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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 21, 2015 | 讗壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讛

  • 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".

  • 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)

Yevamot 109

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 讜讻谉 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讛讬转讜诪讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讜转专转 诇讬讘诐 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 拽讟谞讛 砖讛砖讬讗讛 讗讘讬讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 讻讬转讜诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐

but Rabbi Elazar prohibits this. Likewise, with regard to one who divorces an orphaned minor girl whose mother and brothers married her off and remarries her and subsequently dies, she is permitted to the yavam in levirate marriage, and Rabbi Elazar prohibits it. A minor girl whose father married her off, in which case the marriage is valid by Torah law, and who was subsequently divorced while she was still a minor is like an orphan during the lifetime of her father, as he no longer has the right to marry her off, and she cannot become fully married because she is a minor. And if the husband remarries her while she is still a minor and then dies childless, everyone agrees that she is forbidden to the yavam and may not enter into levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讬驻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇注讬驻讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讞诇讬爪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬

GEMARA: The Sage Eifa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar, who prohibits a man from entering into levirate marriage with a woman whom his brother had divorced and remarried? It is because she was forbidden to him at one time; when the first brother divorced her, she became forbidden to the second brother due to her status as the first brother鈥檚 ex-wife. A husband鈥檚 relatives are forbidden to the wife even after death or divorce. However, the mitzva of levirate marriage grants a special exemption from the prohibition against marrying one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife. In this case, if the first brother had died while they were still divorced, the mitzva of levirate marriage would not have applied, and she would have been forbidden to him. The Sages said to Eifa: If that is so, she should also not require 岣litza, since she is a forbidden relative.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 注讬驻讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

And if you would say: Indeed, Rabbi Elazar also exempts her from 岣litza, isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: It was said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that she performs 岣litza? Rather, Eifa said: I do not know the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讗讬 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬诐 讗讬 诪讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讛讗 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 讗讬 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬诐 讛讗 注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专

Abaye said: This is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar: He is uncertain whether the death of the husband determines that she is a candidate for levirate marriage, or whether the original marriage determines it. In other words, he is uncertain as to whether the obligation to perform levirate marriage is established only at the death of one鈥檚 brother or already from the beginning of the brother鈥檚 marriage. If death determines that she is a candidate for levirate marriage, then she has happened before him for levirate marriage, as she is the wife of his childless brother who died. If the original marriage determines that she is a candidate for levirate marriage, then she was forbidden to him for a time as his brother鈥檚 ex-wife and is consequently exempt from levirate marriage. According to Rabbi Elazar, it is due to this uncertainty that the brother may not enter into levirate marriage yet must perform 岣litza.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诪讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讜诪讬讛讜 讛讻诇 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讞讝专讛

Rava said: Actually, it is obvious to Rabbi Elazar that death determines that she is a candidate for levirate marriage. However, everyone is well informed with regard to divorces. Everyone knows that the woman was divorced, while not everyone is well informed with regard to remarriage, and they do not necessarily know that she remarried him. Therefore, there is concern that people will mistakenly think that one entered into levirate marriage with his brother鈥檚 ex-wife.

讗讚专讘讛 讞讝专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讬转讘讗 转讜转讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讛讚专讛 讘讗讜专转讗 讜砖讻讬讘 讘爪驻专讗

The Gemara argues against this point: On the contrary, her return to her former husband, since she is living with him, generates publicity, so that it is known that they are remarried. The Gemara answers: Are we not dealing even with a case in which he remarried her in the evening and died in the morning? In this instance and others like it, not everyone would know that he remarried her, and they will think that the brother took his deceased brother鈥檚 ex-wife in levirate marriage. In order to avoid such situations, Rabbi Elazar decreed that she is always forbidden.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讙讝专 讛谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讬转讜诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 拽讟谞讛 砖讛砖讬讗讛 讗讘讬讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 讻讬转讜诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐

Rav Ashi said: This is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar: He decreed to prohibit levirate marriage with these, i.e., women who were divorced and remarried, due to the case of a girl who is considered an orphan in the lifetime of her father, who was divorced by her husband and he subsequently remarried her. If a minor girl was married off by her father and was subsequently divorced, she is no longer subject to her father with regard to marriage and divorce, but because she is a minor, any marriage she enters into is by rabbinic rather than by Torah law. The Gemara comments: So too, this is reasonable based on what was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: A minor girl whose father married her off and who was subsequently divorced while she was still a minor, is like an orphan during her father鈥檚 lifetime. And if the husband remarries her while she is still a minor and then dies, everyone agrees that she is forbidden to the yavam and may not enter into levirate marriage.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讙讝专 讛谞讱 诪砖讜诐 讛讗讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

What is the purpose of stating this halakha? It is obvious. Rather, is it not teaching us Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reason for decreeing that these women who were divorced and remarried are forbidden due to that woman, the girl who is considered an orphan in the lifetime of her father? The Gemara concludes: Learn from here that this is his reason.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘拽讟谞讛 砖讛砖讬讗讛 讗讘讬讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讬转讜诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讙讬专讜砖讬讛 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讙诪讜专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讝专转讛 讞讝专讛 讙诪讜专讛

