讝专注讱 讘转专讛

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, since the same phrase is written with regard to Abraham: 鈥淭o be a God to you and to your seed after you鈥 (Genesis 17:7), what is the Merciful One warning him there? Can it possibly mean that one who cannot identify his parents is not obligated to serve God as a Jew? The Gemara answers that this is what He said to him: You may not marry a gentile woman or a maidservant, so that the status of your offspring will not follow her status, as the child of a Jewish man and a gentile woman or maidservant receives the status of his mother.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讗砖讜谉 专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讝专注讜 诪讬讜讞住 讗讞专讬讜 讜诇讬讻讗 讝专注讜 诪讬讜讞住 讗讞专讬讜 讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讜讻讬 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讘讝谞讜转 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇讗 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉

The Gemara raises an objection: A baraita (37a) teaches that if a priest performed levirate marriage with his brother鈥檚 wife within three months of his brother鈥檚 death, and she gave birth to a son who is either her deceased husband鈥檚 son or her brother-in-law鈥檚 son, this first son born after the levirate marriage is fit even to be a High Priest. But don鈥檛 we require his descendants to be attributed to his lineage, and that is not so in this case, as the father鈥檚 identity is unknown? The Gemara answers: The requirement that his descendants be attributed to his lineage is rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support, not the actual source. And when the Sages decreed that one whose father鈥檚 identity is unknown is not a priest, they did so only with regard to a case of licentious intercourse. With regard to a case of marriage, as is the case in the baraita, the Sages did not apply the decree.

讜讘讝谞讜转 诪讬 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 砖讛转讛 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜谞砖讗转 讜讬诇讚讛

The Gemara asks: And with regard to a case of licentious intercourse, did the Sages in fact issue a decree? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna about a woman who did not wait three months after separating from her husband and remarried and gave birth to a son?

诪讗讬 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讞专 诪讬转转 讘注诇讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讗讜谞谉 注诇讬讛诐 讜讛诐 讗讜谞谞讬诐 注诇讬讜 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗讜谞谉 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 讚砖谞讬 讜诇讬拽讜讟 注爪诪讜转 讚拽诪讗 讗诇讗 讛诐 讗讜谞谞讬诐 注诇讬讜 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 拽诪讗 讛讗 诪讬转 诇讬讛

What is the meaning of the phrase: After separating from her husband? If we say it means after her husband鈥檚 death, say the latter clause of the mishna: If they die, he is in a state of acute mourning over each of them, and if he dies, they are both in a state of acute mourning over him. Granted, if they die, he is in a state of acute mourning over them. You find this case with regard to his uncertain father from his mother鈥檚 marriage to the second man. If the second husband dies, the child must mourn for him, and he is also in a state of acute mourning following the gathering of the bones of the first husband, who died before he was born. When the bones of a person who was buried are dug up for proper burial in his ancestor鈥檚 plot, his relatives mourn for him a second time. But with regard to the statement that if he dies they are in a state of acute mourning for him, how can you find these circumstances? The first husband is already dead.

讜讗诇讗 讘讙专讜砖讛 讜诪讗讬 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 讗讞专 讙讟 讘注诇讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛诐 讜讛诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讜 讘砖诇诪讗 讛谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讚诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛诐 讗诪讗讬

And assume the mishna鈥檚 statement is rather with regard to a divorc茅e. And accordingly what is the meaning of the phrase: After separating from her husband? It means: After she received a bill of divorce from her husband. If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: He may not become impure to bury them, and they may not become impure to bury him. Granted, they may not become impure to bury him, as the ruling is stringent, as with regard to each one of them perhaps he is not his son. However, why may he not become impure to bury them?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖谞讬 诇讗 诇讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇专讗砖讜谉 诇讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讘专 讘转专讗 讛讜讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讬讛 讚讞诇诇 讛讜讗

Granted, for the second one he should not become impure, as he might not be his son. However, for the first he should be allowed to become impure whichever way you view it: If he is his son, it is appropriate for him to become impure to bury him, as even a priest must become ritually impure to bury his father. And if he is the son of the latter one, it is appropriate for him to become impure to bury him, as he, the son, is a 岣lal. If his mother is a divorc茅e, his father, the latter husband, is prohibited as a priest to marry her, and a child born from this relationship is a 岣lal, who is unfit for the priesthood. There would then be no prohibition against his becoming ritually impure.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讝谞讜转 讜诪讗讬 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 讗讞专 讘讜注诇讛 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注讜诇讛 讘诪砖诪专 砖诇 讝讛 讜砖诇 讝讛 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇

Rather, is the mishna鈥檚 statement not with regard to the licentious intercourse of an unmarried woman? And what is the meaning of the phrase: After she separated from her husband [ba鈥檃la]? Is it not: After separating from the man with whom she engaged in intercourse [bo鈥檃la], meaning that she engaged in intercourse with a man less than three months before marrying another man, and therefore she does not know the identity of the father? And it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna that the son ascends to the Temple service with the priestly watch of this one and of that one, which implies that he is considered a priest, although the identity of his father is uncertain due to the licentious intercourse of his mother. And this appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讗 讘诪诪讗谞转

Rav Shemaya said: The mishna鈥檚 statement pertains to a girl who refused her husband. A minor girl who was orphaned from her father may be married off by her brothers. However, she may subsequently refuse her husband before reaching majority. This nullifies the marriage entirely, so she is not considered a divorc茅e, for whom it is prohibited to marry a priest. In the case of the mishna, she did not wait three months after her refusal before marrying again, so she does not know who the father of her child is.

诪诪讗谞转 诪讬 拽讗 讬诇讚讛 讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘诪讜讱 拽讟谞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜转诪讜转 诪注讜讘专转 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讜讘专讛 住谞讚诇 诪谞讬拽讛 砖诪讗 转讙诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讛 讜讬诪讜转 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讞讜转 诪讬讻谉 讗讜 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: Can a girl who refuses her husband give birth? Didn鈥檛 Rav Beivai teach before Rav Na岣an that women in three situations may engage in intercourse with a contraceptive resorbent, despite the fact that this practice is generally prohibited: A minor girl, a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman? A minor girl may do so lest she become pregnant and die, as the fetus might endanger her life. A pregnant woman may do so lest she get pregnant a second time and her previous fetus becomes a sandal, i.e., it is squashed by the pressure of the second fetus. A nursing woman may do so lest she wean her child prematurely, as pregnancy will cause her milk to dry up, and he will die of hunger. And who is considered a minor girl in this context? A girl from the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. If she is younger than this or older than this, she should go ahead and engage in intercourse in her usual manner. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讜诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖讜诪专 驻转讗讬诐 讛壮

And the Rabbis say: Both this one and that one, i.e., women in any cases, should go ahead and engage in intercourse in their usual manner, and Heaven will have mercy and prevent them from getting pregnant, as it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord preserves the simple鈥 (Psalms 116:6). Evidently, a girl who is a minor and therefore young enough to refuse her husband cannot become pregnant without endangering her health.

诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 讟注讜转 讜讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转

The Gemara answers: You find a solution in the case of a mistaken betrothal. For example, if the first husband betrothed her conditionally and the condition was unfulfilled, the marriage is nullified. This woman may marry a priest. If she did so within three months, the identity of her child鈥檚 father is uncertain, which fits the statement in the mishna. And this is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states with regard to a sota: 鈥淣either was she [hi] coerced in the act鈥 (Numbers 5:13). It may be inferred that she is forbidden to her husband only if she was not coerced by the adulterer; if she was coerced she is permitted to him.

讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讗讬 讝讜 讝讜 砖拽讚讜砖讬讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讟注讜转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讛 诪讜专讻讘 诇讛 注诇 讻转驻讛 诪诪讗谞转 讜讛讜诇讻转 诇讛

And the superfluous word 鈥渟he鈥 indicates that you have another woman who, although she engaged in intercourse willingly and was not coerced, is nevertheless permitted to her husband, as the intercourse is not considered adultery. And who is this? This is referring to a woman whose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal, as even if her child is riding on her shoulders, she may refuse her husband and go off on her way. She is considered an unmarried woman, and she is therefore permitted to return to her husband, even if she engaged in intercourse with another man. The mishna may therefore be explained in a way that does not contradict Shmuel.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Yevamot 100: “Maybe I’m a Kohen and Maybe I’m Not!” – Uncertain Paternity

More on how people received their terumah. Specifically, the different categories of people who can eat terumah, but can't get...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 11: Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For previous...

