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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 23, 2015 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua vโ€™ Elana Malka. "ื” ื ืชืŸ ื•ื” ืœืงื—. ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื ื” ืžื‘ื•ืจืš"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

  • 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 111

ืชื™ืชื™ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืžืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื™ ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืื™ ืœืื• ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื ื›ืจื™ืช ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื™ื

Let her stay with him, as she is permitted whichever way you look at it: If she is acquired, then she is fully acquired; and if she is not acquired at all, then she is merely an unrelated woman. If the marriage to the deceased brother was not a true marriage, there is no reason for her to be forbidden to him.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืงื˜ื ื” ืืžืื™ ืชืžืชื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืชื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืชื—ืœื•ืฅ ืชื™ืชื™ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืื™ ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ืื™ ืœืื• ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื ื•ื›ืจื™ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื™ื ืื ื›ืŸ ื—ืจืฉืช ื‘ืžื” ืชื™ืคื•ืง

And if you would say that the same question could be asked if you claim that it is the minor whose acquisition is uncertain: Why should she wait until she reaches majority and performs แธฅalitza? Let her stay with him: If she is acquired, then she is fully acquired; and if she is not acquired at all, then she is merely an unrelated woman. However, you cannot say that because, if that is so, how shall the deaf-mute be released? As a deaf-mute, she cannot perform แธฅalitza, and he cannot consummate the levirate marriage with her since the minor may be considered to be acquired by him, in which case the deaf-mute would be disqualified as the rival wife of his yevama. Ravโ€™s suggestion was meant to find a way for both of them to be able to remarry, and that is only possible if the minor and deaf-muteโ€™s statuses are as Rav แธคisda argues.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ืกืชื‘ืจื ื›ื“ืงื ืžืชืจืฅ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘

Rav Sheshet said: Indeed, this too stands to reason, i.e., only the way that Rav แธคisda explained the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rav is reasonable.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื™ืชื•ืžื•ืช ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื” ืฉืœ ืงื˜ื ื” ื—ืจืฉืช ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ืชืžืชื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืชื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืชื—ืœื•ืฅ

As it is taught in a baraita about the following case: Two brothers married two orphaned sisters, one of them a minor and one of them a deaf-mute. If the husband of the minor dies and she happens before the husband of the deaf-mute for levirate marriage, the deaf-mute must be released by means of a bill of divorce due to her sisterโ€™s levirate bond, and the minor must wait until she reaches majority and perform แธฅalitza.

ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื” ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืงื˜ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ืืกื•ืจื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ืื ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื”

If the deaf-muteโ€™s husband dies, the minor must be released by means of a bill of divorce and the deaf-mute is forbidden forever. He must divorce the minor because of the levirate bond with her sister. He may not consummate the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute because she is his ex-wifeโ€™s sister; and he cannot perform แธฅalitza with her, because she is not capable of performing แธฅalitza. And if he transgresses and consummates the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute, he gives her a bill of divorce afterward, and she is thereby released.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื—ืจืฉืช ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ื™ืจืช ืงื˜ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ื“ื›ื™ ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื” ื“ืืžืจืช ืžืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื ืคืงื ืžืฉื•ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื” ืื™ ืœืื• ืงื ื•ื™ื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžื™ื‘ื

Granted, this argument works if you say that the deaf-mute is partially acquired, and the minor is either acquired or not acquired; it is due to that reason that if he transgresses and consummates the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute, he gives her a bill of divorce and she is released. You would say she is released whichever way you look at it: If the minor is fully acquired by her husband, then the deaf-mute is released due to her status as the sister of his wife, who is a forbidden relative and as such is entirely exempt from levirate marriage. And if the minor is not acquired at all, then he may rightly consummate the levirate marriage and afterward divorce her.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื—ืจืฉืช ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ืงื˜ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ื™ืจืช ื›ื™ ื‘ื ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืืžืื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื” ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืœื ืคื˜ืจื”

But if you say that the deaf-mute is either acquired or not acquired, i.e., the status of a marriage with a deaf-mute is uncertain, while the minor is partially acquired, then when he transgresses and has intercourse with the deaf-mute, why should he give her a bill of divorce and she thereby be released? It is an invalid sexual act, as the minor is partially acquired, which disqualifies her sister from levirate marriage. And an invalid sexual act does not exempt her, i.e., does not constitute full consummation of the levirate marriage, making it possible for him to divorce her. She still requires แธฅalitza, and a deaf-mute cannot perform แธฅalitza. Therefore it must be, as Rav แธคisda suggested, that the deaf-mute is partially acquired while it is uncertain whether the minor is acquired or not.

ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืคื•ื˜ืจืช ืžื—ืœื™ืฆื”

The Gemara rejects the conclusion that the baraita provides evidence for Rav แธคisdaโ€™s explanation, as it is possible to say: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya, who said: An invalid sexual act also exempts a woman from แธฅalitza.

ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืžื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ืฉื•ื™ ืฉืชื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื•ืช ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ืžืช ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื ืืกืจื• ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืชืงื ืชืŸ ื—ืจืฉืช ื™ื•ืฆืืช ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ืชืžืชื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืชื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืชื—ืœื•ืฅ

The Gemara asks: If one accepts the suggestion that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya, say the latter clause of this same baraita: Consider the case of one who was married to two orphans, a minor and a deaf-mute, and he died. If the yavam had intercourse with the minor and then had intercourse with the deaf-mute, or if one of his brothers had intercourse with the deaf-mute after the first brother engaged in intercourse with the minor, they are both forbidden to the first brother. How can their situation be rectified? The deaf-mute must be released with a bill of divorce, and the minor must wait until she reaches majority and then perform แธฅalitza.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื—ืจืฉืช ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ื™ืจืช ืงื˜ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืชืžืชื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืชื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืชื—ืœื•ืฅ ื“ื“ืœืžื ืงื“ื™ื ื•ื‘ืขื™ืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ืื” ื“ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื”

Granted, this halakha makes sense if you say that a deaf-mute is partially acquired, meaning that she was never fully acquired in the first place; that a minor is either acquired or not acquired; and that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who state that an invalid sexual act does not exempt a woman from แธฅalitza. For these reasons, the minor must wait until she reaches majority and then perform แธฅalitza. The Sages decreed that she must perform แธฅalitza no matter what, as perhaps he may precipitately have intercourse with the deaf-mute first, so that the subsequent intercourse with the minor is considered an invalid sexual act, because he is already partially married to her rival wife. However, since the deaf-mute is only partially acquired, her levirate marriage does not exempt the minor and the minor still must perform แธฅalitza.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื”ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืคื˜ืจื”

But if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya, and also that the status of a deaf-muteโ€™s marriage is uncertain while the status of the minor is that she is partially acquired, there is no explanation why the minor must perform แธฅalitza when she reaches majority, as he said that an invalid sexual act exempts her.

ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Rather, conclude from this reasoning that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืจื™ืฉื ื ืžื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืื ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื” ื•ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืื ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื”

Rav Ashi said: One may learn also from the first clause of the baraita that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it teaches: If he transgresses and consummates the levirate marriage with the sister, who is a deaf-mute, he gives her a bill of divorce afterward, and she is thereby released. And it does not teach: If he consummates the levirate marriage with the minor, he gives her a bill of divorce and she is released. This is presumably because consummation of levirate marriage with the minor is an invalid sexual act, as her deaf-mute sister is partially married to the yavam. Even if he does engage in intercourse with her, she will still require แธฅalitza.

ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื ืœื ืื™ืจื™ื ื—ืจืฉืช ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืชืงื ืชื ื“ื”ื™ืชื™ืจื ืงืชื ื™ ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืื™ืช ืœื” ืชืงื ืชื ื“ื”ื™ืชื™ืจื ืœื ืชื ื™ ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื

The Gemara rejects this argument: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, as one may say that for the deaf-mute, whose situation has no rectification that is permitted because she cannot perform แธฅalitza, the baraita teaches a prohibited rectification; but for the minor, whose situation has a permitted rectification, in that she can perform แธฅalitza after she reaches majority, the baraita does not teach a prohibited rectification.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ืฉื•ื™ ืœืฉืชื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื•ืช ืงื˜ื ื•ืช ื•ืžืช ื•ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืฉื ื™ื” ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ืฉื ื™ื”

MISHNA: If a man was married to two minor orphans and he died, and a yavam engaged in intercourse with the first of them to consummate the levirate marriage, and then engaged in intercourse with the second, or if his brother who is also their yavam engaged in intercourse with the second,

ืœื ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ื—ืจืฉื•ืช

the yavam or his brother did not disqualify the first girl from staying married to him, as her levirate marriage was consummated. Likewise, if the two wives were two female deaf-mutes, the first wife may remain married to the yavam. Intercourse with the second wife, though prohibited, has no effect: If the marriage was of uncertain status, then either the levirate marriage was concluded when he engaged in intercourse with the first, or neither wife was really married to the first husband, and they are therefore not rival wives. If the initial marriage was partial, then since both wives have the same standing, the levirate marriage with the first wife fully realizes whatever degree of levirate marriage is available.

ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ืงื˜ื ื”

If one wife was a minor and the other a deaf-mute, and the yavam engaged in intercourse with the minor and then engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute, then the yavam or his brother disqualified the minor from staying married due to the Sagesโ€™ decree, lest it be confused with a situation where the intercourse with the deaf-mute was first.

ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ื—ืจืฉืช

If the yavam engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute and then engaged in intercourse with the minor, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the minor, then the yavam or his brother disqualified the deaf-mute from staying married. The marriage to the deaf-mute creates a partial acquisition that does not exempt the second wife from levirate marriage, as she, as a minor, has a different standing. Accordingly, intercourse with the second wife also creates a partial acquisition and thereby both women are prohibited to the yavam, as it is prohibited to consummate levirate marriage with more than one wife.

