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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 20, 2022 | 讬状讝 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 13

Today’s daf is dedicated by Tzivia Korn for a refuah shleima for Frieda Devra bat Rayzel Riva.聽
What is the source for exempting the tzara of the tzara in the event that there was a third brother, mentioned in the first Mishna? When the Mishna states that if the wife (the one who was forbidden to the brother) died or divorced, etc. before the first husband died, the tzara is permitted. Is this even if she died, divorced, etc. after the second wife was married to him or only if it was before the second wife married the first husband? If it is the former, it seems to contradict a Mishna in the third chapter. Can it be inferred from the Mishna whether miun, refusal, to the yabam cannot retroactively invalidate her first marriage and therefore cannot permit her tzara to marry the yabam? The second Mishna of this chapter lists six cases of forbidden relationships that are different from the first Mishna as in all six situations, there is no case where the woman can marry any of the brothers. Therefore this law exempting the tzara from marrying the first wife’s relatives is void. If there was a case without yibum, meaning the husband dies with children, if the tzara chooses to remarry a relative of the other wife, she may. Beit Shamai disagrees with the premise of the first Mishna and permits the tzarot to do yibum. Some ramifications of this debate are explained in the Mishna. Even though there are important ramifications for whose marriages are valid/not valid, Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel did not refrain from marrying women from the other school of thought. The same holds true for their disagreements regarding pure/impure vessels. What is the basis for the debate between them? Two different answers are brought.

 

讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘谞讬诐 讘诇讗 住讬诪谞讬诐 讜谞讘讚讜拽 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 谞砖专讜 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉

And Rav Zevid said: There are no children without signs of puberty. In other words, if a girl gives birth, she definitely possesses the signs of puberty. The Gemara asks: But if so, let us examine to see whether these physical signs are present, so that there is no need to depend on a presumption. The Gemara answers: We are concerned lest the hairs that constitute the sign have fallen off. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who said that in general we are concerned lest signs fall off, i.e., that there are cases in which she is in fact mature but the hairs have come off.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 爪注专 诇讬讚讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

However, according to the one who said that if there are in fact hairs they will certainly be found, and we are not concerned that they may have fallen out, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who said that in ordinary circumstances we are not concerned that the hairs may have fallen out, in this case, due to the pain of childbirth we are concerned that they might have fallen out, and therefore it is impossible to examine the matter conclusively.

讻讬爪讚 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇爪专讜专 讛转讜专讛 专讬讘转讛 爪专讜转 讛专讘讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the mishna: How do they exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives? The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that not only is a rival wife exempt but the rival wife of a rival wife is exempt as well, derived? Rav Yehuda said that this is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival [litzror] to her鈥 (Leviticus 18:18). The term litzror is written, with the letter reish appearing twice, rather than latzor, with a single reish, which means that the Torah amplified and included many rival wives. In other words, this verse includes not only the rival wife of a forbidden relative, but also the rival wife of a rival wife.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 住讘专讗 讛讬讗 爪专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗住讬专讗 讚讘诪拽讜诐 注专讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗 爪专转 爪专讛 谞诪讬 讘诪拽讜诐 注专讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗

Rav Ashi said: It is a logical inference, which does not require a source from the Torah. What is the reason that a rival wife of a forbidden relative is prohibited? The reason is that she stands in place of a forbidden relative. Since the forbidden relative caused her exemption from levirate marriage, she too is considered a forbidden relative who remains categorized as a brother鈥檚 wife. Therefore, the rival wife of a rival wife also stands in place of a forbidden relative, as she is like the rival wife of a forbidden relative and is therefore forbidden herself.

讻讬爪讚 讗诐 诪转讜 讛谉 讻讜壮 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞住 讜诇讘住讜祝 讙讬专砖

搂 The mishna taught: How so? If the forbidden relative died, performed refusal, or was divorced, from that moment onward their rival wives are no longer considered the rival wives of a forbidden relative and are permitted. The Gemara remarks: This legal ruling with regard to a divorce is presented as a general principle and is therefore correct even if at the time that the deceased brother married the rival wife he was married to the forbidden relative, and ultimately divorced the relative, which means that for a period of time the women were rival wives. Even under these circumstances the prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relative does not apply, and she is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讙讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗砖转讜 讜诪转 讛谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讜讻谞住讛 讛诪讙专砖 讜诪转 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 砖讗诐 诪转讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (30a), which discusses three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters and one is married to an unrelated woman. One of the husbands of the sisters subsequently divorced his wife, and the one who was married to the unrelated woman died, and the one who divorced his wife married the yevama by levirate marriage and afterward died as well, which means that this yevama once again came for levirate marriage before the remaining brother, who was married to one of the sisters. It is with regard to this case that they said that if they died or were divorced their rival wives are permitted. This concludes the mishna.