Yevamot 100

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 100

讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 谞讬谞讛讜 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗住讜拽讬 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 注专诇 讜讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗讬住讬 谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 拽谞住讗 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗

as they are each an unusual creature of their own kind. With regard to a slave it is also clear, since if he is given teruma, perhaps the court will come to elevate him to the presumptive status of priestly lineage. Teruma may not be distributed to an uncircumcised man and a ritually impure man, because these situations are repulsive and it is unseemly to give them teruma in public. One may not distribute teruma to one who marries a woman unfit for him, due to a penalty that expropriates his priestly rights as long as he persists in his transgression. But for what reason is teruma not distributed to a woman?

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讬讞讜讚

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, disagree on this issue. One said that it is due to the case of an Israelite woman who was married to a priest and got divorced, thereby losing her permission to partake of teruma. Teruma is not distributed to women in public at all, lest this divorc茅e continue to receive teruma. And the other one said that it is due to the concern that the owner and the woman might be alone together in the granary.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬 讚专讬 讚诪拽专讘 诇诪转讗 讜诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚诪专讞拽 讜砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case of a granary that is close to town but is not frequented by people. Because it is close to town, the owner of the granary would know if she was divorced. However, since there are not many people there, the concern about their being alone together remains. Alternatively, there is a practical difference in the case of a granary that is distant but is frequented by people. There, there is concern that the owner of the granary might not know if she was divorced, but the concern that they might be alone together does not exist.

讜讻讜诇谉 诪砖讙专讬谉 诇讛诐 诇讘转讬讛谉 讞讜抓 诪讟诪讗 讜谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇讜 讗讘诇 注专诇 诪砖讙专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

It is stated in the baraita under discussion: And with regard to all of them, one may send teruma to them, to their homes, with the exception of a ritually impure man and one who marries a woman unfit for him. The Gemara infers: However, to an uncircumcised man one may send it. What is the reason? How does he differ from an impure man?

诪砖讜诐 讚讗谞讬住 讟诪讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗谞讬住 讛讗讬 谞驻讬砖 讗讜谞住讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讗讜谞住讬讛

The Gemara answers: One may send him teruma. It is because of circumstances beyond his control, i.e., the death of his brothers from their circumcision, that he was not circumcised. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 an impure man also in his state due to circumstances beyond his control? Why is teruma not sent to him? The Gemara answers: This man is uncircumcised because of circumstances entirely beyond his control, as circumcision is considered life-threatening for him, whereas that impure man is not under circumstances entirely beyond his control, as one can protect himself from ritual impurity.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛注讘讚 讜讛讗砖讛 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 诇讛诐 转专讜诪讛 讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 转讞诇讛 讜驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪讬讚 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专

The Sages taught: One may not distribute teruma to a slave or a woman if they are in the granary. And in a place where people do distribute it to them, the woman is given first and released immediately. The Gemara asks: What is this saying? If one may not distribute teruma to them, how can there be a place where it is distributed?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 诪注砖专 注谞讬 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 转讞诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗

The Gemara explains that this statement is not referring to teruma. This is what it is saying: In a case where the poor man鈥檚 tithe is distributed to the poor from the owner鈥檚 house, the woman is given teruma first. What is the reason? She is given the tithe first because it is demeaning for a woman to have to wait in the company of men for a lengthy period of time.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪专讬砖讗 讻讬 讛讜讜 讗转讜 讙讘专讗 讜讗转转讗 诇讚讬谞讗 拽诪讗讬 讛讜讛 砖专讬谞讗 转讬讙专讗 讚讙讘专讗 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘诪爪讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讗 砖专讬谞讗 转讬讙专讗 讚讗转转讗 讘专讬砖讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗

Rava said: Initially, when a man and a woman would come for judgment before me, each for a different case, I would resolve the man鈥檚 quarrel first. I would say that since he is obligated in many positive mitzvot I should not waste his time by causing him to wait. However, since I heard this baraita, I resolve the woman鈥檚 quarrel first. What is the reason? I resolve her quarrel first because it is demeaning for her to be waiting in the company of men.