ืคืงื—ืช ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืœื ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ืคืงื—ืช

If one widow was halakhically competent and one widow was a deaf-mute, and the yavam engaged in intercourse with the halakhically competent woman and then engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute, or if his brother then engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute, the yavam or his brother did not disqualify the halakhically competent woman from staying married. Since the yavam consummated the levirate marriage with her first, the levirate bond was entirely dissolved and the intercourse with the deaf-mute, though forbidden, had no effect.

ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ื—ืจืฉืช

If the yavam engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute and then engaged in intercourse with the halakhically competent woman, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the halakhically competent woman, the yavam or his brother disqualified the deaf-mute from staying married. Consummation of the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute creates only a partial acquisition that does not fully dissolve the levirate bond.

ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืœื ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืœืžื“ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืฉืชืžืืŸ ื‘ื•

If the deceased brother had two wives, an adult and a minor, and the yavam engaged in sexual intercourse with the adult, then engaged in intercourse with the minor, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the minor, the yavam or his brother did not disqualify the adult from staying married, as the consummation of the levirate marriage with the adult completely dissolves the levirate bond. If the yavam engaged in intercourse with the minor, and then engaged in intercourse with the adult, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the adult, the yavam or his brother disqualified the minor from staying married. Rabbi Elazar says: The court instructs the minor to refuse him thereby annulling her marriage retroactively, and then the minor is permitted to marry any man.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and likewise the amora Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, the tanna in the mishna.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื‘ื”ืš ืงืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงื™ื™ื ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ื ื“ืื™ืงื™ื™ื ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ืื™ืžื ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœืคืงื• ื‘ื’ื˜

The Gemara says: It is necessary to rule that the minor is instructed to refuse, thus annulling her original marriage, both in this case and in the earlier case (Yevamot 109a) of an adult woman who becomes the yevama of her husbandโ€™s brother who is married to her minor sister. For if this halakhic ruling was stated only in that earlier case, I would have said: It was in that case that Shmuel stated the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, due to the fact that the yavam did not fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage with the adult. In order for him to be permitted to do so, the Sages rule that the minor should be instructed to refuse him. But for this case, where the mitzva of levirate marriage is fulfilled, say that they must both be released with a bill of divorce.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืจืžื™ื ืงืžื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And conversely, if the tanna teaches us the ruling only in this case, one would think: It is because the adult happened before him for levirate marriage, and since both the adult and the minor are equally candidates for levirate marriage, it makes sense to encourage the minor to refuse; however, in the other mishna, where the minor is already married to the yavam, making the adult yevama his wifeโ€™s sister who is forbidden to him, she should not be encouraged to refuse. Therefore, it was necessary to state, also in this case, that she is nevertheless encouraged to refuse.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื™ื‘ื ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื‘ื ืขืœ ื™ื‘ืžื” ืงื˜ื ื” ื™ื’ื“ืœื• ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ื‘ื ืขืœ ื™ื‘ืžื” ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืชื’ื“ืœื ื•

MISHNA: If a minor yavam engaged in sexual intercourse with a minor yevama, they should grow up together, living as a married couple. He may not divorce her, as he is a minor. If he engaged in sexual intercourse with an adult yevama, she should raise him, i.e., they must stay married, as there is no way for him to divorce her until he reaches majority.

ื”ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืœื ื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ื•ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื•ื“ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื”

When a yevama said within thirty days of her marriage: I have not engaged in sexual intercourse with him, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza with her. If she said this after thirty days but he claimed that he had engaged in sexual intercourse, the court asks him to perform แธฅalitza with her, as there are grounds to believe him. And when he admits that he did not engage in intercourse with her, even after twelve months, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza with her.

ื”ื ื•ื“ืจืช ื”ื ืื” ืžื™ื‘ืžื” ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชืช ื‘ืขืœื” ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ื•ืื ื ืชื›ื•ื•ื ื” ืœื›ืš ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื”

If a woman vows during her husbandโ€™s lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza with her as it is forbidden for her to engage in sexual intercourse with him to consummate the levirate marriage. If she vowed after the death of her husband to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court asks him to perform แธฅalitza with her. And if she intended to do so, i.e., she had an ulterior motive of avoiding levirate marriage when she vowed, even if she made the vow during her husbandโ€™s lifetime, the court merely asks him to perform แธฅalitza with her.