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Elazar concerning a minor girl whose father married her off and who was divorced, that she is like an orphan in the lifetime of her father, and that if her husband remarried her, she is forbidden to the yavam, because her divorce was a full-fledged divorce by Torah law while her remarriage was not a full-fledged remarriage, as she was still a minor. This implies that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 ruling is prompted by the case of a girl who is like an orphan in her father鈥檚 lifetime and that this was the reason for his decree.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讙讬专砖讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讗讘诇 讙讬专砖讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛讞讝讬专讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讜讙讚诇讛 讗爪诇讜 讜诪转 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讜 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? In a case where he divorced her while she was a minor and he remarried her while she was still a minor. But if he divorced her while she was a minor and remarried her when she was already an adult, or if he remarried her while she was a minor and she matured to legal adulthood while with him, and he subsequently died, she may either perform 岣litza or enter into levirate marriage. It was said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: She must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, since he decreed that all remarried women may not enter into levirate marriage due to the case of one who is like an orphan in her father鈥檚 lifetime.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 爪专转讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讬讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛

Rava asked Rav Na岣an: What is the halakha with regard to the rival wife of a girl whose husband remarried her, according to Rabbi Elazar? Is the girl regarded as a forbidden relative to the extent that even her rival wife may not enter into levirate marriage? He said to him: She herself is forbidden due to a rabbinic decree, as explained already. And will we then proceed to issue a decree to prevent violation of a decree? Accordingly, her rival wife is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讜 讛讬讗 讜爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讛讬讗 讜爪专转讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗讜 讛讬讗 讗讜 爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 拽诪转专爪转 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讛讬讗 讞讜诇爪转 爪专转讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The Gemara challenges: Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: It was said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Both she and her rival wife must perform 岣litza? The Gemara asks: Would it enter your mind to say: She and her rival wife? Why should two women from the same household perform 岣litza? 岣litza performed by one of them exempts the other. Rather, should it not say: Either she or her rival wife must perform 岣litza, but even the rival wife may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara responds: Are you not emending the mishna? If so, emend it as follows: She can only perform 岣litza; her rival wife may either perform 岣litza or enter into levirate marriage.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 拽讟谞讜转 讜诪转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讛诇讝讜 转爪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讞专砖讜转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诪转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 拽讟谞讛 转爪讗 讛拽讟谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

MISHNA: If two brothers are married to two minor sisters, and the husband of one of them dies childless, this widowed girl shall be exempt from levirate marriage due to her status as a forbidden relative, as one is prohibited from marrying the sister of his wife. The same halakha applies to two deaf-mute women, whose status is like that of two minors in this matter, as their marriages are valid by rabbinic law. And if two brothers were married to two sisters, one of them an adult and the other a minor, and the husband of the minor dies, the minor shall leave due to her status as the sister of a wife, as in the first case in the mishna.

诪转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜

But if the husband of the adult dies, it generates a Torah obligation of levirate marriage, which is not abrogated by the rabbinic prohibition proscribing the yevama as his wife鈥檚 sister. This prohibition is by rabbinic law, because marriage to a minor is rabbinic in origin. What does one do under such circumstances? Rabbi Eliezer says: We instruct the minor, i.e., his wife, to refuse him, so that her marriage is dissolved and he may then enter into levirate marriage with her adult sister, the widow of his childless brother.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讬讗谞讛 诪讬讗谞讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转爪讗 讛诇讝讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

Rabban Gamliel says: If the minor refuses of her own accord, her refusal is valid. And if not, she should wait until she reaches majority, whereupon her marriage is valid by Torah law, and that widowed adult sister shall be exempt from levirate marriage due to her status as the sister of a wife.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬 诇讜 注诇 讗砖转讜 讗讬 诇讜 注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘讙讟 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讘讞诇讬爪讛

Rabbi Yehoshua says: When the brother married to the adult sister dies, leaving the brother married to the minor, woe [ee] to him for his wife, woe to him for his brother鈥檚 wife. Under these circumstances, he loses both women: He must release his own wife with a bill of divorce and his brother鈥檚 wife by performing 岣litza. He cannot stay married to his wife because she is the sister of his yevama, and he cannot enter into levirate marriage with the yevama even after divorcing his wife, because the yevama is his wife鈥檚 sister. The principle that one is completely absolved from levirate marriage when the potential yevama is a forbidden relative does not apply because Torah law does not recognize his marriage to his minor wife. That marriage鈥檚 rabbinic sanction does not suffice to render the yevama, his wife鈥檚 sister, a forbidden relative who is not a candidate for levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 讜诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬讚讘拽 讗讚诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讬转专讞拽 诪砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讬讚讘拽 讘砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讜讘讛讘讗转 砖诇讜诐 讜讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讜讬转专讞拽 诪砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讬讗讜谉 讜诪谉 讛驻拽讚讜谞讜转 讜诪谉 讛注专讘讜谞讜转 诪讬讗讜谉 讚诪爪讜讛 砖讗谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires about Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 suggestion to instruct the minor to refuse: Is it permitted to instruct her to refuse? Doesn鈥檛 bar Kappara teach: A person should always cling to three things and distance himself from three things. He should cling to three things: To 岣litza rather than levirate marriage, to bringing about peace, and to the nullification of vows. And he should distance himself from three things: From refusal; and from accepting deposits, as he is then responsible for them; and from serving as a guarantor. The Gemara answers: A refusal for a mitzva is different, as this refusal is performed to allow the mitzva of levirate marriage to be fulfilled with the other sister.