讛讙讚讬诇讜 讛转注专讜讘讜转 讜讻讜壮 砖讬讞专专讜 讗讬 讘注讬 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬 诇讗 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜诪砖讞专专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

搂 It is stated in the mishna: If the mixed sons matured and freed each other, they may marry women fit for the priesthood. The use of the past tense indicates that this halakha applies after the fact. If one of the sons desires to free the other, he may, but if he does not desire to do so, he is not obligated. And why not? Neither of them can marry a maidservant in case he is a priest, nor can either of them marry a free woman, as he might be a slave. They are therefore unable to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply in their current state and should be obligated to free each other. Rava said: Say that the mishna means that we coerce them and they free each other.

谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讞讜诪专讬 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪谞讞转诐 谞拽诪爪转 讻诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讻诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讛拽讜诪抓 拽专讘 讘注爪诪讜 讜讛砖讬专讬诐 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘注爪诪谉

It is stated in the mishna that we place upon them both the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated, beyond those cited specifically in the mishna? Rav Pappa said: It is stated with regard to their meal-offering: The handful is taken from it like the meal-offering of an Israelite, unlike that of a priest, which is burned in its entirety. However, the offering does not get eaten, like the meal-offering of priests. How so? How is the practice performed so that both stringencies are kept? The handful is sacrificed and burned by itself, and the remainder of the offering is offered by itself.

讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 讻诇 砖诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜

The Gemara asks: How can it be performed in this manner? There is a principle that should apply here, that whatever is partly burned in the fire on the altar is subject to the prohibition of 鈥測ou may not make鈥s an offering鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). This principle states that if part of an item, e.g., the blood of an animal offering or the handful of a meal-offering, is burned on the altar, then burning any of its other parts, which are not designated for burning, is prohibited. How, then, can the remainder of the meal-offering be sacrificed?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讚诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the remainder is brought up to the altar only for the purpose of wood, i.e., as fuel for the altar, not as an offering. In this manner, it is permitted. This answer is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: 鈥淏ut they shall not come up for a sweet savor on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 2:12). This verse indicates that you may not bring up leaven and honey as a 鈥渟weet savor,鈥 i.e., an offering. However, you may bring up leaven, and honey, and other materials for the purpose of wood.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚注讘讬讚 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛拽讜诪抓 拽专讘 诇注爪诪讜 讜讛砖讬专讬诐 诪转驻讝专讬谉 注诇 讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讚讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Elazar. However, according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar and hold that it may not be burned for the purpose of fuel, what can be said? What is to be done with the remainder? The Gemara answers that the offering is treated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is scattered over the place of the ashes. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, only with regard to a sinner鈥檚 meal-offering that belongs to priests, as it is fit to be sacrificed in its entirety. However, here, in the case of an uncertain priest, even the Rabbis agree that the remainder is scattered over the ashes, as it cannot be offered in case he is a non-priest.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖诇讗 砖讛转讛 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜谞砖讗转 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讗诐 讘谉 转砖注讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讗诐 讘谉 砖讘注讛 诇讗讞专讜谉 讛讬讜 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖谞讬 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 诇讛诐 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who did not wait three months after separating from her husband, and remarried and gave birth to a son, and it is not known if he was born after nine months of pregnancy to the former husband or if he was born after seven months to the latter husband, if she had sons of certain patrilineage from the first husband and sons of certain patrilineage from the second one, and the son of uncertain patrilineage married and died childless, then the brothers from both husbands must perform 岣litza with his wife, as they might be his paternal brothers. But they may not perform levirate marriage with her, in case he is only their maternal half brother, and his wife is forbidden to them. And similarly, with regard to him and their wives, if one of them dies childless, he performs 岣litza and not levirate marriage.

讛讬讜 诇讜 讗讞讬诐 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖谞讬 砖诇讗 诪讗讜转讛 讛讗诐 讛讜讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诪讬讬讘诐 讜讛诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐

If he had half brothers from the first husband and half brothers from the second, not from the same mother but from the same father, he performs 岣litza or levirate marriage with their widows. If he is indeed their paternal half brother, then the widows are his yevamot; if not, he may marry them like any other man. And similarly, with regard to them and his wife, one half brother from one father performs 岣litza and one from the other father performs levirate marriage.