讟注诪讗 讚讙讬专砖 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讻谞住 讗讘诇 讻谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讙讬专砖 诇讗

The Gemara infers from this mishna: The reason she is permitted is that the yavam first divorced the sister and only afterward married the unrelated woman. In this case, the unrelated woman was never actually the rival wife of a sister, despite the fact that they were, at different times, married to the same man. However, if the yavam first married the unrelated woman and afterward divorced the sister, she would not be permitted to enter into levirate marriage because for a period of time she had been the rival wife of a forbidden relative.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诪讬转讛 诪驻诇转

These two mishnayot apparently contradict each other. Rabbi Yirmeya said: This mishna is disjointed, i.e., the mishnayot are truly incompatible, and the tanna who taught this halakha did not teach that halakha. The reason for the difference in opinions is that this tanna, of the mishna here, maintains that death causes her to come before him for levirate marriage. In other words, the decisive moment that determines the obligation in or exemption from levirate marriage is the moment of the childless brother鈥檚 death. Since in the case of the mishna here she was not the rival wife of a forbidden relative at the time of his death, the prohibition does not apply to her.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬诐

And that tanna of the mishna dealing with three brothers maintains that the first marriage causes her to come before him for levirate marriage. In other words, the levirate bond is established at the time of the marriage, and since the second wife was the rival wife of a forbidden relative for at least a brief period, her exemption from levirate marriage was determined then.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讚 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讝讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讜 拽转谞讬

Rava said: Actually, both mishnayot represent the opinion of a single tanna, but he teaches the mishna employing the style: This and it is unnecessary to say that. In other words, the mishna here is referring to a case where he first married and later divorced, while the mishna that deals with three brothers is speaking of a simpler, more obvious case, in which he first divorced and later married the second wife. In that case she is certainly permitted. Accordingly, there is no real contradiction here between the mishnayot, as they utilize different styles of teaching.

讜讻诇 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讗谉 讜转诪讗谉 讛砖转讗 讜转转讬讬讘诐 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗

搂 The mishna taught: And if any of these forbidden relatives was a minor who could refuse her husband, then even if she did not refuse him, her rival wife performs 岣litza and does not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: And let the minor perform refusal now, thereby annulling the marriage retroactively after the death of her husband, and let her rival wife enter into levirate marriage. Since this option is not accepted, let us say that it supports the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪诪讗谞转 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 诇讝讬拽转讜

As Rabbi Oshaya said: A yevama who is a minor can refuse the levirate betrothal of the yavam. In other words, if he betrothed her she is free to say that she does not desire to marry him, a declaration that severs any connection between them. But she cannot refuse his bond. Provided that he has not performed a levirate betrothal, this minor yevama cannot annul the ties between them by a refusal, as theirs is not a bond of marriage, and the institution of refusal was established only with regard to marriage. According to this opinion, it is evident that a minor yevama who is a forbidden relative cannot perform refusal so as to enable her rival wife to enter levirate marriage.

诇讗 爪专转 注专讜讛 砖讗谞讬 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 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讬讘诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讘讬讜

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is possible that a minor yevama can indeed refuse a levirate bond, but the rival wife of a forbidden relative is different, as she is not permitted in levirate marriage even if the forbidden relative herself can perform refusal. Why? As Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught in a baraita: If she refused the husband, thereby annulling the marriage, she is permitted to his father, as the marriage bond was entirely nullified retroactively and she is not considered his daughter-in-law at all. If, however, she refused only the yavam, 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 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

Apparently, the reason is that at the moment of her coming before him for levirate marriage she had the appearance of his daughter-in-law. Since people will think she is his daughter-in-law, she is forbidden to the father. Here, too, at the moment of her coming before him for levirate marriage she had the appearance of his daughter鈥檚 rival wife. Consequently, the Sages did not permit her to enter into levirate marriage even if the other wife refuses the husband.

诪转谞讬壮 砖砖 注专讬讜转 讞诪讜专讜转 诪讗诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬诐 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

MISHNA: Six women with whom relations are forbidden who were not enumerated in the first mishna are forbidden by prohibitions that are more severe than those listed in that mishna because they may be married only to others and may never be married to any of the brothers, due to the closeness of their relationship. However, this stringency entails a corresponding leniency: Since the halakha of levirate marriage is entirely inapplicable in these cases, their rival wives are permitted. The rival wife of a forbidden relative is forbidden herself only if the mitzva of levirate marriage is applicable, but where it is not in effect she is permitted.

讗诪讜 讜讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜

The six women with whom relations are forbidden are as follows: His mother, and his father鈥檚 wife, and his father鈥檚 sister, and his paternal half sister, and the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, and the wife of his paternal half brother. Each of these women with whom relations are forbidden is forbidden equally to all of the brothers, and the mitzva of levirate marriage is inapplicable. Therefore, her rival wife is permitted.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪转讬专讬谉 讛爪专讜转 诇讗讞讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜住专讬诐

搂 Up to this point, the discussions were based on the assumption that not only may a forbidden relative not enter into levirate marriage, but her rival wife is also exempt. However, this issue is subject to a long-standing dispute. Beit Shammai permit the rival wives to the brothers, as they did not accept the interpretation of the verses that indicates that rival wives are prohibited. And Beit Hillel forbid them. The previous mishnayot are in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

讞诇爪讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 谞转讬讬讘诪讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 驻讜住诇讬谉

If any of the rival wives of the brother performed 岣litza, Beit Shammai disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood, as in their opinion these rival wives were fit for levirate marriage, which means that the 岣litza was fully valid. Consequently, they are disqualified from marrying a priest, like all other women who perform 岣litza. And Beit Hillel deem them fit, as they maintain that no legal act of 岣litza was performed here at all. If they entered into levirate marriage, Beit Shammai deem them fit for the priesthood, as in their opinion, this is a fully legal levirate marriage. And Beit Hillel disqualify them, because they engaged in licentious sexual relations as the rival wives of a forbidden relative.

讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诇讜 讗讜住专讬诐 讜讗诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗诇讜 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讗诇讜 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 谞诪谞注讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪诇讬砖讗 谞砖讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻诇 讛讟讛专讜转 讜讛讟诪讗讜转 砖讛讬讜 讗诇讜 诪讟讛专讬诐 讜讗诇讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讗 谞诪谞注讜 注讜砖讬谉 讟讛专讜转 讗诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讗诇讜

搂 The mishna comments: Although Beit Hillel prohibit the rival wives to the brothers and Beit Shammai permit them, and although these disqualify these women and those deem them fit, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying women from Beit Shammai. Furthermore, with regard to all of the disputes concerning the halakhot of ritual purity and impurity, where these rule that an article is ritually pure and those rule it ritually impure, they did not refrain from handling ritually pure objects each with the other, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel frequently used each other鈥檚 vessels.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讛讬讛 讗砖转 讛诪转 讛讞讜爪讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讞讜爪讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 驻谞讬诪讬转 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讛讬讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: What is the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai? As it is written: 鈥淭he wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). The term 鈥渙utside鈥 indicates by inference that there is a woman who is considered inside, i.e., a close relative of the yavam, who is inside his family. And the Merciful One states: 鈥淪hall not be married鈥 and also 鈥渢o one not of his kin.鈥 In other words, even when one of the wives is a forbidden relative, the rival wife who is outside the family of the yavam is obligated in levirate marriage.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讬讘诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讛讬讛 讗砖转 讛诪转 讛讞讜爪讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 诇讗 转讛讬讛 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 诇讝专

And how do Beit Hillel respond to this argument of Beit Shammai? They require these passages for that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: From where is it derived that betrothal is not effective in the case of a yevama who did not perform 岣litza, if the betrothal is performed by an unrelated man and not a yavam? This betrothal is not valid at all, as it is stated: The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). This verse indicates that there shall not be in her case the becoming married to one not of his kin.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讞讜抓 讞讜爪讛 讻转讬讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讞讜爪讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 诇讞讜抓 讚诪讬

And how do Beit Shammai respond to this claim? They ask: Is it written: To the outside [la岣tz], which might indicate betrothal to an unrelated man? It is actually written 鈥渙utside [岣tza],鈥 which is an adjective describing this woman as one who is from the outside. And Beit Hillel, what is their response? They maintain that since it is written 鈥渙utside,鈥 it is considered as though it is written: To the outside.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 转讬讘讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讚 讘转讞诇转讛 讛讟讬诇 诇讛 讛讻转讜讘 讛讗 讘住讜驻讛 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讙讜谉 讗诇讬诐 讗诇讬诪讛 诪讞谞讬诐 诪讞谞讬诪讛 诪爪专讬诐 诪爪专讬诪讛 讚讘诇转讬诪讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诪讛 诪讚讘专讛

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣mya says that with regard to any word that requires the letter lamed at its beginning, meaning: To, the verse at times placed a letter heh at its end, but the meaning is the same. And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For example, the term: To 鈥淓lim鈥 (Exodus 16:1) can be rendered as Elima (Exodus 15:27) instead of le鈥橢lim; 鈥淢a岣naim鈥 (I聽Kings 2:8) becomes Ma岣naima (II聽Samuel 17:24); Mitzraim (e.g., Genesis 13:1) into Mitzraima (Genesis 12:10); Divlatayim is Divlataima (Numbers 33:46); to Yerushalaim is Yerushalaima (Ezekiel 8:3); and midbara (Joshua 18:12) means: To the wilderness [midbar]. All these words that contain the letter heh at the end mean the same as if there were a lamed at the beginning.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 诪诇讗讬砖 讝专 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And Beit Shammai, from where do they derive that halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the phrase: 鈥淭o one not of his kin鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). This phrase indicates that marriage is invalid with an unrelated man. However, they learn another matter from the term 鈥渙utside.鈥

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讛讜 诪诇讗讬砖 讝专 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讞讜爪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专讘讜转 讛讗专讜住讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, let Beit Hillel, too, derive this halakha from: 鈥淭o one not of his kin.鈥 The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. They, too, infer it from this source. Then why do I need the term 鈥渙utside鈥? This word was necessary to include a betrothed woman. With regard to a woman who was betrothed but not yet married to the deceased brother, although she is still technically outside his house, she is nevertheless obligated in levirate marriage.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讞讜爪讛 讛讞讜爪讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讞讜爪讛 讛讞讜爪讛 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讛讜

And the other one, Beit Shammai, infers this halakhic ruling from a single superfluous letter, as instead of 鈥渙utside鈥 being written as 岣tza it is written as ha岣tza. And as for the other one, Beit Hillel, they do not derive a halakha from the linguistic difference between 岣tza and ha岣tza, as they maintain that this is not a significant enough difference.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

Rava said: The rationale of Beit Shammai for their opinion that rival wives are permitted in levirate marriage is not due to a specific verse. Rather, Beit Shammai apply the well-known halakhic principle that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. Since the first wife was already a prohibited relation to her brother-in-law during his brother鈥檚 lifetime, the second prohibition of a wife鈥檚 sister does not apply to her. Accordingly, her presence is entirely disregarded, as though there is no forbidden relative here to exempt the rival wife.

转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 讗诇讗 谞砖讗 讞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 诪转 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 拽讚讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well where the deceased brother had first married one sister and afterward the surviving brother had married another sister, as in this case it is possible to say that the prohibition of a wife鈥檚 sister does not come and apply in addition to the prohibition of a brother鈥檚 wife. However, if the surviving brother had married one sister and afterward the deceased brother had married another sister, in this case the prohibition of a wife鈥檚 sister precedes that of a brother鈥檚 wife. How can it be said in this situation that this prohibition of a forbidden relative does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, if actually it came first?

