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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 19, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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 12

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

Presentation in PDF format

The Gemara attempts unsuccessfully to answer the question of Rabbi Yochanan about whether yibum is permitted for a wife (or her tzara) who returned to her first husband after divorce (after being married to someone in the interim) and he died without children? The tzara of one who did “miun” (refusal) to her yabam (the brother with whom she was supposed to do yibum) is forbidden according to Shmuel to do yibum. To who is she forbidden – all the brothers or just the one who was ‘refused’? Rav Asi ruled that the second wife of an aylonit is forbidden to do yibum. Two questions are raised against him. In the end, the Gemara brings the halacha regarding the last number of cases discussed and permits the tzarot (second wives) to do yibum. Rav Bivi brings a braita regarding three women who can used birth control – a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman – each for different reasons. Regarding the reason for the minor, the Gemara questions this based on our Mishna.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讛讬转讛 讗讞转 讻砖专讛 讜讗讞转 驻住讜诇讛 讗诐 讛讬讛 讞讜诇抓 讞讜诇抓 诇驻住讜诇讛 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讬讬讘诐 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 讜诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻砖专讛 讻砖专讛 诇注诇诪讗 驻住讜诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇注诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讚讬讚讬讛 讞讝讬讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: We learned it in the same baraita: In a case where one of the women was fit and the other disqualified, if he would like to perform 岣litza he performs 岣litza with the disqualified woman, and if he would like to enter into levirate marriage, he enters into levirate marriage with the fit woman. What is fit and what is disqualified? If we say that fit means fit to all men, and disqualified means disqualified to all men, since for him she is suitable, what difference does it make for him whether she is disqualified from or fit for marriage to others?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻砖专讛 讻砖专讛 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 讜拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讬讬讘诐 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讻砖专讛

Rather, is it not the case that fit means fit for him, and disqualified means disqualified for him? And what is that case in which a woman is fit or disqualified only with regard to him but not to any other man? This is referring to the case of one who remarries his divorc茅e. And it is taught that if he would like to enter into levirate marriage, he enters into levirate marriage with the fit woman. This answers Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question.

诇讗 讻砖专讛 诇注诇诪讗 驻住讜诇讛 诇注诇诪讗 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讚讬讚讬讛 讞讝讬讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 诇讗 讬砖驻讜讱 讗讚诐 诪讬 讘讜专讜 讜讗讞专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬诐 诇讛诐

The Gemara rejects this argument: No; actually, fit means fit to all men, and disqualified means disqualified in general, e.g., a woman who had already been divorced is disqualified from marrying any priest. And that which you said: Since for him she is suitable, what difference does it make for him, this is significant because of that statement of Rav Yosef. As Rav Yosef said: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught a valuable moral lesson, that a person should not pour the water from his well when others are in need of it.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 诪砖谞讬住转 讛讬讗 讜爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讛讬讗 讜爪专转讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讜 讛讬讗 讗讜 爪专转讛 讜诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 拽讗 诪转专爪转 诇讛 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讛讬讗 讞讜诇爪转 爪专转讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

Come and hear a different baraita: With regard to one who remarries his divorc茅e after she had married another, she and her rival wife must perform 岣litza. Can it enter your mind that both she and her rival wife must perform 岣litza? Rather, say: Either she or her rival wife. This indicates that both women are unfit for levirate marriage. The Gemara rejects this claim: And did you not already resolve a difficulty in the baraita? If so, answer as follows: She performs 岣litza, while her rival wife either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. If so, this baraita provides no conclusive proof that might resolve Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 dilemma.

讗诪专 专讘 诇讬诇讬 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 爪专转 诪诪讗谞转 讗住讜专讛 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讞讬诐 讛砖转讗 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 砖专讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 讘讝讛 爪专转讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

搂 The Gemara cites another discussion concerning women who are forbidden in levirate marriage. Rav Lili bar Memel said that Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: The rival wife of a girl who performed refusal is forbidden. If the deceased brother had two wives, one of whom was a minor who refused the brother who sought to be her yavam, not only is she forbidden in levirate marriage, but so too is her rival wife. The Gemara asks: To whom is she forbidden? If we say that she is forbidden to the other brothers, this cannot be the case, as now that she herself, the girl who actually performed refusal, is permitted to them, as Shmuel said: A minor yevama who refused this brother is permitted to that other brother of the deceased husband, is it necessary to state that her rival wife is likewise permitted?

讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讗谞转 讚砖专讬讗 诇讗讞讬谉 讚诇讗 注讘讚讗 讘讛讜 诪注砖讛 爪专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 注讘讚讗 讘讛讜 诪注砖讛

Rather, it means that she is forbidden to him, i.e., as she refused a specific brother, both she and her rival wife are forbidden to him. The Gemara clarifies: And in what way is this halakha of the rival wife different from that of one who performed refusal, who is permitted to the other brothers? If the reason is that she did not perform any act of refusal with them that might nullify the obligation of levirate marriage, her rival wife did not perform any act with them either, and therefore she should be permitted to all of the brothers.

讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 爪专转 讘转讜 诪诪讗谞转 讜爪专转 讘转讜 诪诪讗谞转 诪讬 讗住讬专讗 讜讛转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 讗诐 诪转讜 讗讜 诪讬讗谞讜 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

The Gemara answers: This is a rabbinic decree imposed due to the case of a rival wife of one鈥檚 daughter who performed refusal. If the girl who refused was his daughter or any other forbidden relative, her rival wife would be forbidden as the rival wife of one鈥檚 daughter. Therefore, the Sages rendered forbidden the rival wives of other women who performed refusal, not only his daughter. The Gemara asks: And is the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal actually forbidden? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And with regard to all of these women, if they died or performed refusal with their husbands, their rival wives are permitted.

讚诪讬讗谞讛 讘诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讬讗谞讛 讘讘注诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讙专讜砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讘诐

The Gemara analyzes this statement: Whom did this girl refuse? If we say that she refused the husband, i.e., the deceased brother before he passed away, this is exactly the same as the case of a divorc茅e, and the mishna explicitly states that if one鈥檚 relative who had been married to his deceased brother died, or refused her husband, or was divorced, no prohibition applies to her rival wife. What is the difference between refusal and divorce? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she refused the yavam? If she refuses the yavam, her levirate bond is broken and her rival wife is no longer considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative. Consequently, the rival wife is fit for levirate marriage. This shows that no prohibition applies to the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘注诇 讜转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讬 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讘注诇 讚注拽专讬谞讛讜 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉

The Gemara answers: No; actually, it means that she refused the husband, and two types of divorce are listed in the mishna: Divorce by Torah law and refusal, which is a form of divorce that applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: And what is different between the two cases? Since refusal is not actually divorce but is a form of annulment that nullifies the matrimonial bond retroactively, when she refuses her husband it must be said that she uproots the marriage, and therefore the rival wife is rendered permitted.

讻讬 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讬讘诐 谞诪讬 谞砖讜讗讬谉 拽诪讗讬 拽讗 注拽专讗

If so, when she refuses the yavam, one should also say that she uproots the first marriage. The reasoning is that she cannot actually refuse the yavam, as she was never married to him. Rather, it must be that she annuls her first marriage, and the bond with the yavam is canceled automatically. Consequently, it is as though she were not married at all, and there was never a rival wife.

诪砖讜诐 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讘注诇 诪讜转专转 诇讗讘讬讜 讘讬讘诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讘讬讜

The Gemara explains that Shmuel鈥檚 reasoning is due to the statement that Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught in a baraita as Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught: If a minor refused her husband, she is permitted in marriage even to his father, as refusal completely nullifies the marriage, and it is as though there had never been any earlier marriage with the son. However, if she refused the yavam, not her husband, she is forbidden to his father.

讗诇诪讗 诪砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 谞专讗讬转 讻讻诇转讜

Apparently, from the moment when she came before the yavam for levirate marriage she appears to be his father鈥檚 daughter-in-law. Since at the time of the husband鈥檚 death she had not yet performed refusal, to all appearances she was the father鈥檚 daughter-in-law. Consequently, although the marriage of this minor was not valid by Torah law, any observer would have assumed it was a proper marriage. Therefore, the Sages rendered a girl who refused her yavam forbidden to his father, so that people not take lightly the prohibition of those with whom relations are forbidden.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 谞专讗讬转 讻爪专转 讘转讜

Here, too, the same reasoning applies: From the moment when the other wife came before the yavam for levirate marriage she appears to be the rival wife of his father鈥檚 daughter. For this reason she is forbidden, despite the fact that she is permitted by Torah law. Shmuel鈥檚 ruling that the rival wife of a girl who performed refusal is forbidden is therefore a decree due to the case of the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗住讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛讘讻讜专 讗砖专 转诇讚 驻专讟 诇讗讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss various cases of forbidden women. Rav Asi said: The rival wife of a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit] is forbidden. In other words, if one of the wives of the deceased brother was an aylonit, who is incapable of giving birth, the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply. As it is stated with regard to a woman who requires levirate marriage: 鈥淭he firstborn that she bears鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:6), which comes to exclude an aylonit, who cannot give birth. Since the halakhot of levirate marriage do not apply to an aylonit, she retains her status as a brother鈥檚 wife who is forbidden, and therefore her rival wife is also exempt from levirate marriage.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 谞讻专讬讜转 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜注砖讛 讘讛 砖谞讬 诪讗诪专

Rav Sheshet raised an objection to this from a mishna: Three brothers are married to three unrelated women, and one of the brothers died, and a second brother performed levirate betrothal with the yevama. A levirate betrothal does not have the legal status of a regular betrothal, as the levirate bond between yavam and yevama is not dependent upon betrothal; rather, it represents a kind of continuation of the previous marriage with her deceased husband. Full marriage with a yevama is effected by sexual intercourse alone. However, for reasons of modesty, the Sages instituted that the act of betrothal should apply to a yevama as well.