讙讜驻讗 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬讚讘拽 讗讚诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讬讘诪转讜 诇砖诐 谞讜讬 诇砖诐 讗讬砖讜转 诇砖诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讻讗讬诇讜 驻讜讙注 讘注专讜讛 讜拽专讜讘 讘注讬谞讬 诇讛讬讜转 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

搂 The Gemara explains the details of the matter itself. Bar Kappara taught: A person should always cling to three things: To 岣litza; this is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul said: One who marries his yevama for her beauty, or for the sake of matrimony because he wants to be married to her, or for some other reason, such as her money, it is as if he is having intercourse with a woman forbidden to him, and in my eyes it is almost as if his offspring were a mamzer. Therefore, it is preferable that one performs 岣litza and avoids sin.

讘讛讘讗转 砖诇讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘拽砖 砖诇讜诐 讜专讚驻讛讜

One should cling to bringing about peace, as it is written 鈥淪eek peace and pursue it鈥 (Psalms 34:15).

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗转讬讗 专讚讬驻讛 专讚讬驻讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讘拽砖 砖诇讜诐 讜专讚驻讛讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 专讜讚祝 爪讚拽讛 讜讞住讚 讬诪爪讗 讞讬讬诐 爪讚拽讛 讜讻讘讜讚 讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜讚专 讻讗讬诇讜 讘谞讛 讘诪讛 讜讛诪拽讬讬诪讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛拽专讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉

And Rabbi Abbahu said: It is derived by verbal analogy from the terms pursuit and pursuit. It is written here: 鈥淪eek peace and pursue it鈥 (Psalms 34:15) and it is written there: 鈥淗e who pursues righteousness and mercy finds life, prosperity, and honor鈥 (Proverbs 21:21), indicating that pursuing peace is a mitzva, just as pursuing righteousness and mercy is. As for the nullification of vows, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: With regard to one who vows, it is as if he built a personal altar when it is prohibited to build an altar outside the Temple. And one who fulfills that vow, it is as if he sacrificed an offering on this personal altar, thereby doubling his sin. Therefore, it is preferable that he ask a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow.

讜讬转专讞拽 诪砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讬讗讜谞讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讙讚诇讛 讜诪讬讞专讟讗 讘讛 诪谉 讛驻拽讚讜谞讜转 讘讘专 诪转讗 讚讘讬讬转讬讛 讻讬 讘讬讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 诪谉 讛注专讘讜谉 讘注专讘讬 砖诇爪讬讜谉

And one should distance himself from three things: From refusals, as perhaps she will grow up and regret her decision, and it will turn out that she refused a husband who was suitable for her. From deposits entrusted to him by an inhabitant of the same city, as he will treat the bailee鈥檚 home as his home. The owner might enter the bailee鈥檚 house and take the deposit without the latter鈥檚 knowledge, and subsequently falsely sue him for its return. From serving as a guarantor: This is referring to Sheltziyyon guarantees, in which the lender is entitled to demand payment from the guarantor even before the borrower defaults on the loan.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 专注 讬专讜注 讻讬 注专讘 讝专 专注讛 讗讞专 专注讛 转讘讗 诇诪拽讘诇讬 讙专讬诐 讜诇注专讘讬 砖诇爪讬讜谉 讜诇转讜拽注 注爪诪讜 诇讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 诪拽讘诇讬 讙专讬诐 讻专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 拽砖讬诐 讙专讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 讻住驻讞转 讘注讜专

As Rabbi Yitz岣k said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淗e who serves as a guarantor for a stranger shall suffer evil; but he who hates those who shake hands is secure鈥 (Proverbs 11:15)? This means: Evil after evil will befall those who accept converts, and Sheltziyyon guarantors, and one who confounds himself in matters of halakha. The Gemara clarifies. Evil will befall those who accept converts: This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣lbo. As Rabbi 岣lbo says: Converts are difficult for the Jewish people like a leprous sore on the skin.

注专讘讬 砖诇爪讬讜谉 讚注讘讚讬 砖诇讜祝 讚讜抓 转讜拽注 注爪诪讜 诇讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 转讜专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 转讜专讛

Evil shall befall Sheltziyyon guarantors because they practice: Pull out, thrust in. That is, they pull out the borrower and thrust the guarantor in his place as the one responsible for the loan. Evil befalls one who confounds himself in matters of halakha, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Anyone who says he has no Torah, has no Torah. The Gemara asks: Is this not obvious? Rather, anyone who says he has nothing other than Torah, has nothing other than Torah.

讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇诪讚转诐 讜注砖讬转诐 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注砖讬讛 讬砖谞讜 讘诇诪讬讚讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注砖讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讘诇诪讬讚讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 this also obvious? One does not receive more reward than he deserves. Rather, it means that he does not even have Torah. What is the reason? Rav Pappa said: The verse states: That you may learn them and perform them, which is an abridged version of the verse 鈥淗ear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances that I speak in your ears this day, that you may learn them, and take care to perform them鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:1). The verse teaches that anyone who is engaged in performing mitzvot is engaged in Torah study, while anyone not engaged in performing mitzvot is not engaged in Torah study; the Torah study of one who wishes only to immerse himself in his studies without fulfilling the mitzvot is not considered to be fulfilling even the mitzva of Torah study.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专讬转讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讙诪专 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讜讗讝诇讬 讜注讘讚讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And if you wish, say: Actually, it is as you initially said: Anyone who says he has nothing other than Torah has nothing other than Torah. Rather, this statement is necessary with regard to one who teaches others and they go and perform the mitzvot. Lest you say that there is reward for him in it, Rabbi Yosei teaches us that since that person engaged in Torah study without the intention of observing the mitzvot himself, he does not receive a reward for the mitzvot that he taught others and which they performed.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转讜拽注 注爪诪讜 诇讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 讘讚讬讬谞讗 讚讗转讬 讚讬谞讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讜讙诪专 讛诇讻讛 讜诪讚诪讬 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讜诇讗 讗讝讬诇 诪砖讗讬诇