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 讜讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 爪专转 注专讜讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讜砖专讬讗

The Gemara answers: Since the prohibition of a brother鈥檚 wife does not come and apply in addition to the prohibition of a wife鈥檚 sister, the status of a brother鈥檚 wife does not pertain to her and she is not obligated in levirate marriage with him at all. This means that the other wife is a rival wife of a forbidden relative where no mitzva applies, and she is therefore permitted.

讞诇爪讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬诐 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗

搂 The mishna taught: If any of the rival wives of the brother performed 岣litza, Beit Shammai disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood, as they hold that the 岣litza was fully valid. The Gemara asks: If the rival wives are obligated in the mitzva of levirate marriage and they performed 岣litza, it is obvious that the status of a woman who had undergone 岣litza applies to them.

诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讚讗诪专 讘讜讗讜 讜谞转拽谉 诇讛诐 诇爪专讜转 砖讬讛讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara answers: This statement comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, who said: Come and let us institute for rival wives of women with whom relations are forbidden that they should perform 岣litza and not enter into levirate marriage. If this ordinance were accepted, these rival wives would be disqualified by rabbinic law, even according to the opinion of Beit Hillel. The mishna therefore teaches us that Beit Hillel deem the rival wives fully fit to marry into the priesthood, as no 岣litza was instituted for rival wives and any 岣litza performed with them is entirely meaningless.

谞转讬讬讘诪讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 驻讜住诇讬谉 讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讞诇爪讜 转谞讗 谞诪讬 谞转讬讬讘诪讜

搂 The mishna further taught: If they entered into levirate marriage, Beit Shammai deem them fit for the priesthood and Beit Hillel disqualify them. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well, as this halakha follows logically from the previous statement concerning 岣litza? The Gemara answers that since the mishna taught: Performed 岣litza, it also taught the case of: Entered into levirate marriage, despite the fact that this was not necessary, as even without this ruling the matter would have been understood.

转谞谉 讛转诐 诪讙讬诇讛 谞拽专讗转 讘讗讞讚 注砖专 讜讘砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讜讘砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讜讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讜讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 诇讗 驻讞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜转专

搂 Apropos the mishna鈥檚 comments concerning the details of the relationship between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the Gemara discusses the issue of disputes in general. We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Megilla (2a): The Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, is read on the eleventh of Adar, on the twelfth, on the thirteenth, on the fourteenth, or on the fifteenth, in cities surrounded by a wall, no earlier and no later than this. The obligation to read the Megilla on the fourteenth or fifteenth of Adar is stated in the Megilla itself, while the additional days were instituted by the Sages to allow residents of villages, who would come to the cities on Mondays and Thursdays and supply water and rations to the residents of the cities, to hear the reading of the Megilla at that opportunity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 诇讗 转转讙讜讚讚讜 诇讗 转注砖讜 讗讙讜讚讜转 讗讙讜讚讜转 讛讗讬 诇讗 转转讙讜讚讚讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注砖讜 讞讘讜专讛 注诇 诪转

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: I should read here the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not cut yourselves [titgodedu]鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1), which is interpreted as meaning: Do not become numerous factions [agudot]. In other words, the Jewish people should be united, rather than divided into disparate groups that act in different ways. Before analyzing this issue, the Gemara asks: This verse: 鈥淵ou shall not cut yourselves,鈥 is required for the matter itself, as the Merciful One is saying: Do not cut yourselves over the dead. How is the halakha concerning factions derived from this apparently straightforward verse?

讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讗 转讙讜讚讚讜 诪讗讬 转转讙讜讚讚讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讗 转讙讜讚讜 诪讗讬 诇讗 转转讙讜讚讚讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: If so, that the verse comes to teach only about the practices of mourning, let the verse state only: You shall not cut. What is the meaning of: 鈥淵ou shall not cut yourselves鈥? Learn from this that it comes for this purpose as well, to teach the prohibition against splitting into factions. The Gemara asks: But in that case, one can say that the entire verse comes for this purpose and does not refer to cutting for the dead at all. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: Lo tagodu, rather than lo titgodedu, both of which mean: You shall not cut. What is the meaning of: Lo titgodedu鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it: Both the simple prohibition against making cuts for the dead and the matter of dividing into factions.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 砖谞讬转 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇注砖讜转 诪诇讗讻讛 讘注专讘讬 驻住讞讬诐 注讚 讞爪讜转 注讜砖讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇注砖讜转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉

After this incidental discussion, the Gemara returns to the basic question raised by Reish Lakish: Why doesn鈥檛 the reading of the Scroll of Esther in different places at different times violate the prohibition against breaking into factions? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Have you not taught until now: In a place where the people were accustomed to perform labor on Passover eve until midday, one may do so on that day; in a place where the people were accustomed not to perform labor, one may not do so? This shows that different places can have different customs without violating the prohibition against dividing into factions.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讗谞讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 讬诪讬 讛驻讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谞讬讛诐 讝诪谞讬诐 讛专讘讛 转讬拽谞讜 诇讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇讬 诪谞讛讙讗

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: I speak to you of a prohibition, as residents of villages are prohibited from reading the Megilla with a blessing on the fifteenth of Adar, as Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The verse 鈥渢o confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times鈥 (Esther 9:31) teaches that the Sages instituted many times for their reading, and it is prohibited to deviate from these dates. And you speak to me about a custom that does not involve a prohibition. How can a prohibition be established in a manner that involves the formation of factions among the people?