ื’ืžืณ ืœื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a minor yavam and minor yevama can consummate a levirate marriage and are permitted to live together. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir as it is taught in a baraita: A minor boy and a minor girl may not perform แธฅalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir prohibits this lest the boy turn out to be a eunuch or the girl turn out to be sexually underdeveloped. In such cases, the mitzva of levirate marriage would not apply, and the prohibition against marrying oneโ€™s brotherโ€™s wife would be in effect.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืœืงื˜ืŸ ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ืœื’ื“ื•ืœ ื“ื—ื“ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืื” ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ืืžืจ

The Gemara responds: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. When Rabbi Meir said that minors may not enter into levirate marriage, he was referring to an adult yevama with a minor yavam or a minor yevama with an adult yavam. This is because for one of them it would be a forbidden sexual act, due to the uncertainty of the minorโ€™s status. Since the minor may turn out to be permanently sexually underdeveloped, the adult is forbidden from having intercourse with him or her. But in the case of a minor yavam who has sexual intercourse with a minor yevama, where they are both similar to one another, as neither of them is obligated to perform mitzvot, Rabbi Meir did not state that it is forbidden for them to perform levirate marriage.

ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ื ืขืœ ื™ื‘ืžื” ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืชื’ื“ืœื ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื—ื•ื–ืื” ื‘ื ืฉืื ื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื’ื“ืœื ื• ืงืืžืจ ื“ื›ืœ ื‘ื™ืื” ื•ื‘ื™ืื” ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

The Gemara asks: But it is taught in the mishna: If he, i.e., the minor yavam, engaged in sexual intercourse with an adult yevama, she should raise him, which contradicts the explication of Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion above. Rabbi แธคanina แธคozaโ€™a said: It is different once he engaged in intercourse with her. Although at the outset Rabbi Meir prohibits consummation of the levirate marriage, once it has already taken place, it is preferable that she raise him. The Gemara asks: But it says that she should raise him, indicating that they are meant to live as a married couple, even though each and every sexual act is forbidden according to Rabbi Meir. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

ืงืจื™ ื›ืืŸ ืœื”ืงื™ื ืœืื—ื™ื• ืฉื ื•ื”ืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื™ื‘ืžื” ื™ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: How can the minor enter into levirate marriage? The verse here reads: โ€œAnd if the man does not wish to take his yevama, his yevama shall ascend to the gate to the Elders and say: My brother-in-law refused to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he did not wish to consummate the levirate marriageโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:7), and this minor is incapable of doing so, as he cannot sire children. Abaye said that the verse states: โ€œHer brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriageโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:5), to include anyone, even someone who cannot sire children.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื‘ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ืฉืชื ืืกื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื‘ืชืจ ืฉืขืชื ืฉืจื™ื ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืงื•ืจื ื‘ืฉืขืช ื ืคื™ืœื” ื™ื‘ืžื” ื™ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ื›ืืฉืช ืื— ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืืกื•ืจื”

Rava said: Even without this interpretation you still could not say that it is prohibited for a minor to enter into levirate marriage. Is there a case of levirate marriage where she is forbidden to him now, and after some time she becomes permitted? Didnโ€™t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: Any yevama to whom I cannot apply the verse โ€œHer brother-in-law will have intercourse with herโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:5) at the time she happens before him for levirate marriage, is considered as if she were the wife of a brother who has children, who is exempt from levirate marriage, and she is consequently forbidden to him forever? It must be the case that minors can perform levirate marriage. If it was forbidden, then they would be exempt from levirate marriage even after reaching the age of majority.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ื™ ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืื—ื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“

The Gemara asks: And say, indeed, a minor should be exempt from levirate marriage, and consequently forbidden from ever marrying his brotherโ€™s wife. The Gemara answers: The verse states: โ€œIf brothers dwell togetherโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:5), indicating that this rule applies to all brothers who are alive simultaneously, even if the brother was only one day old.

ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืขื“ ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืžื•ืงื™ื ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืื ืคืฉื™ื”

ยง The mishna states: When a yevama said within thirty days of her marriage: I have not engaged in sexual intercourse with him, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza with her. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that for up to thirty days a person can be presumed to restrain himself and resist engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman who lives with him?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: A man may come to court to make a claim concerning virginity, i.e., that the woman he married was not a virgin, for thirty days after the marriage ceremony. Assuming that he makes the claim immediately following their first sexual act, his claim is credible if he makes it within the first thirty days; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืกืชืจื” ืœืืœืชืจ ืœื ื ืกืชืจื” ืืฃ ืœืื—ืจ ื›ืžื” ืฉื ื™ื

Rabbi Yosei says: If she was secluded with him after the wedding in a place suitable for sexual intercourse, a claim concerning virginity is only credible immediately. But if she was not secluded with him, they presumably did not engage in intercourse, and such a claim is credible even several years later.

ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ืชื ืืœื ื‘ืืจื•ืกืชื• ื“ื’ื™ืก ื‘ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื•

Rabba said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yosei states his opinion there only with regard to a virginity claim about oneโ€™s betrothed, to whom he is accustomed, and therefore less inhibited, but with regard to his brotherโ€™s wife, i.e., a widow,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua vโ€™ Elana Malka. "ื” ื ืชืŸ ื•ื” ืœืงื—. ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื ื” ืžื‘ื•ืจืš"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

  • 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 111: Minor Wives and Yibum (or Divorce)

1/3 of the way through the Talmud!! Another daf with 2 mishnayot, one long with little Gemara, one shorter, with...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 13: 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 111

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 111

ืชื™ืชื™ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืžืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื™ ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืื™ ืœืื• ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื ื›ืจื™ืช ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื™ื

Let her stay with him, as she is permitted whichever way you look at it: If she is acquired, then she is fully acquired; and if she is not acquired at all, then she is merely an unrelated woman. If the marriage to the deceased brother was not a true marriage, there is no reason for her to be forbidden to him.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืงื˜ื ื” ืืžืื™ ืชืžืชื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืชื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืชื—ืœื•ืฅ ืชื™ืชื™ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืื™ ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ืื™ ืœืื• ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื ื•ื›ืจื™ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื™ื ืื ื›ืŸ ื—ืจืฉืช ื‘ืžื” ืชื™ืคื•ืง

And if you would say that the same question could be asked if you claim that it is the minor whose acquisition is uncertain: Why should she wait until she reaches majority and performs แธฅalitza? Let her stay with him: If she is acquired, then she is fully acquired; and if she is not acquired at all, then she is merely an unrelated woman. However, you cannot say that because, if that is so, how shall the deaf-mute be released? As a deaf-mute, she cannot perform แธฅalitza, and he cannot consummate the levirate marriage with her since the minor may be considered to be acquired by him, in which case the deaf-mute would be disqualified as the rival wife of his yevama. Ravโ€™s suggestion was meant to find a way for both of them to be able to remarry, and that is only possible if the minor and deaf-muteโ€™s statuses are as Rav แธคisda argues.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ืกืชื‘ืจื ื›ื“ืงื ืžืชืจืฅ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘

Rav Sheshet said: Indeed, this too stands to reason, i.e., only the way that Rav แธคisda explained the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rav is reasonable.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื™ืชื•ืžื•ืช ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื” ืฉืœ ืงื˜ื ื” ื—ืจืฉืช ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ืชืžืชื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืชื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืชื—ืœื•ืฅ

As it is taught in a baraita about the following case: Two brothers married two orphaned sisters, one of them a minor and one of them a deaf-mute. If the husband of the minor dies and she happens before the husband of the deaf-mute for levirate marriage, the deaf-mute must be released by means of a bill of divorce due to her sisterโ€™s levirate bond, and the minor must wait until she reaches majority and perform แธฅalitza.

ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื” ืฉืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืงื˜ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ืืกื•ืจื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ืื ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื”

If the deaf-muteโ€™s husband dies, the minor must be released by means of a bill of divorce and the deaf-mute is forbidden forever. He must divorce the minor because of the levirate bond with her sister. He may not consummate the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute because she is his ex-wifeโ€™s sister; and he cannot perform แธฅalitza with her, because she is not capable of performing แธฅalitza. And if he transgresses and consummates the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute, he gives her a bill of divorce afterward, and she is thereby released.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื—ืจืฉืช ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ื™ืจืช ืงื˜ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ื“ื›ื™ ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื” ื“ืืžืจืช ืžืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื ืคืงื ืžืฉื•ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื” ืื™ ืœืื• ืงื ื•ื™ื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžื™ื‘ื

Granted, this argument works if you say that the deaf-mute is partially acquired, and the minor is either acquired or not acquired; it is due to that reason that if he transgresses and consummates the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute, he gives her a bill of divorce and she is released. You would say she is released whichever way you look at it: If the minor is fully acquired by her husband, then the deaf-mute is released due to her status as the sister of his wife, who is a forbidden relative and as such is entirely exempt from levirate marriage. And if the minor is not acquired at all, then he may rightly consummate the levirate marriage and afterward divorce her.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื—ืจืฉืช ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ืงื˜ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ื™ืจืช ื›ื™ ื‘ื ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืืžืื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื” ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืœื ืคื˜ืจื”

But if you say that the deaf-mute is either acquired or not acquired, i.e., the status of a marriage with a deaf-mute is uncertain, while the minor is partially acquired, then when he transgresses and has intercourse with the deaf-mute, why should he give her a bill of divorce and she thereby be released? It is an invalid sexual act, as the minor is partially acquired, which disqualifies her sister from levirate marriage. And an invalid sexual act does not exempt her, i.e., does not constitute full consummation of the levirate marriage, making it possible for him to divorce her. She still requires แธฅalitza, and a deaf-mute cannot perform แธฅalitza. Therefore it must be, as Rav แธคisda suggested, that the deaf-mute is partially acquired while it is uncertain whether the minor is acquired or not.

ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืคื•ื˜ืจืช ืžื—ืœื™ืฆื”

The Gemara rejects the conclusion that the baraita provides evidence for Rav แธคisdaโ€™s explanation, as it is possible to say: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya, who said: An invalid sexual act also exempts a woman from แธฅalitza.

ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืžื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ืฉื•ื™ ืฉืชื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื•ืช ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ืžืช ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื ืืกืจื• ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืชืงื ืชืŸ ื—ืจืฉืช ื™ื•ืฆืืช ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ืชืžืชื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืชื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืชื—ืœื•ืฅ

The Gemara asks: If one accepts the suggestion that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya, say the latter clause of this same baraita: Consider the case of one who was married to two orphans, a minor and a deaf-mute, and he died. If the yavam had intercourse with the minor and then had intercourse with the deaf-mute, or if one of his brothers had intercourse with the deaf-mute after the first brother engaged in intercourse with the minor, they are both forbidden to the first brother. How can their situation be rectified? The deaf-mute must be released with a bill of divorce, and the minor must wait until she reaches majority and then perform แธฅalitza.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื—ืจืฉืช ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ื™ืจืช ืงื˜ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืงื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืชืžืชื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืชื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืชื—ืœื•ืฅ ื“ื“ืœืžื ืงื“ื™ื ื•ื‘ืขื™ืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ืื” ื“ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื”

Granted, this halakha makes sense if you say that a deaf-mute is partially acquired, meaning that she was never fully acquired in the first place; that a minor is either acquired or not acquired; and that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who state that an invalid sexual act does not exempt a woman from แธฅalitza. For these reasons, the minor must wait until she reaches majority and then perform แธฅalitza. The Sages decreed that she must perform แธฅalitza no matter what, as perhaps he may precipitately have intercourse with the deaf-mute first, so that the subsequent intercourse with the minor is considered an invalid sexual act, because he is already partially married to her rival wife. However, since the deaf-mute is only partially acquired, her levirate marriage does not exempt the minor and the minor still must perform แธฅalitza.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื”ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืคื˜ืจื”

But if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya, and also that the status of a deaf-muteโ€™s marriage is uncertain while the status of the minor is that she is partially acquired, there is no explanation why the minor must perform แธฅalitza when she reaches majority, as he said that an invalid sexual act exempts her.

ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Rather, conclude from this reasoning that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืจื™ืฉื ื ืžื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืื ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื” ื•ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืื ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื”

Rav Ashi said: One may learn also from the first clause of the baraita that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it teaches: If he transgresses and consummates the levirate marriage with the sister, who is a deaf-mute, he gives her a bill of divorce afterward, and she is thereby released. And it does not teach: If he consummates the levirate marriage with the minor, he gives her a bill of divorce and she is released. This is presumably because consummation of levirate marriage with the minor is an invalid sexual act, as her deaf-mute sister is partially married to the yavam. Even if he does engage in intercourse with her, she will still require แธฅalitza.

ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื ืœื ืื™ืจื™ื ื—ืจืฉืช ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื” ืชืงื ืชื ื“ื”ื™ืชื™ืจื ืงืชื ื™ ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืื™ืช ืœื” ืชืงื ืชื ื“ื”ื™ืชื™ืจื ืœื ืชื ื™ ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื

The Gemara rejects this argument: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, as one may say that for the deaf-mute, whose situation has no rectification that is permitted because she cannot perform แธฅalitza, the baraita teaches a prohibited rectification; but for the minor, whose situation has a permitted rectification, in that she can perform แธฅalitza after she reaches majority, the baraita does not teach a prohibited rectification.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ืฉื•ื™ ืœืฉืชื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื•ืช ืงื˜ื ื•ืช ื•ืžืช ื•ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืฉื ื™ื” ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ืฉื ื™ื”

MISHNA: If a man was married to two minor orphans and he died, and a yavam engaged in intercourse with the first of them to consummate the levirate marriage, and then engaged in intercourse with the second, or if his brother who is also their yavam engaged in intercourse with the second,

ืœื ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ื—ืจืฉื•ืช

the yavam or his brother did not disqualify the first girl from staying married to him, as her levirate marriage was consummated. Likewise, if the two wives were two female deaf-mutes, the first wife may remain married to the yavam. Intercourse with the second wife, though prohibited, has no effect: If the marriage was of uncertain status, then either the levirate marriage was concluded when he engaged in intercourse with the first, or neither wife was really married to the first husband, and they are therefore not rival wives. If the initial marriage was partial, then since both wives have the same standing, the levirate marriage with the first wife fully realizes whatever degree of levirate marriage is available.

ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ืงื˜ื ื”

If one wife was a minor and the other a deaf-mute, and the yavam engaged in intercourse with the minor and then engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute, then the yavam or his brother disqualified the minor from staying married due to the Sagesโ€™ decree, lest it be confused with a situation where the intercourse with the deaf-mute was first.

ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ื—ืจืฉืช

If the yavam engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute and then engaged in intercourse with the minor, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the minor, then the yavam or his brother disqualified the deaf-mute from staying married. The marriage to the deaf-mute creates a partial acquisition that does not exempt the second wife from levirate marriage, as she, as a minor, has a different standing. Accordingly, intercourse with the second wife also creates a partial acquisition and thereby both women are prohibited to the yavam, as it is prohibited to consummate levirate marriage with more than one wife.