讜诪转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖注诇讬讛 讝讬拽转 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 讝讬拽转 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉

And this brother who performed the levirate betrothal died before consummation of the marriage. In this case, both of these, the wife of the first brother, who had already come before the second brother for levirate marriage, and the wife of the second brother, perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd one of them dies and he has no child, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin; her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). This implies that the option of levirate marriage applies only to one who is subject to the levirate bond of one yavam, for only one deceased brother, and not the bond of two yevamin. Since it is considered as though the first widow has two levirate duties to fulfill, neither she nor her rival wife may enter into levirate marriage.

讜拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讝讜 讛讬讗 爪专转 讗砖转 讗讞 诪讗讘 砖讗讬住讜专 谞驻讬诇讛 讙专诐 诇讛 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讝讗转

And it is taught with regard to this issue that Rav Yosef said: This is an example of a rival wife of a paternal half brother鈥檚 wife, i.e., a fully fit yevama, for whom coming before the yavam for levirate marriage caused her to be forbidden. In other words, she was fully fit for levirate marriage by Torah law, as all conditions of the mitzva are present in her case. The reason for her prohibition has nothing to do with her particular status but is the result of her having come before a yavam for levirate marriage once already. We have not found in the entire Torah an example like this, where the fact that she was obligated in a mitzva she was unable to fulfill means that not only she, but her rival wife as well, are both rendered forbidden.

讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讚砖专讬讗

The Gemara analyzes Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement: The emphasis of: This is, which indicates that it applies to this case and no other, comes to exclude what? Doesn鈥檛 it come to exclude the rival wife of an aylonit, which would mean that she is permitted? Although an aylonit herself may marry any man, she is not suitable for levirate marriage. If so, Rav Yosef鈥檚 comment indicates that only a woman subject to a double levirate bond, not any other case, renders her rival wife forbidden merely by coming before the yavam for levirate marriage.

诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讚讗住讬专讗 讜诪讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专 谞驻讬诇讛 讙专诐 诇讛 爪专转讛 讘注讬讗 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讬爪讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement was meant to exclude the rival wife of an aylonit, that she is forbidden. And what is the meaning of: This is? It means that this is the one for whom coming before the yavam for levirate marriage caused her to be forbidden, and therefore her rival wife requires 岣litza and is not entirely exempt. In contrast, in the case of the rival wife of an aylonit, she does not even require 岣litza. What is the reason for this difference between the two cases? This one, an aylonit, is exempt from levirate marriage by Torah law, while this one, who was betrothed by levirate betrothal to the other brother, is forbidden by rabbinic law, and she therefore must perform 岣litza.

转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 讗诐 诪转讜 讗讜 诪讬讗谞讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 讗讜 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讻讬专 讘讛

搂 The Gemara cites another relevant source. We learned in the mishna: And with regard to all of these women with whom relations are forbidden, if they died, or they refused their husbands, or were divorced, or were found to be aylonit, their rival wives are permitted in levirate marriage. This ruling apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Asi that the rival wife of an aylonit is forbidden. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, Rav Asi is referring to a situation in which her husband knew that she was an aylonit prior to marriage, and as he married her regardless of her condition their marriage is fully valid. Since the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply to her because she cannot give birth, her rival wife is also exempt.

讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛

There, in the mishna, it is referring to a case where he did not know that she was an aylonit at the time of marriage, but only at a later stage. Since in this case it can be said that he would not choose to marry an aylonit, hers was a mistaken betrothal, and it is therefore nullified. Consequently, her rival wife is permitted.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖讛讬讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讗

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Were found to be an aylonit, and it does not teach: Were an aylonit. This indicates that her condition was not known to the husband at the time of marriage but was discovered by him only later. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that this is the correct interpretation of the mishna. Consequently, the mishna does not contradict the opinion of Rav Asi. Rava said:

讛诇讻转讗 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 诪讜转专转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 爪专转 讘转讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转

And the halakha is that the rival wife of an aylonit is permitted, and this is the case even if her first husband knew of her status and her marriage was fully valid. The mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply to an aylonit, but her rival wife is not forbidden. And even in the case of the rival wife of his aylonit daughter who was recognized as such, the other wife is not considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞诪爪讗讜 转谞讬 砖讛讬讜 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞转 爪专转 诪诪讗谞转 讜讗讞转 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜讗讞转 爪专转 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 讻讜诇谉 诪讜转专讜转

The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which the mishna teaches: Were found to be, from which it was inferred that there is a difference between an aylonit whose condition was known by the husband beforehand and one who was recognized by him only later, how is this to be explained? The Gemara answers that one should emend this and teach simply: That were, and not: Were found to be. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There is one halakha with regard to the rival wife of a girl who refused her husband, and the rival wife of an aylonit, and also the rival wife of one who remarries his divorc茅e: They are all permitted.