讜讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 (讘诇讬诇讛) 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan replied: And in that case there, on Passover eve, is there no prohibition involved? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: On the night before the fourteenth of Nisan, Beit Shammai prohibit the performance of work and Beit Hillel permit it. Evidently, there is indeed a prohibition involved, and yet some perform work while others do not, which splits the people into factions.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪转讬专讬谉 讛爪专讜转 诇讗讞讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜住专讬诐

Reish Lakish said to him: In that case there, the different factions are not noticeable, as one who sees another idle says: It is because he has no labor to perform. Therefore, refraining from work does not have the appearance of breaking off into factions. Rabbi Yo岣nan raises a difficulty: But Beit Shammai permit rival wives to the brothers, and Beit Hillel prohibit this practice. This is an example of a clear prohibition, and yet two different traditions were followed.

  • 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...
dosa grave ariel palmon

Worlds Apart

Every now and then the Gemara allows us a tantalizing look at the world that existed before Rabbinic law became...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 13: Disagreements without Factions

How we derive the exemption of the co-wives with regard to the yavam. Plus, a new mishnah! The 6 cases...

Yevamot 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 13

讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘谞讬诐 讘诇讗 住讬诪谞讬诐 讜谞讘讚讜拽 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 谞砖专讜 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉

And Rav Zevid said: There are no children without signs of puberty. In other words, if a girl gives birth, she definitely possesses the signs of puberty. The Gemara asks: But if so, let us examine to see whether these physical signs are present, so that there is no need to depend on a presumption. The Gemara answers: We are concerned lest the hairs that constitute the sign have fallen off. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who said that in general we are concerned lest signs fall off, i.e., that there are cases in which she is in fact mature but the hairs have come off.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 爪注专 诇讬讚讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

However, according to the one who said that if there are in fact hairs they will certainly be found, and we are not concerned that they may have fallen out, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who said that in ordinary circumstances we are not concerned that the hairs may have fallen out, in this case, due to the pain of childbirth we are concerned that they might have fallen out, and therefore it is impossible to examine the matter conclusively.

讻讬爪讚 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇爪专讜专 讛转讜专讛 专讬讘转讛 爪专讜转 讛专讘讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the mishna: How do they exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives? The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that not only is a rival wife exempt but the rival wife of a rival wife is exempt as well, derived? Rav Yehuda said that this is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival [litzror] to her鈥 (Leviticus 18:18). The term litzror is written, with the letter reish appearing twice, rather than latzor, with a single reish, which means that the Torah amplified and included many rival wives. In other words, this verse includes not only the rival wife of a forbidden relative, but also the rival wife of a rival wife.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 住讘专讗 讛讬讗 爪专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗住讬专讗 讚讘诪拽讜诐 注专讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗 爪专转 爪专讛 谞诪讬 讘诪拽讜诐 注专讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗

Rav Ashi said: It is a logical inference, which does not require a source from the Torah. What is the reason that a rival wife of a forbidden relative is prohibited? The reason is that she stands in place of a forbidden relative. Since the forbidden relative caused her exemption from levirate marriage, she too is considered a forbidden relative who remains categorized as a brother鈥檚 wife. Therefore, the rival wife of a rival wife also stands in place of a forbidden relative, as she is like the rival wife of a forbidden relative and is therefore forbidden herself.

讻讬爪讚 讗诐 诪转讜 讛谉 讻讜壮 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞住 讜诇讘住讜祝 讙讬专砖

搂 The mishna taught: How so? If the forbidden relative died, performed refusal, or was divorced, from that moment onward their rival wives are no longer considered the rival wives of a forbidden relative and are permitted. The Gemara remarks: This legal ruling with regard to a divorce is presented as a general principle and is therefore correct even if at the time that the deceased brother married the rival wife he was married to the forbidden relative, and ultimately divorced the relative, which means that for a period of time the women were rival wives. Even under these circumstances the prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relative does not apply, and she is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讙讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗砖转讜 讜诪转 讛谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讜讻谞住讛 讛诪讙专砖 讜诪转 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 砖讗诐 诪转讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (30a), which discusses three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters and one is married to an unrelated woman. One of the husbands of the sisters subsequently divorced his wife, and the one who was married to the unrelated woman died, and the one who divorced his wife married the yevama by levirate marriage and afterward died as well, which means that this yevama once again came for levirate marriage before the remaining brother, who was married to one of the sisters. It is with regard to this case that they said that if they died or were divorced their rival wives are permitted. This concludes the mishna.

讟注诪讗 讚讙讬专砖 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讻谞住 讗讘诇 讻谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讙讬专砖 诇讗

The Gemara infers from this mishna: The reason she is permitted is that the yavam first divorced the sister and only afterward married the unrelated woman. In this case, the unrelated woman was never actually the rival wife of a sister, despite the fact that they were, at different times, married to the same man. However, if the yavam first married the unrelated woman and afterward divorced the sister, she would not be permitted to enter into levirate marriage because for a period of time she had been the rival wife of a forbidden relative.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诪讬转讛 诪驻诇转

These two mishnayot apparently contradict each other. Rabbi Yirmeya said: This mishna is disjointed, i.e., the mishnayot are truly incompatible, and the tanna who taught this halakha did not teach that halakha. The reason for the difference in opinions is that this tanna, of the mishna here, maintains that death causes her to come before him for levirate marriage. In other words, the decisive moment that determines the obligation in or exemption from levirate marriage is the moment of the childless brother鈥檚 death. Since in the case of the mishna here she was not the rival wife of a forbidden relative at the time of his death, the prohibition does not apply to her.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬诐

And that tanna of the mishna dealing with three brothers maintains that the first marriage causes her to come before him for levirate marriage. In other words, the levirate bond is established at the time of the marriage, and since the second wife was the rival wife of a forbidden relative for at least a brief period, her exemption from levirate marriage was determined then.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讚 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讝讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讜 拽转谞讬

Rava said: Actually, both mishnayot represent the opinion of a single tanna, but he teaches the mishna employing the style: This and it is unnecessary to say that. In other words, the mishna here is referring to a case where he first married and later divorced, while the mishna that deals with three brothers is speaking of a simpler, more obvious case, in which he first divorced and later married the second wife. In that case she is certainly permitted. Accordingly, there is no real contradiction here between the mishnayot, as they utilize different styles of teaching.