And if you wish, say that one who confounds himself in matters of halakha is referring to a judge who had a case come before him, and he learned the tradition about a ruling in a similar case, and he likens one matter to the other in order to reach a conclusion; and he has a teacher nearby but he does not go and ask him. This is inappropriate, as judges must be very careful not to err in judgment.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诇注讜诇诐 讬专讗讛 讚讬讬谉 注爪诪讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讞专讘 诪讜谞讞转 诇讜 讘讬谉 讬专讬讻讜转讬讜 讜讙讬讛谞诐 驻转讜讞讛 诇讜 诪转讞转讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讛谞讛 诪讟转讜 砖诇砖诇诪讛 砖砖讬诐 讙讘讜专讬诐 住讘讬讘 诇讛 诪讙讘讜专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮 诪驻讞讚 讘诇讬诇讜转 诪驻讞讚 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐 砖讚讜诪讛 诇诇讬诇讛

As Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: A judge should always view himself as if a sword were placed between his thighs, so that if he leans right or left he will be injured, and as if Gehenna was open beneath him, as it is stated: 鈥淏ehold, it is the bed of Solomon; sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword, and are expert in war; every man has his sword upon his thigh, because of dread in the night鈥 (Song of Songs 3:7鈥8), i.e., because of the dread of Gehenna, which is similar to the night. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani understands the mighty men of Israel in this verse to refer to the judges who sit in judgment around the bed of Solomon, i.e., in the Temple.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讬讗谞讛 讜讻讜壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 拽讬讚讜砖讬 拽讟谞讛 诪讬转诇讗 转诇讜 讜讻讬 讙讚诇讛 讙讚诇讬 讘讛讚讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘注诇

搂 It was taught in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: If the minor refuses of her own accord, her refusal is valid. And if not, she should wait until she reaches majority, whereupon her marriage is valid by Torah law, and the widowed adult sister shall be exempt from levirate marriage due to her status as the sister of a wife. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma to Rav: What is Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 reasoning? Is it because he holds that the betrothal of a minor girl is in suspension and when she reaches majority, the betrothal reaches majority, i.e., is fully realized, with her? Accordingly, the betrothal would then be realized even if he did not engage in intercourse with her after she reached majority.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讞讜转 讬讘诪讛 谞驻讟专讛 讬讘诪讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 讗讬 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗

Or perhaps, is it because he holds that when a yavam betroths the sister of his yevama, causing the yevama to be forbidden to him, the yevama is exempt and is released even though her levirate bond came first? If he engaged in sexual intercourse with his betrothed after she reached majority, then yes, the yevama is exempt as a forbidden relative, because only then does Rabban Gamliel consider the betrothal to be fully realized, but if he did not engage in intercourse with his betrothed, then the yevama is not exempt from levirate marriage.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讞讜转 讬讘诪讛 谞驻讟专讛 讬讘诪讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 讗讬 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗

Rav said to him: This is Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 reasoning: Because he holds that in the case of one who betroths the sister of his yevama, the yevama is exempt and is released, then if he engaged in sexual intercourse with the sister after she reached majority then yes, the yevama is exempt from levirate marriage, but if he did not engage in intercourse with the sister after she reached majority, the yevama is not exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪拽讚砖 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 转诇讜讬讬谉 诪讗讬 转诇讜讬讬谉 诇讗讜 讻讬 讙讚诇讛 讙讚诇讬 讘讛讚讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘注诇

Rav Sheshet said: I say that Rav said this halakha when he was dozing and lying down, as it is difficult. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who betroths a minor girl, her betrothal is in suspension. What does it mean that it is in suspension? Is it not that when she reaches majority, the betrothal reaches majority with her and is fully realized even if he did not have intercourse with her after she reached majority?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚拽讟谞讛 诪讬转诇讗 转诇讬讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗讬 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗 讚讗诪专讛 讛讜讗 注讚讬祝 诪讬谞讗讬 讜讗谞讗 注讚讬驻谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛

Ravin, son of Rav Na岣an, said to Rav Sheshet: This matter, that the betrothal of a minor girl remains in suspension, should be understood differently. It means that her betrothal is provisional as long as she is still a minor: If he has sexual intercourse with her after she reaches majority, yes, her betrothal is realized; if he does not engage in intercourse with her after she reaches majority, her betrothal is not realized. For she says to herself: He has an advantage over me in that he can divorce me, and I have an advantage over him, as I can refuse him. Since the marriage of a minor depends upon her ongoing consent, as she can refuse him at any time, it remains provisional until it is consummated when she is an adult.

讜住讘专 专讘 讗讬 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 拽讟谞讛 砖诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讜讛讙讚讬诇讛 讜注诪讚讛 讜谞砖讗转 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 诪砖谞讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 诪砖谞讬

The Gemara asks: But does Rav truly think that only if he has intercourse with her after she becomes an adult, then yes, her betrothal is realized, but if he did not engage in intercourse with her, then no, it is not realized? Wasn鈥檛 it stated that with regard to a minor who had not refused her husband and reached majority, and then went and married another, Rav said: She does not require a bill of divorce from the second man, as she is fully married to the first and consequently her second marriage is invalid? And Shmuel said: She does require a bill of divorce from the second man, as it is uncertain whether her second marriage is valid.

  • 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".