转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘诪讜讱 拽讟谞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜砖诪讗 转诪讜转 诪注讜讘专转 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讜讘专讛 住谞讚诇 诪谞讬拽讛 砖诪讗 转讙诪讜诇 讘谞讛 讜讬诪讜转

搂 Incidental to the case of refusal, the Gemara cites a related halakha. Rav Beivai taught a baraita before Rav Na岣an: Three women may engage in relations with a contraceptive resorbent, a soft fabric placed at the entrance to their wombs to prevent conception, despite the fact that this practice is generally prohibited. They are as follows: A minor, a woman who is already pregnant, and a nursing woman. The baraita specifies the reason for each exception: A minor may do so lest she become pregnant and perhaps die; a pregnant woman, lest she be impregnated a second time and her previous fetus becomes deformed into the shape of a sandal fish by being squashed by the pressure of the second fetus. As for a nursing woman, she does so lest she become pregnant and her milk dry up, in which case she will wean her son too early, thereby endangering him, and he will die.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讜讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讜诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 砖讜诪专 驻转讗讬诐 讛壮

And the baraita continues: Who is considered a minor? It is a girl from the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. If she was younger than this or older than this, she may go ahead and engage in relations in her usual manner. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Since it is assumed that a minor who is less than eleven years old cannot become pregnant, she is considered to be in no danger. And the Rabbis say: Both this one and that one, i.e., in all these cases, she may go ahead and engage in relations in her usual manner, and Heaven will have mercy upon her and prevent any mishap, since it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord preserves the simple鈥 (Psalms 116:2).

诪讚拽讗诪专 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜砖诪讗 转诪讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讟谞讛 讚诪讬注讘专讗 讜诇讗 诪转讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讞诪讜转讜 诪诪讗谞转

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: From the fact that the baraita states: Lest she become pregnant and perhaps die, this indicates by inference that there is a minor who can become pregnant and will not die, although the conditions for this scenario of a minor giving birth and surviving are unclear. If so, that a minor might be impregnated and give birth, we find the case of one鈥檚 mother-in-law who refused her husband. Since it is possible for a woman to give birth to a daughter while still a minor, if a man betroths this daughter while still an infant, the mother might be a mother-in-law who performed refusal.

讜转谞谉 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖诪讬讗谞讜 讗讬诪讗 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜转诪讜转

And yet we learned in the mishna: You cannot say, i.e., the possibility does not exist, in the case of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law鈥檚 mother, and his father-in-law鈥檚 mother, that they were found to be an aylonit or performed refusal, as refusal may be performed only by a minor, who cannot give birth. If so, there is apparently a contradiction between the mishna and the baraita. The Gemara answers: Do not say: Lest she become pregnant and perhaps die, which indicates that it is possible for her not to die from the impregnation. Rather, say: Lest she become pregnant and die. In other words, although it is uncertain whether she will be impregnated, if she does become pregnant she will certainly die, which means that there is no case in which a minor could give birth and live.

讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 诇讬讜讗讬 讙讘讜诇 讬砖 诇讛 拽讜讚诐 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗讬谞讛 诪转注讘专转 讻诇 注讬拽专 转讜讱 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讛讬讗 诪转讛 讜注讜讘专讛 诪转 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讛讬讗 讞讬讛 讜注讜讘专讛 讞讬

As Rabba bar Livai said: There is a limit with regard to her pregnancy, i.e., that of a young girl. Before this time, the age of eleven, she cannot be impregnated at all. During this time, from age eleven to twelve, she dies and her fetus dies. After this time, from twelve onward, she lives and her fetus lives.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖诪讬讗谞讜 砖讻讘专 讬诇讚讜 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜砖诪讗 转诪讜转 讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讱

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar Shmuel teach: You cannot say in the case of his mother-in-law, and his mother-in-law鈥檚 mother, and his father-in-law鈥檚 mother that they were found to be an aylonit or performed refusal, as they already gave birth. This indicates that a minor can give birth, as otherwise he should have stated: As they are already mature. Rather, actually, the original version of the baraita is correct: Lest she become pregnant and perhaps die. But this is difficult with regard to the mishna, which indicates that this scenario is impossible.

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讘谞讬诐 讛专讬 讛诐 讻住讬诪谞讬诐 讜讗讬转 讚讗诪专讬 讘谞讬诐 注讚讬驻讬 诪住讬诪谞讬诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬专讘讛 讛砖讞讜专 讘讘谞讬诐 诪讜讚讛

Rav Safra said: Children are equivalent to signs of puberty. In other words, a girl who gives birth does not retain the legal status of a minor, as the very fact that she bore children is equivalent to a physical sign of maturity, usually in the form of pubic hairs. And some say: Children are preferable to signs of puberty. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that arises from the question of whether bearing children is equivalent or preferable to signs of maturity? The Gemara answers: The difference is that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a minor may perform refusal even after she develops two pubic hairs, until the black hairs of her genitals are more plentiful than the hairless skin, in the case of children he concedes that she is considered mature and may not perform refusal.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 9-15 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning about the 15 women that are prohibited to do Yibum or Chalitza due to...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 12: Birth Control Talmud-style

More cases of yibum, of course, including that of the eylonit. Also, 3 cases where an attempt, such as it...