讛讬讛 讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谉 谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 讗讻诇 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 注诇 讛讙讜专谉 讜诪讜讻专 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讛讚诪讬诐 砖诇讜

If one of his two uncertain fathers was an Israelite and one was a priest, he may marry only a woman fit to marry a priest, due to the possibility that he is a priest. And he may not become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse because he might be a priest. But if he became impure, he does not receive the forty lashes, as he might be a non-priest. Likewise, he does not partake of teruma, in case he is a non-priest. However, if he ate teruma he does not pay the principal and the additional fifth, as he might be a priest. And he does not receive teruma at the granary. However, he may sell the teruma of his own produce and the money is his. It cannot be taken away from him due to the uncertainty with regard to his status.

讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 讘拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讗转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗转 砖诇讜 诪讬讚讜 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讬讘讛 讜讘讻讜专讜 讬讛讗 专讜注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讜诪专讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讞讜诪专讬 讬砖专讗诇讬诐

And he does not receive a share of the sacred of the consecrated offerings, and one may not give him the consecrated offerings to sacrifice. However, the hides of his own offerings may not be appropriated from his possession. And he is exempt from giving a priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw of his non-consecrated animals. And the firstling of his animal should graze until it becomes unfit to be sacrificed because it gets a blemish. And in general, we place upon him the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讜谞谉 注诇讬讛诐 讜讛诐 讗讜谞谞讬诐 注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诇讛诐 讜讛诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬诐 诇讜 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖 讗讜转谉 讗讘诇 讛诐 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗讜转讜

If both uncertain fathers were priests, then if they die he is in a state of acute mourning over each of them, in case the deceased is his father. And if he dies, they are both in a state of acute mourning over him, as one of them is his father. He may not become ritually impure to bury them, as each one may not be his relative, and they may not become ritually impure to bury him for the same reason. He does not inherit from them, as the heirs of both husbands can reject his claims. However, they inherit from him if he has no sons and split his inheritance equally.

讜驻讟讜专 注诇 诪讻转讜 讜注诇 拽诇诇转讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜砖诇 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讘诪砖诪专讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜砖诇 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 讗诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪砖诪专 讗讞讚 谞讜讟诇 讞诇拽 讗讞讚

And he is exempt from capital punishment for striking and for cursing both this father and that one. Although one who strikes or curses his father or mother is liable to receive the death penalty, he cannot be held liable, as it is unknown which of the men is his father. He must ascend to the Temple service with the priestly watch of this father and of that one, as he belongs to one of these watches and is obligated to serve with them. However, he does not receive a share of the portion of the offerings that gets eaten, as the members of each watch can claim that he is a member of the other watch. If both uncertain fathers were in one priestly watch, he receives one share, as he certainly belongs to that watch.

讙诪壮 讚讜拽讗 诪讬讞诇抓 讜讛讚专 讬讘讜诪讬 讗讘诇 讬讘讜诪讬 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 驻讙注 讘讬讘诪讛 诇砖讜拽

GEMARA: The mishna stated that if the son has paternal half brothers from each of his two uncertain fathers and he dies childless, a half brother from one father performs 岣litza and the other performs levirate marriage. The Gemara comments that 岣litza is specifically performed first and only afterward levirate marriage. However, levirate marriage is not performed first, as that would breach the prohibition against a yevama engaging in intercourse with a member of the public in the event that she is not his yevama but rather the yevama of the other half brother.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注砖专讛 讻讛谞讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 讜驻讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜讘注诇 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 诪讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诪砖转拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讘讜讛 诪谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪砖转拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讚讬谉 讻讛讜谞讛

Shmuel said that if ten priests were standing in one place, and one of them, who is unidentified, left the group and engaged in intercourse with a woman, and she gave birth, the child is a silenced one, i.e., a child whose father鈥檚 identity is not known. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase silenced one [shetuki] in this regard? If we say that he is silenced from any claim to his father鈥檚 property, this is obvious; do we know who his father is? Rather, it means that he is silenced from the status of priesthood, as well. Although his father certainly is a priest, he is not given this status.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 讗讞专讬讜 讘注讬谞谉 讝专注讜 诪讬讜讞住 讗讞专讬讜 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be to him and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood鈥 (Numbers 25:13). It is derived from 鈥渁nd to his seed after him鈥 that we require a priest鈥檚 descendants to be attributed to his lineage, and here that is not the case, as there is no certain father.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 讗讘专讛诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛讬讜转 诇讱 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讜诇讝专注讱 讗讞专讬讱 讛转诐 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讝讛专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转谞住讘 讙讜讬讛 讜砖驻讞讛 讚诇讗 诇讬讝讬诇 讝专注讱 讘转专讛