ืคืงื—ืช ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืœื ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ืคืงื—ืช

If one widow was halakhically competent and one widow was a deaf-mute, and the yavam engaged in intercourse with the halakhically competent woman and then engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute, or if his brother then engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute, the yavam or his brother did not disqualify the halakhically competent woman from staying married. Since the yavam consummated the levirate marriage with her first, the levirate bond was entirely dissolved and the intercourse with the deaf-mute, though forbidden, had no effect.

ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ื—ืจืฉืช

If the yavam engaged in intercourse with the deaf-mute and then engaged in intercourse with the halakhically competent woman, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the halakhically competent woman, the yavam or his brother disqualified the deaf-mute from staying married. Consummation of the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute creates only a partial acquisition that does not fully dissolve the levirate bond.

ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืœื ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืื• ืฉื‘ื ืื—ื™ื• ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืคืกืœ ืืช ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืœืžื“ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืฉืชืžืืŸ ื‘ื•

If the deceased brother had two wives, an adult and a minor, and the yavam engaged in sexual intercourse with the adult, then engaged in intercourse with the minor, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the minor, the yavam or his brother did not disqualify the adult from staying married, as the consummation of the levirate marriage with the adult completely dissolves the levirate bond. If the yavam engaged in intercourse with the minor, and then engaged in intercourse with the adult, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the adult, the yavam or his brother disqualified the minor from staying married. Rabbi Elazar says: The court instructs the minor to refuse him thereby annulling her marriage retroactively, and then the minor is permitted to marry any man.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and likewise the amora Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, the tanna in the mishna.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื‘ื”ืš ืงืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงื™ื™ื ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ื ื“ืื™ืงื™ื™ื ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ืื™ืžื ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœืคืงื• ื‘ื’ื˜

The Gemara says: It is necessary to rule that the minor is instructed to refuse, thus annulling her original marriage, both in this case and in the earlier case (Yevamot 109a) of an adult woman who becomes the yevama of her husbandโ€™s brother who is married to her minor sister. For if this halakhic ruling was stated only in that earlier case, I would have said: It was in that case that Shmuel stated the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, due to the fact that the yavam did not fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage with the adult. In order for him to be permitted to do so, the Sages rule that the minor should be instructed to refuse him. But for this case, where the mitzva of levirate marriage is fulfilled, say that they must both be released with a bill of divorce.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืจืžื™ื ืงืžื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And conversely, if the tanna teaches us the ruling only in this case, one would think: It is because the adult happened before him for levirate marriage, and since both the adult and the minor are equally candidates for levirate marriage, it makes sense to encourage the minor to refuse; however, in the other mishna, where the minor is already married to the yavam, making the adult yevama his wifeโ€™s sister who is forbidden to him, she should not be encouraged to refuse. Therefore, it was necessary to state, also in this case, that she is nevertheless encouraged to refuse.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื™ื‘ื ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื‘ื ืขืœ ื™ื‘ืžื” ืงื˜ื ื” ื™ื’ื“ืœื• ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ื‘ื ืขืœ ื™ื‘ืžื” ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืชื’ื“ืœื ื•

MISHNA: If a minor yavam engaged in sexual intercourse with a minor yevama, they should grow up together, living as a married couple. He may not divorce her, as he is a minor. If he engaged in sexual intercourse with an adult yevama, she should raise him, i.e., they must stay married, as there is no way for him to divorce her until he reaches majority.

ื”ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืœื ื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ื•ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื•ื“ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื”

When a yevama said within thirty days of her marriage: I have not engaged in sexual intercourse with him, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza with her. If she said this after thirty days but he claimed that he had engaged in sexual intercourse, the court asks him to perform แธฅalitza with her, as there are grounds to believe him. And when he admits that he did not engage in intercourse with her, even after twelve months, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza with her.

ื”ื ื•ื“ืจืช ื”ื ืื” ืžื™ื‘ืžื” ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชืช ื‘ืขืœื” ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ื•ืื ื ืชื›ื•ื•ื ื” ืœื›ืš ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื”

If a woman vows during her husbandโ€™s lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza with her as it is forbidden for her to engage in sexual intercourse with him to consummate the levirate marriage. If she vowed after the death of her husband to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court asks him to perform แธฅalitza with her. And if she intended to do so, i.e., she had an ulterior motive of avoiding levirate marriage when she vowed, even if she made the vow during her husbandโ€™s lifetime, the court merely asks him to perform แธฅalitza with her.