Yevamot 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 12

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讛讬转讛 讗讞转 讻砖专讛 讜讗讞转 驻住讜诇讛 讗诐 讛讬讛 讞讜诇抓 讞讜诇抓 诇驻住讜诇讛 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讬讬讘诐 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 讜诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻砖专讛 讻砖专讛 诇注诇诪讗 驻住讜诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇注诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讚讬讚讬讛 讞讝讬讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: We learned it in the same baraita: In a case where one of the women was fit and the other disqualified, if he would like to perform 岣litza he performs 岣litza with the disqualified woman, and if he would like to enter into levirate marriage, he enters into levirate marriage with the fit woman. What is fit and what is disqualified? If we say that fit means fit to all men, and disqualified means disqualified to all men, since for him she is suitable, what difference does it make for him whether she is disqualified from or fit for marriage to others?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻砖专讛 讻砖专讛 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 讜拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讬讬讘诐 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讻砖专讛

Rather, is it not the case that fit means fit for him, and disqualified means disqualified for him? And what is that case in which a woman is fit or disqualified only with regard to him but not to any other man? This is referring to the case of one who remarries his divorc茅e. And it is taught that if he would like to enter into levirate marriage, he enters into levirate marriage with the fit woman. This answers Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question.

诇讗 讻砖专讛 诇注诇诪讗 驻住讜诇讛 诇注诇诪讗 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讚讬讚讬讛 讞讝讬讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 诇讗 讬砖驻讜讱 讗讚诐 诪讬 讘讜专讜 讜讗讞专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬诐 诇讛诐

The Gemara rejects this argument: No; actually, fit means fit to all men, and disqualified means disqualified in general, e.g., a woman who had already been divorced is disqualified from marrying any priest. And that which you said: Since for him she is suitable, what difference does it make for him, this is significant because of that statement of Rav Yosef. As Rav Yosef said: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught a valuable moral lesson, that a person should not pour the water from his well when others are in need of it.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 诪砖谞讬住转 讛讬讗 讜爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讛讬讗 讜爪专转讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讜 讛讬讗 讗讜 爪专转讛 讜诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 拽讗 诪转专爪转 诇讛 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讛讬讗 讞讜诇爪转 爪专转讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

Come and hear a different baraita: With regard to one who remarries his divorc茅e after she had married another, she and her rival wife must perform 岣litza. Can it enter your mind that both she and her rival wife must perform 岣litza? Rather, say: Either she or her rival wife. This indicates that both women are unfit for levirate marriage. The Gemara rejects this claim: And did you not already resolve a difficulty in the baraita? If so, answer as follows: She performs 岣litza, while her rival wife either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. If so, this baraita provides no conclusive proof that might resolve Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 dilemma.

讗诪专 专讘 诇讬诇讬 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 爪专转 诪诪讗谞转 讗住讜专讛 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讞讬诐 讛砖转讗 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 砖专讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 讘讝讛 爪专转讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

搂 The Gemara cites another discussion concerning women who are forbidden in levirate marriage. Rav Lili bar Memel said that Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: The rival wife of a girl who performed refusal is forbidden. If the deceased brother had two wives, one of whom was a minor who refused the brother who sought to be her yavam, not only is she forbidden in levirate marriage, but so too is her rival wife. The Gemara asks: To whom is she forbidden? If we say that she is forbidden to the other brothers, this cannot be the case, as now that she herself, the girl who actually performed refusal, is permitted to them, as Shmuel said: A minor yevama who refused this brother is permitted to that other brother of the deceased husband, is it necessary to state that her rival wife is likewise permitted?

讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讗谞转 讚砖专讬讗 诇讗讞讬谉 讚诇讗 注讘讚讗 讘讛讜 诪注砖讛 爪专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 注讘讚讗 讘讛讜 诪注砖讛

Rather, it means that she is forbidden to him, i.e., as she refused a specific brother, both she and her rival wife are forbidden to him. The Gemara clarifies: And in what way is this halakha of the rival wife different from that of one who performed refusal, who is permitted to the other brothers? If the reason is that she did not perform any act of refusal with them that might nullify the obligation of levirate marriage, her rival wife did not perform any act with them either, and therefore she should be permitted to all of the brothers.

讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 爪专转 讘转讜 诪诪讗谞转 讜爪专转 讘转讜 诪诪讗谞转 诪讬 讗住讬专讗 讜讛转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 讗诐 诪转讜 讗讜 诪讬讗谞讜 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

The Gemara answers: This is a rabbinic decree imposed due to the case of a rival wife of one鈥檚 daughter who performed refusal. If the girl who refused was his daughter or any other forbidden relative, her rival wife would be forbidden as the rival wife of one鈥檚 daughter. Therefore, the Sages rendered forbidden the rival wives of other women who performed refusal, not only his daughter. The Gemara asks: And is the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal actually forbidden? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And with regard to all of these women, if they died or performed refusal with their husbands, their rival wives are permitted.

讚诪讬讗谞讛 讘诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讬讗谞讛 讘讘注诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讙专讜砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讘诐

The Gemara analyzes this statement: Whom did this girl refuse? If we say that she refused the husband, i.e., the deceased brother before he passed away, this is exactly the same as the case of a divorc茅e, and the mishna explicitly states that if one鈥檚 relative who had been married to his deceased brother died, or refused her husband, or was divorced, no prohibition applies to her rival wife. What is the difference between refusal and divorce? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she refused the yavam? If she refuses the yavam, her levirate bond is broken and her rival wife is no longer considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative. Consequently, the rival wife is fit for levirate marriage. This shows that no prohibition applies to the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘注诇 讜转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讬 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讘注诇 讚注拽专讬谞讛讜 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉

The Gemara answers: No; actually, it means that she refused the husband, and two types of divorce are listed in the mishna: Divorce by Torah law and refusal, which is a form of divorce that applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: And what is different between the two cases? Since refusal is not actually divorce but is a form of annulment that nullifies the matrimonial bond retroactively, when she refuses her husband it must be said that she uproots the marriage, and therefore the rival wife is rendered permitted.

讻讬 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讬讘诐 谞诪讬 谞砖讜讗讬谉 拽诪讗讬 拽讗 注拽专讗

If so, when she refuses the yavam, one should also say that she uproots the first marriage. The reasoning is that she cannot actually refuse the yavam, as she was never married to him. Rather, it must be that she annuls her first marriage, and the bond with the yavam is canceled automatically. Consequently, it is as though she were not married at all, and there was never a rival wife.

诪砖讜诐 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讘注诇 诪讜转专转 诇讗讘讬讜 讘讬讘诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讘讬讜

The Gemara explains that Shmuel鈥檚 reasoning is due to the statement that Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught in a baraita as Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught: If a minor refused her husband, she is permitted in marriage even to his father, as refusal completely nullifies the marriage, and it is as though there had never been any earlier marriage with the son. However, if she refused the yavam, not her husband, she is forbidden to his father.

讗诇诪讗 诪砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 谞专讗讬转 讻讻诇转讜

Apparently, from the moment when she came before the yavam for levirate marriage she appears to be his father鈥檚 daughter-in-law. Since at the time of the husband鈥檚 death she had not yet performed refusal, to all appearances she was the father鈥檚 daughter-in-law. Consequently, although the marriage of this minor was not valid by Torah law, any observer would have assumed it was a proper marriage. Therefore, the Sages rendered a girl who refused her yavam forbidden to his father, so that people not take lightly the prohibition of those with whom relations are forbidden.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 谞专讗讬转 讻爪专转 讘转讜

Here, too, the same reasoning applies: From the moment when the other wife came before the yavam for levirate marriage she appears to be the rival wife of his father鈥檚 daughter. For this reason she is forbidden, despite the fact that she is permitted by Torah law. Shmuel鈥檚 ruling that the rival wife of a girl who performed refusal is forbidden is therefore a decree due to the case of the rival wife of a daughter who performed refusal.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗住讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛讘讻讜专 讗砖专 转诇讚 驻专讟 诇讗讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss various cases of forbidden women. Rav Asi said: The rival wife of a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit] is forbidden. In other words, if one of the wives of the deceased brother was an aylonit, who is incapable of giving birth, the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply. As it is stated with regard to a woman who requires levirate marriage: 鈥淭he firstborn that she bears鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:6), which comes to exclude an aylonit, who cannot give birth. Since the halakhot of levirate marriage do not apply to an aylonit, she retains her status as a brother鈥檚 wife who is forbidden, and therefore her rival wife is also exempt from levirate marriage.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 谞讻专讬讜转 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜注砖讛 讘讛 砖谞讬 诪讗诪专

Rav Sheshet raised an objection to this from a mishna: Three brothers are married to three unrelated women, and one of the brothers died, and a second brother performed levirate betrothal with the yevama. A levirate betrothal does not have the legal status of a regular betrothal, as the levirate bond between yavam and yevama is not dependent upon betrothal; rather, it represents a kind of continuation of the previous marriage with her deceased husband. Full marriage with a yevama is effected by sexual intercourse alone. However, for reasons of modesty, the Sages instituted that the act of betrothal should apply to a yevama as well.