讜讻诇 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讗谉 讜转诪讗谉 讛砖转讗 讜转转讬讬讘诐 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗

搂 The mishna taught: And if any of these forbidden relatives was a minor who could refuse her husband, then even if she did not refuse him, her rival wife performs 岣litza and does not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: And let the minor perform refusal now, thereby annulling the marriage retroactively after the death of her husband, and let her rival wife enter into levirate marriage. Since this option is not accepted, let us say that it supports the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪诪讗谞转 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 诇讝讬拽转讜

As Rabbi Oshaya said: A yevama who is a minor can refuse the levirate betrothal of the yavam. In other words, if he betrothed her she is free to say that she does not desire to marry him, a declaration that severs any connection between them. But she cannot refuse his bond. Provided that he has not performed a levirate betrothal, this minor yevama cannot annul the ties between them by a refusal, as theirs is not a bond of marriage, and the institution of refusal was established only with regard to marriage. According to this opinion, it is evident that a minor yevama who is a forbidden relative cannot perform refusal so as to enable her rival wife to enter levirate marriage.

诇讗 爪专转 注专讜讛 砖讗谞讬 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 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讬讘诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讘讬讜

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is possible that a minor yevama can indeed refuse a levirate bond, but the rival wife of a forbidden relative is different, as she is not permitted in levirate marriage even if the forbidden relative herself can perform refusal. Why? As Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught in a baraita: If she refused the husband, thereby annulling the marriage, she is permitted to his father, as the marriage bond was entirely nullified retroactively and she is not considered his daughter-in-law at all. If, however, she refused only the yavam, 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 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

Apparently, the reason is that at the moment of her coming before him for levirate marriage she had the appearance of his daughter-in-law. Since people will think she is his daughter-in-law, she is forbidden to the father. Here, too, at the moment of her coming before him for levirate marriage she had the appearance of his daughter鈥檚 rival wife. Consequently, the Sages did not permit her to enter into levirate marriage even if the other wife refuses the husband.

诪转谞讬壮 砖砖 注专讬讜转 讞诪讜专讜转 诪讗诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬诐 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

MISHNA: Six women with whom relations are forbidden who were not enumerated in the first mishna are forbidden by prohibitions that are more severe than those listed in that mishna because they may be married only to others and may never be married to any of the brothers, due to the closeness of their relationship. However, this stringency entails a corresponding leniency: Since the halakha of levirate marriage is entirely inapplicable in these cases, their rival wives are permitted. The rival wife of a forbidden relative is forbidden herself only if the mitzva of levirate marriage is applicable, but where it is not in effect she is permitted.

讗诪讜 讜讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜

The six women with whom relations are forbidden are as follows: His mother, and his father鈥檚 wife, and his father鈥檚 sister, and his paternal half sister, and the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, and the wife of his paternal half brother. Each of these women with whom relations are forbidden is forbidden equally to all of the brothers, and the mitzva of levirate marriage is inapplicable. Therefore, her rival wife is permitted.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪转讬专讬谉 讛爪专讜转 诇讗讞讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜住专讬诐

搂 Up to this point, the discussions were based on the assumption that not only may a forbidden relative not enter into levirate marriage, but her rival wife is also exempt. However, this issue is subject to a long-standing dispute. Beit Shammai permit the rival wives to the brothers, as they did not accept the interpretation of the verses that indicates that rival wives are prohibited. And Beit Hillel forbid them. The previous mishnayot are in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

讞诇爪讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 谞转讬讬讘诪讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 驻讜住诇讬谉

If any of the rival wives of the brother performed 岣litza, Beit Shammai disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood, as in their opinion these rival wives were fit for levirate marriage, which means that the 岣litza was fully valid. Consequently, they are disqualified from marrying a priest, like all other women who perform 岣litza. And Beit Hillel deem them fit, as they maintain that no legal act of 岣litza was performed here at all. If they entered into levirate marriage, Beit Shammai deem them fit for the priesthood, as in their opinion, this is a fully legal levirate marriage. And Beit Hillel disqualify them, because they engaged in licentious sexual relations as the rival wives of a forbidden relative.

讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诇讜 讗讜住专讬诐 讜讗诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗诇讜 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讗诇讜 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 谞诪谞注讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪诇讬砖讗 谞砖讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻诇 讛讟讛专讜转 讜讛讟诪讗讜转 砖讛讬讜 讗诇讜 诪讟讛专讬诐 讜讗诇讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讗 谞诪谞注讜 注讜砖讬谉 讟讛专讜转 讗诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讗诇讜