ื’ืžืณ ืœื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a minor yavam and minor yevama can consummate a levirate marriage and are permitted to live together. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir as it is taught in a baraita: A minor boy and a minor girl may not perform แธฅalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir prohibits this lest the boy turn out to be a eunuch or the girl turn out to be sexually underdeveloped. In such cases, the mitzva of levirate marriage would not apply, and the prohibition against marrying oneโ€™s brotherโ€™s wife would be in effect.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืœืงื˜ืŸ ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ืœื’ื“ื•ืœ ื“ื—ื“ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืื” ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ืืžืจ

The Gemara responds: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. When Rabbi Meir said that minors may not enter into levirate marriage, he was referring to an adult yevama with a minor yavam or a minor yevama with an adult yavam. This is because for one of them it would be a forbidden sexual act, due to the uncertainty of the minorโ€™s status. Since the minor may turn out to be permanently sexually underdeveloped, the adult is forbidden from having intercourse with him or her. But in the case of a minor yavam who has sexual intercourse with a minor yevama, where they are both similar to one another, as neither of them is obligated to perform mitzvot, Rabbi Meir did not state that it is forbidden for them to perform levirate marriage.

ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ื ืขืœ ื™ื‘ืžื” ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืชื’ื“ืœื ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื—ื•ื–ืื” ื‘ื ืฉืื ื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื’ื“ืœื ื• ืงืืžืจ ื“ื›ืœ ื‘ื™ืื” ื•ื‘ื™ืื” ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

The Gemara asks: But it is taught in the mishna: If he, i.e., the minor yavam, engaged in sexual intercourse with an adult yevama, she should raise him, which contradicts the explication of Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion above. Rabbi แธคanina แธคozaโ€™a said: It is different once he engaged in intercourse with her. Although at the outset Rabbi Meir prohibits consummation of the levirate marriage, once it has already taken place, it is preferable that she raise him. The Gemara asks: But it says that she should raise him, indicating that they are meant to live as a married couple, even though each and every sexual act is forbidden according to Rabbi Meir. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

ืงืจื™ ื›ืืŸ ืœื”ืงื™ื ืœืื—ื™ื• ืฉื ื•ื”ืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื™ื‘ืžื” ื™ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: How can the minor enter into levirate marriage? The verse here reads: โ€œAnd if the man does not wish to take his yevama, his yevama shall ascend to the gate to the Elders and say: My brother-in-law refused to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he did not wish to consummate the levirate marriageโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:7), and this minor is incapable of doing so, as he cannot sire children. Abaye said that the verse states: โ€œHer brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriageโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:5), to include anyone, even someone who cannot sire children.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื‘ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ืฉืชื ืืกื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื‘ืชืจ ืฉืขืชื ืฉืจื™ื ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืงื•ืจื ื‘ืฉืขืช ื ืคื™ืœื” ื™ื‘ืžื” ื™ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ื›ืืฉืช ืื— ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืืกื•ืจื”

Rava said: Even without this interpretation you still could not say that it is prohibited for a minor to enter into levirate marriage. Is there a case of levirate marriage where she is forbidden to him now, and after some time she becomes permitted? Didnโ€™t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: Any yevama to whom I cannot apply the verse โ€œHer brother-in-law will have intercourse with herโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:5) at the time she happens before him for levirate marriage, is considered as if she were the wife of a brother who has children, who is exempt from levirate marriage, and she is consequently forbidden to him forever? It must be the case that minors can perform levirate marriage. If it was forbidden, then they would be exempt from levirate marriage even after reaching the age of majority.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ื™ ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืื—ื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“

The Gemara asks: And say, indeed, a minor should be exempt from levirate marriage, and consequently forbidden from ever marrying his brotherโ€™s wife. The Gemara answers: The verse states: โ€œIf brothers dwell togetherโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:5), indicating that this rule applies to all brothers who are alive simultaneously, even if the brother was only one day old.

ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืขื“ ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืžื•ืงื™ื ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืื ืคืฉื™ื”

ยง The mishna states: When a yevama said within thirty days of her marriage: I have not engaged in sexual intercourse with him, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza with her. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that for up to thirty days a person can be presumed to restrain himself and resist engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman who lives with him?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: A man may come to court to make a claim concerning virginity, i.e., that the woman he married was not a virgin, for thirty days after the marriage ceremony. Assuming that he makes the claim immediately following their first sexual act, his claim is credible if he makes it within the first thirty days; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืกืชืจื” ืœืืœืชืจ ืœื ื ืกืชืจื” ืืฃ ืœืื—ืจ ื›ืžื” ืฉื ื™ื

Rabbi Yosei says: If she was secluded with him after the wedding in a place suitable for sexual intercourse, a claim concerning virginity is only credible immediately. But if she was not secluded with him, they presumably did not engage in intercourse, and such a claim is credible even several years later.

ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ืชื ืืœื ื‘ืืจื•ืกืชื• ื“ื’ื™ืก ื‘ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื•

Rabba said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yosei states his opinion there only with regard to a virginity claim about oneโ€™s betrothed, to whom he is accustomed, and therefore less inhibited, but with regard to his brotherโ€™s wife, i.e., a widow,

Scroll To Top