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, since the same phrase is written with regard to Abraham: 鈥淭o be a God to you and to your seed after you鈥 (Genesis 17:7), what is the Merciful One warning him there? Can it possibly mean that one who cannot identify his parents is not obligated to serve God as a Jew? The Gemara answers that this is what He said to him: You may not marry a gentile woman or a maidservant, so that the status of your offspring will not follow her status, as the child of a Jewish man and a gentile woman or maidservant receives the status of his mother.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讗砖讜谉 专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讝专注讜 诪讬讜讞住 讗讞专讬讜 讜诇讬讻讗 讝专注讜 诪讬讜讞住 讗讞专讬讜 讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讜讻讬 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讘讝谞讜转 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇讗 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉

The Gemara raises an objection: A baraita (37a) teaches that if a priest performed levirate marriage with his brother鈥檚 wife within three months of his brother鈥檚 death, and she gave birth to a son who is either her deceased husband鈥檚 son or her brother-in-law鈥檚 son, this first son born after the levirate marriage is fit even to be a High Priest. But don鈥檛 we require his descendants to be attributed to his lineage, and that is not so in this case, as the father鈥檚 identity is unknown? The Gemara answers: The requirement that his descendants be attributed to his lineage is rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support, not the actual source. And when the Sages decreed that one whose father鈥檚 identity is unknown is not a priest, they did so only with regard to a case of licentious intercourse. With regard to a case of marriage, as is the case in the baraita, the Sages did not apply the decree.

讜讘讝谞讜转 诪讬 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 砖讛转讛 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜谞砖讗转 讜讬诇讚讛

The Gemara asks: And with regard to a case of licentious intercourse, did the Sages in fact issue a decree? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna about a woman who did not wait three months after separating from her husband and remarried and gave birth to a son?

诪讗讬 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讞专 诪讬转转 讘注诇讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讗讜谞谉 注诇讬讛诐 讜讛诐 讗讜谞谞讬诐 注诇讬讜 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗讜谞谉 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 讚砖谞讬 讜诇讬拽讜讟 注爪诪讜转 讚拽诪讗 讗诇讗 讛诐 讗讜谞谞讬诐 注诇讬讜 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 拽诪讗 讛讗 诪讬转 诇讬讛

What is the meaning of the phrase: After separating from her husband? If we say it means after her husband鈥檚 death, say the latter clause of the mishna: If they die, he is in a state of acute mourning over each of them, and if he dies, they are both in a state of acute mourning over him. Granted, if they die, he is in a state of acute mourning over them. You find this case with regard to his uncertain father from his mother鈥檚 marriage to the second man. If the second husband dies, the child must mourn for him, and he is also in a state of acute mourning following the gathering of the bones of the first husband, who died before he was born. When the bones of a person who was buried are dug up for proper burial in his ancestor鈥檚 plot, his relatives mourn for him a second time. But with regard to the statement that if he dies they are in a state of acute mourning for him, how can you find these circumstances? The first husband is already dead.

讜讗诇讗 讘讙专讜砖讛 讜诪讗讬 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 讗讞专 讙讟 讘注诇讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛诐 讜讛诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讜 讘砖诇诪讗 讛谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讚诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛诐 讗诪讗讬

And assume the mishna鈥檚 statement is rather with regard to a divorc茅e. And accordingly what is the meaning of the phrase: After separating from her husband? It means: After she received a bill of divorce from her husband. If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: He may not become impure to bury them, and they may not become impure to bury him. Granted, they may not become impure to bury him, as the ruling is stringent, as with regard to each one of them perhaps he is not his son. However, why may he not become impure to bury them?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖谞讬 诇讗 诇讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇专讗砖讜谉 诇讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讘专 讘转专讗 讛讜讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讬讛 讚讞诇诇 讛讜讗