讜诪转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖注诇讬讛 讝讬拽转 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 讝讬拽转 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉

And this brother who performed the levirate betrothal died before consummation of the marriage. In this case, both of these, the wife of the first brother, who had already come before the second brother for levirate marriage, and the wife of the second brother, perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd one of them dies and he has no child, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin; her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). This implies that the option of levirate marriage applies only to one who is subject to the levirate bond of one yavam, for only one deceased brother, and not the bond of two yevamin. Since it is considered as though the first widow has two levirate duties to fulfill, neither she nor her rival wife may enter into levirate marriage.

讜拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讝讜 讛讬讗 爪专转 讗砖转 讗讞 诪讗讘 砖讗讬住讜专 谞驻讬诇讛 讙专诐 诇讛 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讝讗转

And it is taught with regard to this issue that Rav Yosef said: This is an example of a rival wife of a paternal half brother鈥檚 wife, i.e., a fully fit yevama, for whom coming before the yavam for levirate marriage caused her to be forbidden. In other words, she was fully fit for levirate marriage by Torah law, as all conditions of the mitzva are present in her case. The reason for her prohibition has nothing to do with her particular status but is the result of her having come before a yavam for levirate marriage once already. We have not found in the entire Torah an example like this, where the fact that she was obligated in a mitzva she was unable to fulfill means that not only she, but her rival wife as well, are both rendered forbidden.

讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讚砖专讬讗

The Gemara analyzes Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement: The emphasis of: This is, which indicates that it applies to this case and no other, comes to exclude what? Doesn鈥檛 it come to exclude the rival wife of an aylonit, which would mean that she is permitted? Although an aylonit herself may marry any man, she is not suitable for levirate marriage. If so, Rav Yosef鈥檚 comment indicates that only a woman subject to a double levirate bond, not any other case, renders her rival wife forbidden merely by coming before the yavam for levirate marriage.

诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讚讗住讬专讗 讜诪讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专 谞驻讬诇讛 讙专诐 诇讛 爪专转讛 讘注讬讗 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讬爪讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement was meant to exclude the rival wife of an aylonit, that she is forbidden. And what is the meaning of: This is? It means that this is the one for whom coming before the yavam for levirate marriage caused her to be forbidden, and therefore her rival wife requires 岣litza and is not entirely exempt. In contrast, in the case of the rival wife of an aylonit, she does not even require 岣litza. What is the reason for this difference between the two cases? This one, an aylonit, is exempt from levirate marriage by Torah law, while this one, who was betrothed by levirate betrothal to the other brother, is forbidden by rabbinic law, and she therefore must perform 岣litza.

转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 讗诐 诪转讜 讗讜 诪讬讗谞讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 讗讜 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讻讬专 讘讛

搂 The Gemara cites another relevant source. We learned in the mishna: And with regard to all of these women with whom relations are forbidden, if they died, or they refused their husbands, or were divorced, or were found to be aylonit, their rival wives are permitted in levirate marriage. This ruling apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Asi that the rival wife of an aylonit is forbidden. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, Rav Asi is referring to a situation in which her husband knew that she was an aylonit prior to marriage, and as he married her regardless of her condition their marriage is fully valid. Since the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply to her because she cannot give birth, her rival wife is also exempt.

讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛

There, in the mishna, it is referring to a case where he did not know that she was an aylonit at the time of marriage, but only at a later stage. Since in this case it can be said that he would not choose to marry an aylonit, hers was a mistaken betrothal, and it is therefore nullified. Consequently, her rival wife is permitted.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖讛讬讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讗

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Were found to be an aylonit, and it does not teach: Were an aylonit. This indicates that her condition was not known to the husband at the time of marriage but was discovered by him only later. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that this is the correct interpretation of the mishna. Consequently, the mishna does not contradict the opinion of Rav Asi. Rava said:

讛诇讻转讗 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 诪讜转专转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 爪专转 讘转讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转

And the halakha is that the rival wife of an aylonit is permitted, and this is the case even if her first husband knew of her status and her marriage was fully valid. The mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply to an aylonit, but her rival wife is not forbidden. And even in the case of the rival wife of his aylonit daughter who was recognized as such, the other wife is not considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞诪爪讗讜 转谞讬 砖讛讬讜 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞转 爪专转 诪诪讗谞转 讜讗讞转 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜讗讞转 爪专转 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 讻讜诇谉 诪讜转专讜转

The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which the mishna teaches: Were found to be, from which it was inferred that there is a difference between an aylonit whose condition was known by the husband beforehand and one who was recognized by him only later, how is this to be explained? The Gemara answers that one should emend this and teach simply: That were, and not: Were found to be. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There is one halakha with regard to the rival wife of a girl who refused her husband, and the rival wife of an aylonit, and also the rival wife of one who remarries his divorc茅e: They are all permitted.

