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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 26, 2022 | 讻状讝 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 111

Presentation in PDF format

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by the congregation of Keneseth Israel, located in Allentown, Pennsylvania, in honor of the retirement of Rabbi Seth Phillips.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in loving memory of her mother, Miriam Quint David, Malkah bat Michael v’Esther, on her sixth yahrzeit, a day before Shavuot. “A beloved wife, mother and grandmother. A passionate Jewish educator. We praise her and the works of her hands.”

This week’s learning is sponsored by my parents, Bob and Paula Cohen in memory of my maternal grandfather Chaim Avraham ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.

If a man was married to a minor and a deaf-mute, and died childless, yibum with one doesn’t exempt the other. So what is his brother supposed to do to enable the women to remarry? Rav Chisda quoted Rav as saying that he should marry the deaf-mute and divorce her, then wait for the minor to reach maturity and do chalitza. Rav Chisda inferred from Rav’s ruling that the deaf-mute is considered partially married and the minor is considered a case of doubt – either fully married or not married at all. How is that inferred and how does Rav Sheshet further prove this understanding from a different braita? They try to reject his proof by suggesting that perhaps the braita follows a minority opinion, however, this suggestion is rejected. The Mishna brings more cases where a man was married to two women who were minor or both deaf-mutes or of different unequal statuses like a minor and a mature woman, a deaf-mute and a woman who is not a deaf-mute. What is the yabam to do in these situations and is the woman permitted to remarry? Rabbi Elazar holds that when there is a minor and mature woman, we encourage the minor to do mi’un. The Gemara quotes amoraim who ruled like Rabbi Elazar. What if both the man and woman who were meant to do yibum are minors? The Mishna rules that if they have intercourse (and fulfill the mitzva of yibum), if they intend to divorce, they need to wait until they reach the age of maturity. The same holds if only the yabam is a minor. Is this Mishna not in accordance with Rabbi Meir who rules that a minor cannot do yibum as they need to be concerned that perhaps they are a saris or aylonit and therefore incapable of performing the mitzva of yibum? If the yabam claims he had intercourse with the yevama and she claims he did not, who is believed. On what does it depend?

 

转讬转讬讘 讙讘讬讛 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 谞讻专讬转 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽讟谞讛 讗诪讗讬 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讞诇讜抓 转讬转讬讘 讙讘讬讛 讗讬 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 谞讜讻专讬转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞专砖转 讘诪讛 转讬驻讜拽

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 岣litza? 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 岣litza, 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. Rav鈥檚 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-mute鈥檚 statuses are as Rav 岣sda argues.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讬住转讘专讗 讻讚拽讗 诪转专抓 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘

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

讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讬转讜诪讜转 拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 诪转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 拽讟谞讛 讞专砖转 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讜拽讟谞讛 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讞诇讜抓

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 sister鈥檚 levirate bond, and the minor must wait until she reaches majority and perform 岣litza.

诪转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 讞专砖转 拽讟谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讜讞专砖转 讗住讜专讛 诇注讜诇诐 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讛讜转专讛

If the deaf-mute鈥檚 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-wife鈥檚 sister; and he cannot perform 岣litza with her, because she is not capable of performing 岣litza. 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞专砖转 拽谞讜讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬讬专转 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讚讻讬 讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讛讜转专讛 讚讗诪专转 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 谞驻拽讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 拽谞讜讬讛 砖驻讬专 诪讬讘诐

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞专砖转 拽谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬讬专转 讻讬 讘讗 注诇 讞专砖转 讗诪讗讬 谞讜转谉 讙讟 讜讛讜转专讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 驻讟专讛

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 岣litza, and a deaf-mute cannot perform 岣litza. Therefore it must be, as Rav 岣sda suggested, that the deaf-mute is partially acquired while it is uncertain whether the minor is acquired or not.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 驻讜讟专转 诪讞诇讬爪讛

The Gemara rejects the conclusion that the baraita provides evidence for Rav 岣sda鈥檚 explanation, as it is possible to say: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, who said: An invalid sexual act also exempts a woman from 岣litza.

讗讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 砖转讬 讬转讜诪讜转 拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 讜诪转 讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛讞专砖转 谞讗住专讜 砖转讬讛谉 注诇讬讜 讻讬爪讚 转拽谞转谉 讞专砖转 讬讜爪讗转 讘讙讟 讜拽讟谞讛 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讞诇讜抓

The Gemara asks: If one accepts the suggestion that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, 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 岣litza.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞专砖转 拽谞讜讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬讬专转 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讞诇讜抓 讚讚诇诪讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讘注讬诇 讞专砖转 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讬讗讛 讚拽讟谞讛 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛

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 岣litza. For these reasons, the minor must wait until she reaches majority and then perform 岣litza. The Sages decreed that she must perform 岣litza 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 岣litza.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 驻讟专讛

But if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, and also that the status of a deaf-mute鈥檚 marriage is uncertain while the status of the minor is that she is partially acquired, there is no explanation why the minor must perform 岣litza when she reaches majority, as he said that an invalid sexual act exempts her.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讛讜转专讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讘讗 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讛讜转专讛

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 岣litza.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 讞专砖转 讚诇讬转 诇讛 转拽谞转讗 讚讛讬转讬专讗 拽转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 拽讟谞讛 讚讗讬转 诇讛 转拽谞转讗 讚讛讬转讬专讗 诇讗 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗

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 岣litza, the baraita teaches a prohibited rectification; but for the minor, whose situation has a permitted rectification, in that she can perform 岣litza after she reaches majority, the baraita does not teach a prohibited rectification.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 诇砖转讬 讬转讜诪讜转 拽讟谞讜转 讜诪转 讜讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛砖谞讬讛 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛砖谞讬讛

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,

诇讗 驻住诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讞专砖讜转

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.

拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛讞专砖转 驻住诇 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛

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 Sages鈥 decree, lest it be confused with a situation where the intercourse with the deaf-mute was first.

讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛讞专砖转 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 驻住诇 讗转 讛讞专砖转

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.

驻拽讞转 讜讞专砖转 讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛驻拽讞转 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛讞专砖转 诇讗 驻住诇 讗转 讛驻拽讞转

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.

讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛讞专砖转 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛驻拽讞转 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛驻拽讞转 驻住诇 讗转 讛讞专砖转

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.

讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 诇讗 驻住诇 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛讙讚讜诇讛 驻住诇 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讬讘讜诐 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讚讗讬拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讬讘讜诐 讗讬诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇驻拽讜 讘讙讟

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 husband鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讚讜诇讛 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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 wife鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讘诐 拽讟谉 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讬讙讚诇讜 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 转讙讚诇谞讜

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.

讛讬讘诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇讗 谞讘注诇转讬 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 诪讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛

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 岣litza 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 岣litza 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 岣litza with her.

讛谞讜讚专转 讛谞讗讛 诪讬讘诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讘注诇讛 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 讜讗诐 谞转讻讜讜谞讛 诇讻讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛

If a woman vows during her husband鈥檚 lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform 岣litza 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 岣litza 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 husband鈥檚 lifetime, the court merely asks him to perform 岣litza with her.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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 岣litza 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 one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife would be in effect.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诇拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讙讚讜诇 讚讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬讗讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 拽讟谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讗诪专

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 minor鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 转讙讚诇谞讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讜讛讗 转讙讚诇谞讜 拽讗诪专 讚讻诇 讘讬讗讛 讜讘讬讗讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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 Meir鈥檚 opinion above. Rabbi 岣nina 岣za鈥檃 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.

拽专讬 讻讗谉 诇讛拽讬诐 诇讗讞讬讜 砖诐 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讻诇 讚讛讜

The Gemara asks: How can the minor enter into levirate marriage? The verse here reads: 鈥淎nd 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 marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:7), and this minor is incapable of doing so, as he cannot sire children. Abaye said that the verse states: 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), to include anyone, even someone who cannot sire children.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛砖转讗 讗住讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讘转专 砖注转讗 砖专讬讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讬讘诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讞 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讗住讜专讛

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? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: Any yevama to whom I cannot apply the verse 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 (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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

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

讬讘诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诪讜拽讬诐 讗讬谞讬砖 讗谞驻砖讬讛

搂 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 岣litza 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞住转专讛 诇讗诇转专 诇讗 谞住转专讛 讗祝 诇讗讞专 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐

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.

专讘讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘讗专讜住转讜 讚讙讬住 讘讛 讗讘诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜

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 one鈥檚 betrothed, to whom he is accustomed, and therefore less inhibited, but with regard to his brother鈥檚 wife, i.e., a widow,

  • 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

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

转讬转讬讘 讙讘讬讛 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 谞讻专讬转 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽讟谞讛 讗诪讗讬 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讞诇讜抓 转讬转讬讘 讙讘讬讛 讗讬 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 谞讜讻专讬转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞专砖转 讘诪讛 转讬驻讜拽

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 岣litza? 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 岣litza, 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. Rav鈥檚 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-mute鈥檚 statuses are as Rav 岣sda argues.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讬住转讘专讗 讻讚拽讗 诪转专抓 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘

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

讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讬转讜诪讜转 拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 诪转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 拽讟谞讛 讞专砖转 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讜拽讟谞讛 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讞诇讜抓

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 sister鈥檚 levirate bond, and the minor must wait until she reaches majority and perform 岣litza.

诪转 讘注诇讛 砖诇 讞专砖转 拽讟谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讜讞专砖转 讗住讜专讛 诇注讜诇诐 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讛讜转专讛

If the deaf-mute鈥檚 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-wife鈥檚 sister; and he cannot perform 岣litza with her, because she is not capable of performing 岣litza. 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞专砖转 拽谞讜讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬讬专转 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讚讻讬 讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讛讜转专讛 讚讗诪专转 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 谞驻拽讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 拽谞讜讬讛 砖驻讬专 诪讬讘诐

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞专砖转 拽谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬讬专转 讻讬 讘讗 注诇 讞专砖转 讗诪讗讬 谞讜转谉 讙讟 讜讛讜转专讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 驻讟专讛

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 岣litza, and a deaf-mute cannot perform 岣litza. Therefore it must be, as Rav 岣sda suggested, that the deaf-mute is partially acquired while it is uncertain whether the minor is acquired or not.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 驻讜讟专转 诪讞诇讬爪讛

The Gemara rejects the conclusion that the baraita provides evidence for Rav 岣sda鈥檚 explanation, as it is possible to say: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, who said: An invalid sexual act also exempts a woman from 岣litza.