  • 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)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Does Judaism Discourage Conversion? – Gefet 37

https://youtu.be/wlmpg4qKpnQ
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 109: A Sword Between His Thighs

A new mishnah! Can a couple that divorces remarry each other? How does that affect yibum? And a other mishnah:...

Yevamot 109

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 109

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 讜讻谉 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讛讬转讜诪讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讜转专转 诇讬讘诐 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 拽讟谞讛 砖讛砖讬讗讛 讗讘讬讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 讻讬转讜诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐

but Rabbi Elazar prohibits this. Likewise, with regard to one who divorces an orphaned minor girl whose mother and brothers married her off and remarries her and subsequently dies, she is permitted to the yavam in levirate marriage, and Rabbi Elazar prohibits it. A minor girl whose father married her off, in which case the marriage is valid by Torah law, and who was subsequently divorced while she was still a minor is like an orphan during the lifetime of her father, as he no longer has the right to marry her off, and she cannot become fully married because she is a minor. And if the husband remarries her while she is still a minor and then dies childless, everyone agrees that she is forbidden to the yavam and may not enter into levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讬驻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇注讬驻讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讞诇讬爪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬

GEMARA: The Sage Eifa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar, who prohibits a man from entering into levirate marriage with a woman whom his brother had divorced and remarried? It is because she was forbidden to him at one time; when the first brother divorced her, she became forbidden to the second brother due to her status as the first brother鈥檚 ex-wife. A husband鈥檚 relatives are forbidden to the wife even after death or divorce. However, the mitzva of levirate marriage grants a special exemption from the prohibition against marrying one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife. In this case, if the first brother had died while they were still divorced, the mitzva of levirate marriage would not have applied, and she would have been forbidden to him. The Sages said to Eifa: If that is so, she should also not require 岣litza, since she is a forbidden relative.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 注讬驻讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

And if you would say: Indeed, Rabbi Elazar also exempts her from 岣litza, isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: It was said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that she performs 岣litza? Rather, Eifa said: I do not know the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讗讬 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬诐 讗讬 诪讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讛讗 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 讗讬 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬诐 讛讗 注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专

Abaye said: This is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar: He is uncertain whether the death of the husband determines that she is a candidate for levirate marriage, or whether the original marriage determines it. In other words, he is uncertain as to whether the obligation to perform levirate marriage is established only at the death of one鈥檚 brother or already from the beginning of the brother鈥檚 marriage. If death determines that she is a candidate for levirate marriage, then she has happened before him for levirate marriage, as she is the wife of his childless brother who died. If the original marriage determines that she is a candidate for levirate marriage, then she was forbidden to him for a time as his brother鈥檚 ex-wife and is consequently exempt from levirate marriage. According to Rabbi Elazar, it is due to this uncertainty that the brother may not enter into levirate marriage yet must perform 岣litza.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诪讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讜诪讬讛讜 讛讻诇 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讞讝专讛

Rava said: Actually, it is obvious to Rabbi Elazar that death determines that she is a candidate for levirate marriage. However, everyone is well informed with regard to divorces. Everyone knows that the woman was divorced, while not everyone is well informed with regard to remarriage, and they do not necessarily know that she remarried him. Therefore, there is concern that people will mistakenly think that one entered into levirate marriage with his brother鈥檚 ex-wife.

讗讚专讘讛 讞讝专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讬转讘讗 转讜转讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讛讚专讛 讘讗讜专转讗 讜砖讻讬讘 讘爪驻专讗

The Gemara argues against this point: On the contrary, her return to her former husband, since she is living with him, generates publicity, so that it is known that they are remarried. The Gemara answers: Are we not dealing even with a case in which he remarried her in the evening and died in the morning? In this instance and others like it, not everyone would know that he remarried her, and they will think that the brother took his deceased brother鈥檚 ex-wife in levirate marriage. In order to avoid such situations, Rabbi Elazar decreed that she is always forbidden.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讙讝专 讛谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讬转讜诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 拽讟谞讛 砖讛砖讬讗讛 讗讘讬讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 讻讬转讜诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐

Rav Ashi said: This is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar: He decreed to prohibit levirate marriage with these, i.e., women who were divorced and remarried, due to the case of a girl who is considered an orphan in the lifetime of her father, who was divorced by her husband and he subsequently remarried her. If a minor girl was married off by her father and was subsequently divorced, she is no longer subject to her father with regard to marriage and divorce, but because she is a minor, any marriage she enters into is by rabbinic rather than by Torah law. The Gemara comments: So too, this is reasonable based on what was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: A minor girl whose father married her off and who was subsequently divorced while she was still a minor, is like an orphan during her father鈥檚 lifetime. And if the husband remarries her while she is still a minor and then dies, everyone agrees that she is forbidden to the yavam and may not enter into levirate marriage.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讙讝专 讛谞讱 诪砖讜诐 讛讗讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

What is the purpose of stating this halakha? It is obvious. Rather, is it not teaching us Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reason for decreeing that these women who were divorced and remarried are forbidden due to that woman, the girl who is considered an orphan in the lifetime of her father? The Gemara concludes: Learn from here that this is his reason.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘拽讟谞讛 砖讛砖讬讗讛 讗讘讬讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讬转讜诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讙讬专讜砖讬讛 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讙诪讜专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讝专转讛 讞讝专讛 讙诪讜专讛