Granted, for the second one he should not become impure, as he might not be his son. However, for the first he should be allowed to become impure whichever way you view it: If he is his son, it is appropriate for him to become impure to bury him, as even a priest must become ritually impure to bury his father. And if he is the son of the latter one, it is appropriate for him to become impure to bury him, as he, the son, is a 岣lal. If his mother is a divorc茅e, his father, the latter husband, is prohibited as a priest to marry her, and a child born from this relationship is a 岣lal, who is unfit for the priesthood. There would then be no prohibition against his becoming ritually impure.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讝谞讜转 讜诪讗讬 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 讗讞专 讘讜注诇讛 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注讜诇讛 讘诪砖诪专 砖诇 讝讛 讜砖诇 讝讛 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇

Rather, is the mishna鈥檚 statement not with regard to the licentious intercourse of an unmarried woman? And what is the meaning of the phrase: After she separated from her husband [ba鈥檃la]? Is it not: After separating from the man with whom she engaged in intercourse [bo鈥檃la], meaning that she engaged in intercourse with a man less than three months before marrying another man, and therefore she does not know the identity of the father? And it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna that the son ascends to the Temple service with the priestly watch of this one and of that one, which implies that he is considered a priest, although the identity of his father is uncertain due to the licentious intercourse of his mother. And this appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讗 讘诪诪讗谞转

Rav Shemaya said: The mishna鈥檚 statement pertains to a girl who refused her husband. A minor girl who was orphaned from her father may be married off by her brothers. However, she may subsequently refuse her husband before reaching majority. This nullifies the marriage entirely, so she is not considered a divorc茅e, for whom it is prohibited to marry a priest. In the case of the mishna, she did not wait three months after her refusal before marrying again, so she does not know who the father of her child is.

诪诪讗谞转 诪讬 拽讗 讬诇讚讛 讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘诪讜讱 拽讟谞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜转诪讜转 诪注讜讘专转 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讜讘专讛 住谞讚诇 诪谞讬拽讛 砖诪讗 转讙诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讛 讜讬诪讜转 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讞讜转 诪讬讻谉 讗讜 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: Can a girl who refuses her husband give birth? Didn鈥檛 Rav Beivai teach before Rav Na岣an that women in three situations may engage in intercourse with a contraceptive resorbent, despite the fact that this practice is generally prohibited: A minor girl, a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman? A minor girl may do so lest she become pregnant and die, as the fetus might endanger her life. A pregnant woman may do so lest she get pregnant a second time and her previous fetus becomes a sandal, i.e., it is squashed by the pressure of the second fetus. A nursing woman may do so lest she wean her child prematurely, as pregnancy will cause her milk to dry up, and he will die of hunger. And who is considered a minor girl in this context? A girl from the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. If she is younger than this or older than this, she should go ahead and engage in intercourse in her usual manner. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讜诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖讜诪专 驻转讗讬诐 讛壮

And the Rabbis say: Both this one and that one, i.e., women in any cases, should go ahead and engage in intercourse in their usual manner, and Heaven will have mercy and prevent them from getting pregnant, as it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord preserves the simple鈥 (Psalms 116:6). Evidently, a girl who is a minor and therefore young enough to refuse her husband cannot become pregnant without endangering her health.

诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 讟注讜转 讜讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转

The Gemara answers: You find a solution in the case of a mistaken betrothal. For example, if the first husband betrothed her conditionally and the condition was unfulfilled, the marriage is nullified. This woman may marry a priest. If she did so within three months, the identity of her child鈥檚 father is uncertain, which fits the statement in the mishna. And this is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states with regard to a sota: 鈥淣either was she [hi] coerced in the act鈥 (Numbers 5:13). It may be inferred that she is forbidden to her husband only if she was not coerced by the adulterer; if she was coerced she is permitted to him.

讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讗讬 讝讜 讝讜 砖拽讚讜砖讬讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讟注讜转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讛 诪讜专讻讘 诇讛 注诇 讻转驻讛 诪诪讗谞转 讜讛讜诇讻转 诇讛

And the superfluous word 鈥渟he鈥 indicates that you have another woman who, although she engaged in intercourse willingly and was not coerced, is nevertheless permitted to her husband, as the intercourse is not considered adultery. And who is this? This is referring to a woman whose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal, as even if her child is riding on her shoulders, she may refuse her husband and go off on her way. She is considered an unmarried woman, and she is therefore permitted to return to her husband, even if she engaged in intercourse with another man. The mishna may therefore be explained in a way that does not contradict Shmuel.

Scroll To Top