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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 21, 2014 | 讻状讝 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讛

  • 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 17

讝讜 讞讚讬讬讘 谞讛专 讙讜讝谉 讝讜 讙讬谞讝拽 讜注专讬 诪讚讬 讝讜 讞诪讚谉 讜讞讘专讜转讬讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讝讜 谞讬讛专 讜讞讘专讜转讬讛 讞讘专讜转讬讛 诪讗谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讱 诪讜砖讻讬 讞讬讚拽讬 讜讚讜诪拽讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 诇驻住讜诇

this is 岣dyab. The river of Gozan; this is Ginzak. And the cities of the Medes; this is 岣madan and its surroundings. And some say: This is Nihar and its surroundings. The Gemara asks: Which are its surroundings? Shmuel said: Kerakh, Mushkhei, 岣dkei, and Domakya are the surroundings of 岣madan. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And all of them are for disqualification. In other words, if someone from one of these places wishes to convert, there is concern that he might be a descendant of a Jew and therefore a mamzer. Consequently, they all are disqualified.

讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讬砖专讗诇讬转 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讗诇讗 讘谞讛

Rav Yehuda continued his recounting: When I said this halakha, that there is a concern about the betrothal of gentiles nowadays, before Shmuel, he said to me: One need not worry about this, as your son from a Jewish woman is called your son, i.e., he inherits his lineage from you, and your son from a gentile woman is not called your son, but rather her son. Consequently, all children born to Jews from gentile women are not considered Jews, as their lineage is determined by their gentile mothers.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讘谞讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘谉 讘转讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讙诪讬专讬 讚讘谞转讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讚专讗 讗讬爪讟专讜讬讬 讗爪讟专讜

The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 there Jewish girls who were captured by gentiles, whose children are considered to be Jews? And Ravina said: Learn from this that the son of your daughter from a gentile is called your son. If so, the descendants of Jewish women captured by gentiles would indeed be Jews. The Gemara answers: This is no concern, as it is learned as a tradition that the girls from the ten tribes of that generation became barren and did not give birth to any offspring, whereas some of the exiled men of the ten tribes married gentile women. Consequently, all of the children born there were gentiles.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪砖诐 注讚 砖注砖讗讜诐 讙讜讬诐 讙诪讜专讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛壮 讘讙讚讜 讻讬 讘谞讬诐 讝专讬诐 讬诇讚讜

There are those who say that Rav Yehuda actually related the following: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: They did not move from there, the place where they deliberated on this matter, until they rendered all of them, including those who intermingled with the ten tribes in different locations, full-fledged gentiles. Consequently, there is no concern that their betrothals might be of any effect, as it is stated: 鈥淭hey have dealt treacherously against the Lord, for they have begotten strange children鈥 (Hosea 5:7).

讬转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 注转讬讚讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讚注讘讚讬 讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讻讬 讞专讘讬 转专诪讜讚 讜讛讗 讞专讬讘 讛讛讬讗 转诪讜讚 讛讜讗讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 转专诪讜讚 讛讬讬谞讜 转诪讜讚 讗讻驻讜诇讬 讛讜讗 讚诪讻驻诇 讞专讬讘 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗讜转讬讘 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讗讬 讞专讬讘 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗讜转讬讘 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗

搂 The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef sat behind Rav Kahana, and Rav Kahana sat before Rav Yehuda, and he sat and he said this tradition: In the future, the Jews will establish a Festival day when Tarmod is destroyed. The Gemara asks: But it has already been destroyed. The Gemara answers: That place that was destroyed was Tamud, not Tarmod. Rav Ashi said: Tarmod is the same as Tamud. However, the city is doubled. In other words, when it is destroyed from this side it is settled on that side, and when it is destroyed from that side it is settled on this side. Consequently, it has not yet been entirely destroyed.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讜拽讗 讛讜讬 讘砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诪讛 讙讘专讗 讜诪讛 讙讘专讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讛专驻谞讬讗 诪讗转讬讛 讗讻住讬祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻住祝 讙诇讙诇转讗 诇讛讬讻讗 讬讛讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻讜诐 谞讛专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪驻讜诐 谞讛专讗 讗转

The Gemara relates: Rav Hamnuna sat before Ulla and was engaged in the study of halakha. Ulla said about him: What a man; what a man. In other words: What a great man this Rav Hamnuna is. If only Harpanya were not his city, as the inhabitants of that place are all of flawed lineage, which indicates that the lineage of Rav Hamnuna is likewise impaired. Rav Hamnuna was ashamed. Ulla said to him: Where do you give the money for payment of the poll tax? He said to him: I pay it to the city of Pum Nahara, as my city is subject to taxation by that city. He said to him: If so, you are from Pum Nahara, not Harpanya, and your lineage is evidently not flawed.