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Elazar concerning a minor girl whose father married her off and who was divorced, that she is like an orphan in the lifetime of her father, and that if her husband remarried her, she is forbidden to the yavam, because her divorce was a full-fledged divorce by Torah law while her remarriage was not a full-fledged remarriage, as she was still a minor. This implies that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 ruling is prompted by the case of a girl who is like an orphan in her father鈥檚 lifetime and that this was the reason for his decree.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讙讬专砖讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讗讘诇 讙讬专砖讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛讞讝讬专讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讜讙讚诇讛 讗爪诇讜 讜诪转 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讜 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? In a case where he divorced her while she was a minor and he remarried her while she was still a minor. But if he divorced her while she was a minor and remarried her when she was already an adult, or if he remarried her while she was a minor and she matured to legal adulthood while with him, and he subsequently died, she may either perform 岣litza or enter into levirate marriage. It was said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: She must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, since he decreed that all remarried women may not enter into levirate marriage due to the case of one who is like an orphan in her father鈥檚 lifetime.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 爪专转讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讬讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛

Rava asked Rav Na岣an: What is the halakha with regard to the rival wife of a girl whose husband remarried her, according to Rabbi Elazar? Is the girl regarded as a forbidden relative to the extent that even her rival wife may not enter into levirate marriage? He said to him: She herself is forbidden due to a rabbinic decree, as explained already. And will we then proceed to issue a decree to prevent violation of a decree? Accordingly, her rival wife is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讜 讛讬讗 讜爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讛讬讗 讜爪专转讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗讜 讛讬讗 讗讜 爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 拽诪转专爪转 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讛讬讗 讞讜诇爪转 爪专转讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The Gemara challenges: Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: It was said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Both she and her rival wife must perform 岣litza? The Gemara asks: Would it enter your mind to say: She and her rival wife? Why should two women from the same household perform 岣litza? 岣litza performed by one of them exempts the other. Rather, should it not say: Either she or her rival wife must perform 岣litza, but even the rival wife may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara responds: Are you not emending the mishna? If so, emend it as follows: She can only perform 岣litza; her rival wife may either perform 岣litza or enter into levirate marriage.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 拽讟谞讜转 讜诪转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讛诇讝讜 转爪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讞专砖讜转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诪转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 拽讟谞讛 转爪讗 讛拽讟谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

MISHNA: If two brothers are married to two minor sisters, and the husband of one of them dies childless, this widowed girl shall be exempt from levirate marriage due to her status as a forbidden relative, as one is prohibited from marrying the sister of his wife. The same halakha applies to two deaf-mute women, whose status is like that of two minors in this matter, as their marriages are valid by rabbinic law. And if two brothers were married to two sisters, one of them an adult and the other a minor, and the husband of the minor dies, the minor shall leave due to her status as the sister of a wife, as in the first case in the mishna.

诪转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜

But if the husband of the adult dies, it generates a Torah obligation of levirate marriage, which is not abrogated by the rabbinic prohibition proscribing the yevama as his wife鈥檚 sister. This prohibition is by rabbinic law, because marriage to a minor is rabbinic in origin. What does one do under such circumstances? Rabbi Eliezer says: We instruct the minor, i.e., his wife, to refuse him, so that her marriage is dissolved and he may then enter into levirate marriage with her adult sister, the widow of his childless brother.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讬讗谞讛 诪讬讗谞讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转爪讗 讛诇讝讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

Rabban Gamliel says: If the minor refuses of her own accord, her refusal is valid. And if not, she should wait until she reaches majority, whereupon her marriage is valid by Torah law, and that widowed adult sister shall be exempt from levirate marriage due to her status as the sister of a wife.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬 诇讜 注诇 讗砖转讜 讗讬 诇讜 注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘讙讟 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讘讞诇讬爪讛

Rabbi Yehoshua says: When the brother married to the adult sister dies, leaving the brother married to the minor, woe [ee] to him for his wife, woe to him for his brother鈥檚 wife. Under these circumstances, he loses both women: He must release his own wife with a bill of divorce and his brother鈥檚 wife by performing 岣litza. He cannot stay married to his wife because she is the sister of his yevama, and he cannot enter into levirate marriage with the yevama even after divorcing his wife, because the yevama is his wife鈥檚 sister. The principle that one is completely absolved from levirate marriage when the potential yevama is a forbidden relative does not apply because Torah law does not recognize his marriage to his minor wife. That marriage鈥檚 rabbinic sanction does not suffice to render the yevama, his wife鈥檚 sister, a forbidden relative who is not a candidate for levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 讜诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬讚讘拽 讗讚诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讬转专讞拽 诪砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讬讚讘拽 讘砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讜讘讛讘讗转 砖诇讜诐 讜讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讜讬转专讞拽 诪砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讬讗讜谉 讜诪谉 讛驻拽讚讜谞讜转 讜诪谉 讛注专讘讜谞讜转 诪讬讗讜谉 讚诪爪讜讛 砖讗谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires about Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 suggestion to instruct the minor to refuse: Is it permitted to instruct her to refuse? Doesn鈥檛 bar Kappara teach: A person should always cling to three things and distance himself from three things. He should cling to three things: To 岣litza rather than levirate marriage, to bringing about peace, and to the nullification of vows. And he should distance himself from three things: From refusal; and from accepting deposits, as he is then responsible for them; and from serving as a guarantor. The Gemara answers: A refusal for a mitzva is different, as this refusal is performed to allow the mitzva of levirate marriage to be fulfilled with the other sister.