讗讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 砖转讬 讬转讜诪讜转 拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 讜诪转 讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛讞专砖转 谞讗住专讜 砖转讬讛谉 注诇讬讜 讻讬爪讚 转拽谞转谉 讞专砖转 讬讜爪讗转 讘讙讟 讜拽讟谞讛 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讞诇讜抓

The Gemara asks: If one accepts the suggestion that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, 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 岣litza.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞专砖转 拽谞讜讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬讬专转 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讞诇讜抓 讚讚诇诪讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讘注讬诇 讞专砖转 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讬讗讛 讚拽讟谞讛 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛

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 岣litza. For these reasons, the minor must wait until she reaches majority and then perform 岣litza. The Sages decreed that she must perform 岣litza 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 岣litza.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 驻讟专讛

But if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, and also that the status of a deaf-mute鈥檚 marriage is uncertain while the status of the minor is that she is partially acquired, there is no explanation why the minor must perform 岣litza when she reaches majority, as he said that an invalid sexual act exempts her.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讛讜转专讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讘讗 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讛讜转专讛

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 岣litza.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 讞专砖转 讚诇讬转 诇讛 转拽谞转讗 讚讛讬转讬专讗 拽转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 拽讟谞讛 讚讗讬转 诇讛 转拽谞转讗 讚讛讬转讬专讗 诇讗 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗

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 岣litza, the baraita teaches a prohibited rectification; but for the minor, whose situation has a permitted rectification, in that she can perform 岣litza after she reaches majority, the baraita does not teach a prohibited rectification.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 诇砖转讬 讬转讜诪讜转 拽讟谞讜转 讜诪转 讜讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛砖谞讬讛 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛砖谞讬讛

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,

诇讗 驻住诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讞专砖讜转

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.

拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛讞专砖转 驻住诇 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛

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 Sages鈥 decree, lest it be confused with a situation where the intercourse with the deaf-mute was first.

讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛讞专砖转 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 驻住诇 讗转 讛讞专砖转

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.

驻拽讞转 讜讞专砖转 讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛驻拽讞转 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛讞专砖转 诇讗 驻住诇 讗转 讛驻拽讞转

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.

讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛讞专砖转 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛驻拽讞转 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛驻拽讞转 驻住诇 讗转 讛讞专砖转

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.

讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 诇讗 驻住诇 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讘讗 讬讘诐 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讗讜 砖讘讗 讗讞讬讜 注诇 讛讙讚讜诇讛 驻住诇 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讬讘讜诐 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讚讗讬拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讬讘讜诐 讗讬诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇驻拽讜 讘讙讟

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 husband鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讚讜诇讛 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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 wife鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讘诐 拽讟谉 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讬讙讚诇讜 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 转讙讚诇谞讜

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.

讛讬讘诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇讗 谞讘注诇转讬 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 诪讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛

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 岣litza 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 岣litza 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 岣litza with her.

讛谞讜讚专转 讛谞讗讛 诪讬讘诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讘注诇讛 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 讜讗诐 谞转讻讜讜谞讛 诇讻讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛

If a woman vows during her husband鈥檚 lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform 岣litza 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 岣litza 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 husband鈥檚 lifetime, the court merely asks him to perform 岣litza with her.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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 岣litza 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 one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife would be in effect.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诇拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讙讚讜诇 讚讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬讗讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 拽讟谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讗诪专

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 minor鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 转讙讚诇谞讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讜讛讗 转讙讚诇谞讜 拽讗诪专 讚讻诇 讘讬讗讛 讜讘讬讗讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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 Meir鈥檚 opinion above. Rabbi 岣nina 岣za鈥檃 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.

拽专讬 讻讗谉 诇讛拽讬诐 诇讗讞讬讜 砖诐 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讻诇 讚讛讜

The Gemara asks: How can the minor enter into levirate marriage? The verse here reads: 鈥淎nd 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 marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:7), and this minor is incapable of doing so, as he cannot sire children. Abaye said that the verse states: 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), to include anyone, even someone who cannot sire children.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛砖转讗 讗住讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讘转专 砖注转讗 砖专讬讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讬讘诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讞 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讗住讜专讛

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? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: Any yevama to whom I cannot apply the verse 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 (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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

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

讬讘诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诪讜拽讬诐 讗讬谞讬砖 讗谞驻砖讬讛

搂 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 岣litza 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞住转专讛 诇讗诇转专 诇讗 谞住转专讛 讗祝 诇讗讞专 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐

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.

专讘讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘讗专讜住转讜 讚讙讬住 讘讛 讗讘诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜

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 one鈥檚 betrothed, to whom he is accustomed, and therefore less inhibited, but with regard to his brother鈥檚 wife, i.e., a widow,

Scroll To Top