搂 The mishna comments: Although Beit Hillel prohibit the rival wives to the brothers and Beit Shammai permit them, and although these disqualify these women and those deem them fit, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying women from Beit Shammai. Furthermore, with regard to all of the disputes concerning the halakhot of ritual purity and impurity, where these rule that an article is ritually pure and those rule it ritually impure, they did not refrain from handling ritually pure objects each with the other, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel frequently used each other鈥檚 vessels.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讛讬讛 讗砖转 讛诪转 讛讞讜爪讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讞讜爪讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 驻谞讬诪讬转 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讛讬讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: What is the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai? As it is written: 鈥淭he wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). The term 鈥渙utside鈥 indicates by inference that there is a woman who is considered inside, i.e., a close relative of the yavam, who is inside his family. And the Merciful One states: 鈥淪hall not be married鈥 and also 鈥渢o one not of his kin.鈥 In other words, even when one of the wives is a forbidden relative, the rival wife who is outside the family of the yavam is obligated in levirate marriage.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讬讘诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讛讬讛 讗砖转 讛诪转 讛讞讜爪讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 诇讗 转讛讬讛 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 诇讝专

And how do Beit Hillel respond to this argument of Beit Shammai? They require these passages for that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: From where is it derived that betrothal is not effective in the case of a yevama who did not perform 岣litza, if the betrothal is performed by an unrelated man and not a yavam? This betrothal is not valid at all, as it is stated: The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). This verse indicates that there shall not be in her case the becoming married to one not of his kin.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讞讜抓 讞讜爪讛 讻转讬讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讞讜爪讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 诇讞讜抓 讚诪讬

And how do Beit Shammai respond to this claim? They ask: Is it written: To the outside [la岣tz], which might indicate betrothal to an unrelated man? It is actually written 鈥渙utside [岣tza],鈥 which is an adjective describing this woman as one who is from the outside. And Beit Hillel, what is their response? They maintain that since it is written 鈥渙utside,鈥 it is considered as though it is written: To the outside.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 转讬讘讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讚 讘转讞诇转讛 讛讟讬诇 诇讛 讛讻转讜讘 讛讗 讘住讜驻讛 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讙讜谉 讗诇讬诐 讗诇讬诪讛 诪讞谞讬诐 诪讞谞讬诪讛 诪爪专讬诐 诪爪专讬诪讛 讚讘诇转讬诪讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诪讛 诪讚讘专讛

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣mya says that with regard to any word that requires the letter lamed at its beginning, meaning: To, the verse at times placed a letter heh at its end, but the meaning is the same. And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For example, the term: To 鈥淓lim鈥 (Exodus 16:1) can be rendered as Elima (Exodus 15:27) instead of le鈥橢lim; 鈥淢a岣naim鈥 (I聽Kings 2:8) becomes Ma岣naima (II聽Samuel 17:24); Mitzraim (e.g., Genesis 13:1) into Mitzraima (Genesis 12:10); Divlatayim is Divlataima (Numbers 33:46); to Yerushalaim is Yerushalaima (Ezekiel 8:3); and midbara (Joshua 18:12) means: To the wilderness [midbar]. All these words that contain the letter heh at the end mean the same as if there were a lamed at the beginning.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 诪诇讗讬砖 讝专 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And Beit Shammai, from where do they derive that halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the phrase: 鈥淭o one not of his kin鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). This phrase indicates that marriage is invalid with an unrelated man. However, they learn another matter from the term 鈥渙utside.鈥

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讛讜 诪诇讗讬砖 讝专 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讞讜爪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专讘讜转 讛讗专讜住讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, let Beit Hillel, too, derive this halakha from: 鈥淭o one not of his kin.鈥 The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. They, too, infer it from this source. Then why do I need the term 鈥渙utside鈥? This word was necessary to include a betrothed woman. With regard to a woman who was betrothed but not yet married to the deceased brother, although she is still technically outside his house, she is nevertheless obligated in levirate marriage.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讞讜爪讛 讛讞讜爪讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讞讜爪讛 讛讞讜爪讛 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讛讜

And the other one, Beit Shammai, infers this halakhic ruling from a single superfluous letter, as instead of 鈥渙utside鈥 being written as 岣tza it is written as ha岣tza. And as for the other one, Beit Hillel, they do not derive a halakha from the linguistic difference between 岣tza and ha岣tza, as they maintain that this is not a significant enough difference.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

Rava said: The rationale of Beit Shammai for their opinion that rival wives are permitted in levirate marriage is not due to a specific verse. Rather, Beit Shammai apply the well-known halakhic principle that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. Since the first wife was already a prohibited relation to her brother-in-law during his brother鈥檚 lifetime, the second prohibition of a wife鈥檚 sister does not apply to her. Accordingly, her presence is entirely disregarded, as though there is no forbidden relative here to exempt the rival wife.

转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 讗诇讗 谞砖讗 讞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 诪转 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 拽讚讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well where the deceased brother had first married one sister and afterward the surviving brother had married another sister, as in this case it is possible to say that the prohibition of a wife鈥檚 sister does not come and apply in addition to the prohibition of a brother鈥檚 wife. However, if the surviving brother had married one sister and afterward the deceased brother had married another sister, in this case the prohibition of a wife鈥檚 sister precedes that of a brother鈥檚 wife. How can it be said in this situation that this prohibition of a forbidden relative does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, if actually it came first?

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 讜讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 爪专转 注专讜讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讜砖专讬讗

The Gemara answers: Since the prohibition of a brother鈥檚 wife does not come and apply in addition to the prohibition of a wife鈥檚 sister, the status of a brother鈥檚 wife does not pertain to her and she is not obligated in levirate marriage with him at all. This means that the other wife is a rival wife of a forbidden relative where no mitzva applies, and she is therefore permitted.

讞诇爪讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬诐 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗

搂 The mishna taught: If any of the rival wives of the brother performed 岣litza, Beit Shammai disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood, as they hold that the 岣litza was fully valid. The Gemara asks: If the rival wives are obligated in the mitzva of levirate marriage and they performed 岣litza, it is obvious that the status of a woman who had undergone 岣litza applies to them.

诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讚讗诪专 讘讜讗讜 讜谞转拽谉 诇讛诐 诇爪专讜转 砖讬讛讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara answers: This statement comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, who said: Come and let us institute for rival wives of women with whom relations are forbidden that they should perform 岣litza and not enter into levirate marriage. If this ordinance were accepted, these rival wives would be disqualified by rabbinic law, even according to the opinion of Beit Hillel. The mishna therefore teaches us that Beit Hillel deem the rival wives fully fit to marry into the priesthood, as no 岣litza was instituted for rival wives and any 岣litza performed with them is entirely meaningless.

谞转讬讬讘诪讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 驻讜住诇讬谉 讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讞诇爪讜 转谞讗 谞诪讬 谞转讬讬讘诪讜

搂 The mishna further taught: If they entered into levirate marriage, Beit Shammai deem them fit for the priesthood and Beit Hillel disqualify them. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well, as this halakha follows logically from the previous statement concerning 岣litza? The Gemara answers that since the mishna taught: Performed 岣litza, it also taught the case of: Entered into levirate marriage, despite the fact that this was not necessary, as even without this ruling the matter would have been understood.

转谞谉 讛转诐 诪讙讬诇讛 谞拽专讗转 讘讗讞讚 注砖专 讜讘砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讜讘砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讜讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讜讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 诇讗 驻讞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜转专

搂 Apropos the mishna鈥檚 comments concerning the details of the relationship between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the Gemara discusses the issue of disputes in general. We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Megilla (2a): The Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, is read on the eleventh of Adar, on the twelfth, on the thirteenth, on the fourteenth, or on the fifteenth, in cities surrounded by a wall, no earlier and no later than this. The obligation to read the Megilla on the fourteenth or fifteenth of Adar is stated in the Megilla itself, while the additional days were instituted by the Sages to allow residents of villages, who would come to the cities on Mondays and Thursdays and supply water and rations to the residents of the cities, to hear the reading of the Megilla at that opportunity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 诇讗 转转讙讜讚讚讜 诇讗 转注砖讜 讗讙讜讚讜转 讗讙讜讚讜转 讛讗讬 诇讗 转转讙讜讚讚讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注砖讜 讞讘讜专讛 注诇 诪转

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: I should read here the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not cut yourselves [titgodedu]鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1), which is interpreted as meaning: Do not become numerous factions [agudot]. In other words, the Jewish people should be united, rather than divided into disparate groups that act in different ways. Before analyzing this issue, the Gemara asks: This verse: 鈥淵ou shall not cut yourselves,鈥 is required for the matter itself, as the Merciful One is saying: Do not cut yourselves over the dead. How is the halakha concerning factions derived from this apparently straightforward verse?

讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讗 转讙讜讚讚讜 诪讗讬 转转讙讜讚讚讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讗 转讙讜讚讜 诪讗讬 诇讗 转转讙讜讚讚讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: If so, that the verse comes to teach only about the practices of mourning, let the verse state only: You shall not cut. What is the meaning of: 鈥淵ou shall not cut yourselves鈥? Learn from this that it comes for this purpose as well, to teach the prohibition against splitting into factions. The Gemara asks: But in that case, one can say that the entire verse comes for this purpose and does not refer to cutting for the dead at all. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: Lo tagodu, rather than lo titgodedu, both of which mean: You shall not cut. What is the meaning of: Lo titgodedu鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it: Both the simple prohibition against making cuts for the dead and the matter of dividing into factions.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 砖谞讬转 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇注砖讜转 诪诇讗讻讛 讘注专讘讬 驻住讞讬诐 注讚 讞爪讜转 注讜砖讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇注砖讜转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉

After this incidental discussion, the Gemara returns to the basic question raised by Reish Lakish: Why doesn鈥檛 the reading of the Scroll of Esther in different places at different times violate the prohibition against breaking into factions? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Have you not taught until now: In a place where the people were accustomed to perform labor on Passover eve until midday, one may do so on that day; in a place where the people were accustomed not to perform labor, one may not do so? This shows that different places can have different customs without violating the prohibition against dividing into factions.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讗谞讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 讬诪讬 讛驻讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谞讬讛诐 讝诪谞讬诐 讛专讘讛 转讬拽谞讜 诇讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇讬 诪谞讛讙讗

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: I speak to you of a prohibition, as residents of villages are prohibited from reading the Megilla with a blessing on the fifteenth of Adar, as Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The verse 鈥渢o confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times鈥 (Esther 9:31) teaches that the Sages instituted many times for their reading, and it is prohibited to deviate from these dates. And you speak to me about a custom that does not involve a prohibition. How can a prohibition be established in a manner that involves the formation of factions among the people?

讜讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 (讘诇讬诇讛) 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan replied: And in that case there, on Passover eve, is there no prohibition involved? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: On the night before the fourteenth of Nisan, Beit Shammai prohibit the performance of work and Beit Hillel permit it. Evidently, there is indeed a prohibition involved, and yet some perform work while others do not, which splits the people into factions.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪转讬专讬谉 讛爪专讜转 诇讗讞讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜住专讬诐

Reish Lakish said to him: In that case there, the different factions are not noticeable, as one who sees another idle says: It is because he has no labor to perform. Therefore, refraining from work does not have the appearance of breaking off into factions. Rabbi Yo岣nan raises a difficulty: But Beit Shammai permit rival wives to the brothers, and Beit Hillel prohibit this practice. This is an example of a clear prohibition, and yet two different traditions were followed.

Scroll To Top