讙讜驻讗 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬讚讘拽 讗讚诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讬讘诪转讜 诇砖诐 谞讜讬 诇砖诐 讗讬砖讜转 诇砖诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讻讗讬诇讜 驻讜讙注 讘注专讜讛 讜拽专讜讘 讘注讬谞讬 诇讛讬讜转 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

搂 The Gemara explains the details of the matter itself. Bar Kappara taught: A person should always cling to three things: To 岣litza; this is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul said: One who marries his yevama for her beauty, or for the sake of matrimony because he wants to be married to her, or for some other reason, such as her money, it is as if he is having intercourse with a woman forbidden to him, and in my eyes it is almost as if his offspring were a mamzer. Therefore, it is preferable that one performs 岣litza and avoids sin.

讘讛讘讗转 砖诇讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘拽砖 砖诇讜诐 讜专讚驻讛讜

One should cling to bringing about peace, as it is written 鈥淪eek peace and pursue it鈥 (Psalms 34:15).

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗转讬讗 专讚讬驻讛 专讚讬驻讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讘拽砖 砖诇讜诐 讜专讚驻讛讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 专讜讚祝 爪讚拽讛 讜讞住讚 讬诪爪讗 讞讬讬诐 爪讚拽讛 讜讻讘讜讚 讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜讚专 讻讗讬诇讜 讘谞讛 讘诪讛 讜讛诪拽讬讬诪讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛拽专讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉

And Rabbi Abbahu said: It is derived by verbal analogy from the terms pursuit and pursuit. It is written here: 鈥淪eek peace and pursue it鈥 (Psalms 34:15) and it is written there: 鈥淗e who pursues righteousness and mercy finds life, prosperity, and honor鈥 (Proverbs 21:21), indicating that pursuing peace is a mitzva, just as pursuing righteousness and mercy is. As for the nullification of vows, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: With regard to one who vows, it is as if he built a personal altar when it is prohibited to build an altar outside the Temple. And one who fulfills that vow, it is as if he sacrificed an offering on this personal altar, thereby doubling his sin. Therefore, it is preferable that he ask a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow.

讜讬转专讞拽 诪砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讬讗讜谞讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讙讚诇讛 讜诪讬讞专讟讗 讘讛 诪谉 讛驻拽讚讜谞讜转 讘讘专 诪转讗 讚讘讬讬转讬讛 讻讬 讘讬讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 诪谉 讛注专讘讜谉 讘注专讘讬 砖诇爪讬讜谉

And one should distance himself from three things: From refusals, as perhaps she will grow up and regret her decision, and it will turn out that she refused a husband who was suitable for her. From deposits entrusted to him by an inhabitant of the same city, as he will treat the bailee鈥檚 home as his home. The owner might enter the bailee鈥檚 house and take the deposit without the latter鈥檚 knowledge, and subsequently falsely sue him for its return. From serving as a guarantor: This is referring to Sheltziyyon guarantees, in which the lender is entitled to demand payment from the guarantor even before the borrower defaults on the loan.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 专注 讬专讜注 讻讬 注专讘 讝专 专注讛 讗讞专 专注讛 转讘讗 诇诪拽讘诇讬 讙专讬诐 讜诇注专讘讬 砖诇爪讬讜谉 讜诇转讜拽注 注爪诪讜 诇讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 诪拽讘诇讬 讙专讬诐 讻专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 拽砖讬诐 讙专讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 讻住驻讞转 讘注讜专

As Rabbi Yitz岣k said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淗e who serves as a guarantor for a stranger shall suffer evil; but he who hates those who shake hands is secure鈥 (Proverbs 11:15)? This means: Evil after evil will befall those who accept converts, and Sheltziyyon guarantors, and one who confounds himself in matters of halakha. The Gemara clarifies. Evil will befall those who accept converts: This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣lbo. As Rabbi 岣lbo says: Converts are difficult for the Jewish people like a leprous sore on the skin.

注专讘讬 砖诇爪讬讜谉 讚注讘讚讬 砖诇讜祝 讚讜抓 转讜拽注 注爪诪讜 诇讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 转讜专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 转讜专讛

Evil shall befall Sheltziyyon guarantors because they practice: Pull out, thrust in. That is, they pull out the borrower and thrust the guarantor in his place as the one responsible for the loan. Evil befalls one who confounds himself in matters of halakha, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Anyone who says he has no Torah, has no Torah. The Gemara asks: Is this not obvious? Rather, anyone who says he has nothing other than Torah, has nothing other than Torah.

讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇诪讚转诐 讜注砖讬转诐 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注砖讬讛 讬砖谞讜 讘诇诪讬讚讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注砖讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讘诇诪讬讚讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 this also obvious? One does not receive more reward than he deserves. Rather, it means that he does not even have Torah. What is the reason? Rav Pappa said: The verse states: That you may learn them and perform them, which is an abridged version of the verse 鈥淗ear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances that I speak in your ears this day, that you may learn them, and take care to perform them鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:1). The verse teaches that anyone who is engaged in performing mitzvot is engaged in Torah study, while anyone not engaged in performing mitzvot is not engaged in Torah study; the Torah study of one who wishes only to immerse himself in his studies without fulfilling the mitzvot is not considered to be fulfilling even the mitzva of Torah study.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专讬转讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讙诪专 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讜讗讝诇讬 讜注讘讚讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And if you wish, say: Actually, it is as you initially said: Anyone who says he has nothing other than Torah has nothing other than Torah. Rather, this statement is necessary with regard to one who teaches others and they go and perform the mitzvot. Lest you say that there is reward for him in it, Rabbi Yosei teaches us that since that person engaged in Torah study without the intention of observing the mitzvot himself, he does not receive a reward for the mitzvot that he taught others and which they performed.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转讜拽注 注爪诪讜 诇讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 讘讚讬讬谞讗 讚讗转讬 讚讬谞讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讜讙诪专 讛诇讻讛 讜诪讚诪讬 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讜诇讗 讗讝讬诇 诪砖讗讬诇