转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘诪讜讱 拽讟谞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜砖诪讗 转诪讜转 诪注讜讘专转 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讜讘专讛 住谞讚诇 诪谞讬拽讛 砖诪讗 转讙诪讜诇 讘谞讛 讜讬诪讜转

搂 Incidental to the case of refusal, the Gemara cites a related halakha. Rav Beivai taught a baraita before Rav Na岣an: Three women may engage in relations with a contraceptive resorbent, a soft fabric placed at the entrance to their wombs to prevent conception, despite the fact that this practice is generally prohibited. They are as follows: A minor, a woman who is already pregnant, and a nursing woman. The baraita specifies the reason for each exception: A minor may do so lest she become pregnant and perhaps die; a pregnant woman, lest she be impregnated a second time and her previous fetus becomes deformed into the shape of a sandal fish by being squashed by the pressure of the second fetus. As for a nursing woman, she does so lest she become pregnant and her milk dry up, in which case she will wean her son too early, thereby endangering him, and he will die.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讜讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讜诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 砖讜诪专 驻转讗讬诐 讛壮

And the baraita continues: Who is considered a minor? It is a girl from the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. If she was younger than this or older than this, she may go ahead and engage in relations in her usual manner. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Since it is assumed that a minor who is less than eleven years old cannot become pregnant, she is considered to be in no danger. And the Rabbis say: Both this one and that one, i.e., in all these cases, she may go ahead and engage in relations in her usual manner, and Heaven will have mercy upon her and prevent any mishap, since it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord preserves the simple鈥 (Psalms 116:2).

诪讚拽讗诪专 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜砖诪讗 转诪讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讟谞讛 讚诪讬注讘专讗 讜诇讗 诪转讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讞诪讜转讜 诪诪讗谞转

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: From the fact that the baraita states: Lest she become pregnant and perhaps die, this indicates by inference that there is a minor who can become pregnant and will not die, although the conditions for this scenario of a minor giving birth and surviving are unclear. If so, that a minor might be impregnated and give birth, we find the case of one鈥檚 mother-in-law who refused her husband. Since it is possible for a woman to give birth to a daughter while still a minor, if a man betroths this daughter while still an infant, the mother might be a mother-in-law who performed refusal.

讜转谞谉 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖诪讬讗谞讜 讗讬诪讗 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜转诪讜转

And yet we learned in the mishna: You cannot say, i.e., the possibility does not exist, in the case of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law鈥檚 mother, and his father-in-law鈥檚 mother, that they were found to be an aylonit or performed refusal, as refusal may be performed only by a minor, who cannot give birth. If so, there is apparently a contradiction between the mishna and the baraita. The Gemara answers: Do not say: Lest she become pregnant and perhaps die, which indicates that it is possible for her not to die from the impregnation. Rather, say: Lest she become pregnant and die. In other words, although it is uncertain whether she will be impregnated, if she does become pregnant she will certainly die, which means that there is no case in which a minor could give birth and live.

讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 诇讬讜讗讬 讙讘讜诇 讬砖 诇讛 拽讜讚诐 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗讬谞讛 诪转注讘专转 讻诇 注讬拽专 转讜讱 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讛讬讗 诪转讛 讜注讜讘专讛 诪转 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讛讬讗 讞讬讛 讜注讜讘专讛 讞讬

As Rabba bar Livai said: There is a limit with regard to her pregnancy, i.e., that of a young girl. Before this time, the age of eleven, she cannot be impregnated at all. During this time, from age eleven to twelve, she dies and her fetus dies. After this time, from twelve onward, she lives and her fetus lives.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖诪讬讗谞讜 砖讻讘专 讬诇讚讜 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜砖诪讗 转诪讜转 讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讱

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar Shmuel teach: You cannot say in the case of his mother-in-law, and his mother-in-law鈥檚 mother, and his father-in-law鈥檚 mother that they were found to be an aylonit or performed refusal, as they already gave birth. This indicates that a minor can give birth, as otherwise he should have stated: As they are already mature. Rather, actually, the original version of the baraita is correct: Lest she become pregnant and perhaps die. But this is difficult with regard to the mishna, which indicates that this scenario is impossible.

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讘谞讬诐 讛专讬 讛诐 讻住讬诪谞讬诐 讜讗讬转 讚讗诪专讬 讘谞讬诐 注讚讬驻讬 诪住讬诪谞讬诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬专讘讛 讛砖讞讜专 讘讘谞讬诐 诪讜讚讛

Rav Safra said: Children are equivalent to signs of puberty. In other words, a girl who gives birth does not retain the legal status of a minor, as the very fact that she bore children is equivalent to a physical sign of maturity, usually in the form of pubic hairs. And some say: Children are preferable to signs of puberty. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that arises from the question of whether bearing children is equivalent or preferable to signs of maturity? The Gemara answers: The difference is that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a minor may perform refusal even after she develops two pubic hairs, until the black hairs of her genitals are more plentiful than the hairless skin, in the case of children he concedes that she is considered mature and may not perform refusal.

Scroll To Top