And if you wish, say that one who confounds himself in matters of halakha is referring to a judge who had a case come before him, and he learned the tradition about a ruling in a similar case, and he likens one matter to the other in order to reach a conclusion; and he has a teacher nearby but he does not go and ask him. This is inappropriate, as judges must be very careful not to err in judgment.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诇注讜诇诐 讬专讗讛 讚讬讬谉 注爪诪讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讞专讘 诪讜谞讞转 诇讜 讘讬谉 讬专讬讻讜转讬讜 讜讙讬讛谞诐 驻转讜讞讛 诇讜 诪转讞转讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讛谞讛 诪讟转讜 砖诇砖诇诪讛 砖砖讬诐 讙讘讜专讬诐 住讘讬讘 诇讛 诪讙讘讜专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮 诪驻讞讚 讘诇讬诇讜转 诪驻讞讚 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐 砖讚讜诪讛 诇诇讬诇讛

As Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: A judge should always view himself as if a sword were placed between his thighs, so that if he leans right or left he will be injured, and as if Gehenna was open beneath him, as it is stated: 鈥淏ehold, it is the bed of Solomon; sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword, and are expert in war; every man has his sword upon his thigh, because of dread in the night鈥 (Song of Songs 3:7鈥8), i.e., because of the dread of Gehenna, which is similar to the night. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani understands the mighty men of Israel in this verse to refer to the judges who sit in judgment around the bed of Solomon, i.e., in the Temple.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讬讗谞讛 讜讻讜壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 拽讬讚讜砖讬 拽讟谞讛 诪讬转诇讗 转诇讜 讜讻讬 讙讚诇讛 讙讚诇讬 讘讛讚讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘注诇

搂 It was taught in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: If the minor refuses of her own accord, her refusal is valid. And if not, she should wait until she reaches majority, whereupon her marriage is valid by Torah law, and the widowed adult sister shall be exempt from levirate marriage due to her status as the sister of a wife. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma to Rav: What is Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 reasoning? Is it because he holds that the betrothal of a minor girl is in suspension and when she reaches majority, the betrothal reaches majority, i.e., is fully realized, with her? Accordingly, the betrothal would then be realized even if he did not engage in intercourse with her after she reached majority.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讞讜转 讬讘诪讛 谞驻讟专讛 讬讘诪讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 讗讬 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗

Or perhaps, is it because he holds that when a yavam betroths the sister of his yevama, causing the yevama to be forbidden to him, the yevama is exempt and is released even though her levirate bond came first? If he engaged in sexual intercourse with his betrothed after she reached majority, then yes, the yevama is exempt as a forbidden relative, because only then does Rabban Gamliel consider the betrothal to be fully realized, but if he did not engage in intercourse with his betrothed, then the yevama is not exempt from levirate marriage.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讞讜转 讬讘诪讛 谞驻讟专讛 讬讘诪讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 讗讬 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗

Rav said to him: This is Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 reasoning: Because he holds that in the case of one who betroths the sister of his yevama, the yevama is exempt and is released, then if he engaged in sexual intercourse with the sister after she reached majority then yes, the yevama is exempt from levirate marriage, but if he did not engage in intercourse with the sister after she reached majority, the yevama is not exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪拽讚砖 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 转诇讜讬讬谉 诪讗讬 转诇讜讬讬谉 诇讗讜 讻讬 讙讚诇讛 讙讚诇讬 讘讛讚讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘注诇

Rav Sheshet said: I say that Rav said this halakha when he was dozing and lying down, as it is difficult. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who betroths a minor girl, her betrothal is in suspension. What does it mean that it is in suspension? Is it not that when she reaches majority, the betrothal reaches majority with her and is fully realized even if he did not have intercourse with her after she reached majority?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚拽讟谞讛 诪讬转诇讗 转诇讬讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗讬 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗 讚讗诪专讛 讛讜讗 注讚讬祝 诪讬谞讗讬 讜讗谞讗 注讚讬驻谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛

Ravin, son of Rav Na岣an, said to Rav Sheshet: This matter, that the betrothal of a minor girl remains in suspension, should be understood differently. It means that her betrothal is provisional as long as she is still a minor: If he has sexual intercourse with her after she reaches majority, yes, her betrothal is realized; if he does not engage in intercourse with her after she reaches majority, her betrothal is not realized. For she says to herself: He has an advantage over me in that he can divorce me, and I have an advantage over him, as I can refuse him. Since the marriage of a minor depends upon her ongoing consent, as she can refuse him at any time, it remains provisional until it is consummated when she is an adult.

讜住讘专 专讘 讗讬 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 拽讟谞讛 砖诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讜讛讙讚讬诇讛 讜注诪讚讛 讜谞砖讗转 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 诪砖谞讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 诪砖谞讬

The Gemara asks: But does Rav truly think that only if he has intercourse with her after she becomes an adult, then yes, her betrothal is realized, but if he did not engage in intercourse with her, then no, it is not realized? Wasn鈥檛 it stated that with regard to a minor who had not refused her husband and reached majority, and then went and married another, Rav said: She does not require a bill of divorce from the second man, as she is fully married to the first and consequently her second marriage is invalid? And Shmuel said: She does require a bill of divorce from the second man, as it is uncertain whether her second marriage is valid.

Scroll To Top