诪讗讬 讛专驻谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛专 砖讛讻诇 驻讜谞讬谉 讘讜 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专 诪砖驻讞转讜 讜砖讘讟讜 谞驻谞讛 诇砖诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讛讬讗 注诪讜拽讛 诪砖讗讜诇 砖谞讗诪专 诪讬讚 砖讗讜诇 讗驻讚诐 诪诪讜转 讗讙讗诇诐 讜讗讬诇讜 驻住讜诇 讚讬讚讛讜 诇讬转 诇讛讜 转拽谞转讗

搂 The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the name Harpanya? Rabbi Zeira said: It means the mountain to which all turn [har shehakol ponin bo]. In other words, it is the destination for all those who could not find wives anywhere else, as most of its population is of flawed lineage. It is taught in a baraita: All those who do not know their family or tribe turn there. Rava said: This type of flaw is appalling and is deeper than the netherworld, as is stated: 鈥淪hall I ransom them from the power of the netherworld? Shall I redeem them from death?鈥 (Hosea 13:14). This verse indicates that it is possible to be ransomed and released from the netherworld, whereas their disqualification cannot be rectified.

驻住讜诇讬 讚讛专驻谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 驻住讜诇讬 讚诪讬砖讜谉 讜驻住讜诇讬 讚诪讬砖讜谉 诪砖讜诐 驻住讜诇讬 讚转专诪讜讚 驻住讜诇讬 讚转专诪讜讚 诪砖讜诐 注讘讚讬 砖诇诪讛

The Gemara comments: Those who are disqualified from Harpanya are unfit due to the disqualification of the inhabitants of nearby Meishon, who were unfit and intermarried with the residents of Harpanya. Those disqualified from Meishon are unfit due to those disqualified from Tarmod, and those disqualified from Tarmod are disqualified due to the servants of Solomon.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 拽讘讗 专讘讗 讜拽讘讗 讝讜讟讗 诪讬讙谞讚专 讜讗讝讬诇 诇砖讗讜诇 讜诪砖讗讜诇 诇转专诪讜讚 讜诪转专诪讜讚 诇诪讬砖谉 讜诪诪讬砖谉 诇讛专驻谞讬讗

The Gemara comments: And this explains the folk saying that people say in this regard: A large ephah and a small ephah, which are both inaccurate utensils that may not be used for measuring, roll onward to the netherworld, and from the netherworld to Tarmod, and from Tarmod to Meishon, and from Meishon to Harpanya. The same idea expressed by the Sages with regard to the disqualification of lineage was also incorporated into a well-known adage among commoners.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 谞砖讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜谞讜诇讚 诇讛谉 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讬讘诐 讛砖谞讬 讗转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜讛砖谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 爪专转讛

MISHNA: Each of the women enumerated in the first chapter causes exemption from levirate marriage and 岣litza for her rival wives. This is due to the close family relationship she has with her brother-in-law, making her forbidden to him. The single exception is the case explained in this mishna. What is the case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist? For example: If there were two brothers, and one of them died childless, and subsequently a brother of theirs was born, after which the second brother, the elder, took his deceased brother鈥檚 wife in levirate marriage, and then died as well. Consequently, two women require levirate marriage: The widow of the first brother who had been taken in levirate marriage by the second brother, and the widow of the second brother, the first widow鈥檚 rival wife. The first widow, who had been the wife of the first brother to die, goes out without any obligation to be taken in levirate marriage by the youngest brother who was born later, since she is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. The first deceased brother never lived at the same time as the newly born brother. The second widow, who had been married to the second brother, is exempt due to her rival wife.

注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 砖谞讬讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The mishna discusses an additional situation: If the second brother had performed only levirate betrothal with her, meaning that he had not yet consummated the marriage, and then died, both the wife betrothed by a levirate betrothal to the second brother and the wife of the second brother fall before the youngest brother born after the death of the first brother. In that case, the first wife certainly goes out and is exempt from both 岣litza and levirate marriage, since she is to him the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. The second, however, was never effectively the rival wife of the first brother鈥檚 wife, as the first brother鈥檚 wife had only been betrothed by levirate betrothal and was not fully married to the second brother. Therefore, she performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 砖谞讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬

GEMARA: Rav Na岣an said: He who taught the version of the mishna which reads: The first widow goes out, is not mistaken in his version, and he who taught a variant version of the mishna which reads: The second widow goes out, is not mistaken either, since it is possible to understand the mishna both ways. Both versions of the text can refer to the same woman, i.e., the wife of the first brother, by different titles. The Gemara explains that he who taught:

专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗讬 专讗砖讜谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇谞驻讬诇讛 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 砖谞讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗讬 砖谞讬讛 砖谞讬讛 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讻谞住 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讬讛 砖谞讬讛 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉

The first, is not mistaken, as what is the meaning of first? It means the first to fall before her yavam for levirate marriage. And he who taught referring to her as the second is not mistaken either, as what is the meaning of second? It means the second to enter marriage. Since the second deceased brother was already married to one woman, this yevama whom he took in levirate marriage was his second wife. The Gemara wonders: Is this the necessary order of events? Are we not also dealing with a scenario in which the second brother took the wife of the first brother in levirate marriage and then later took another wife? Would such a situation not merit the same ruling? Rather, what is the meaning of calling the wife of the first brother the second? It means she who had been married for a second time. She had already been married twice, whereas the wife of the second brother had been married only once.

讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛诐 讬砖讬讘讛 讗讞转 讘注讜诇诐 驻专讟 诇讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讬讞讚讜 诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 讘谞讞诇讛 驻专讟 诇讗讞讬讜 诪谉 讛讗诐

搂 The Gemara turns from a review of the language used in the mishna to a discussion of the halakhot of a wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist. Where is it written that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply in the case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states 鈥淚f brothers dwell together and one of them dies鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), meaning that they had a common dwelling together in the world. This excludes the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Furthermore, it is derived: 鈥淭ogether鈥 means that they were united together in an inheritance; i.e., they are united in that they inherit together. In other words, since property is inherited by sons from their father, it can be inferred that the verse is speaking specifically of brothers from the same father. This excludes his maternal half brother, with whom he is not united by inheritance, since only brothers who share the same father inherit from each other.

专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讬诇讬祝 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐

Rabba said: One learns the ruling that levirate marriage applies only to brothers from the same father by the verbal analogy between the term brotherhood used in the context of levirate marriage and the term brotherhood from the children of Jacob. Just as there, with regard to the children of Jacob, they are all brothers from the father and not from the mother, since they were from four different mothers, so too, here, in the case of levirate marriage, it is referring specifically to brothers from the father and not from the mother.

讜诇讬诇祝 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪注专讬讜转 讚谞讬谉 讗讞讬诐 诪讗讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讞讬诐 诪讗讞讬讱

The Gemara raises an objection: Why should we learn from the children of Jacob? Let it derive the meaning of the term brotherhood by verbal analogy to the term brotherhood from the verses discussing those with whom relations are forbidden. In the halakhot of forbidden relations, both paternal and maternal half brothers are considered brothers, and are thereby subject to such prohibitions as those against relations with a brother鈥檚 wife. The Gemara answers: The first analogy is preferable, as we infer 鈥渂rothers鈥 from 鈥渂rothers.鈥 The word 鈥渂rothers鈥 is stated both with regard to the children of Jacob and with regard to the halakhot of levirate marriage, whereas with regard to forbidden relations it says 鈥測our brother,鈥 and one cannot make an inference to 鈥渂rothers鈥 from 鈥測our brother.鈥

诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讘 讛讻讛谉 讜讘讗 讛讻讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讬讘讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讬讗讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara objects: What difference does it make if there is a minor difference between the words being compared? As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse 鈥渁nd the priest shall return [veshav]鈥 (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse 鈥渁nd the priest shall come [uva]鈥 (Leviticus 14:44), from which it is derived that this is the halakha with regard to returning, i.e., it is after seven days, and this is the same halakha with regard to coming, that it is after seven days. Consequently, a less pronounced difference of one letter between the Hebrew words for 鈥渂rothers鈥 and 鈥測our brother鈥 should certainly not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy. The Gemara responds: This applies when nothing else was more similar, but where there is something similar we infer from that which is more similar. In such situations, it is preferable to learn from the word that bears greater similarity.

讜诇讬诇祝 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪诇讜讟 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗讞讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 诪住转讘专讗 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 诪砖讜诐 讚诪驻谞讬 诪讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讻转讘 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 注讘讚讬讱 讘谞讬 讗讘讬谞讜 讜讻转讬讘 讗讞讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara objects on another count: Let the halakha derive the meaning of the term brotherhood from the term brotherhood from Lot, as it is written that Abraham said to Lot: 鈥淔or we are brothers鈥 (Genesis 13:8). From here one could conclude that the word brothers means relatives and not necessarily brothers. The Gemara rejects this: It is more reasonable to derive from the children of Jacob, due to the fact that the word 鈥渂rothers鈥 is free in its context and is therefore available to be used in a verbal analogy: Since it could have written: We your servants are twelve children of our father, but instead it writes: 鈥淭welve brothers, the children of one man鈥 (Genesis聽42:13), learn from here that this comes to render the word 鈥渂rothers鈥 free so that it may be allocated to another matter, i.e., the definition of brothers.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讗讞讬诐 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讬讞讚讜 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬诇祝 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪诇讜讟 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诇讗讬讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讻转讘 专注讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讗讞讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬讞讚讜 讛诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 讘谞讞诇讛

The Gemara comments: And although Rav Yehuda and Rabba learned the same ruling from two different passages, according to both it was necessary to write 鈥渂rothers鈥 and it was necessary to write 鈥渢ogether鈥 in the verses discussing levirate marriage, as, if the Merciful One had written only 鈥渂rothers,鈥 I would say that one should infer the meaning of the term 鈥渂rothers鈥 from the term 鈥渂rothers鈥 from Lot. And if you would say it is not free there in the same way that the word 鈥渂rothers鈥 is free in the passage concerning the children of Jacob, this is not so; in fact, it is free. With regard to Lot it could have written: Friends, as they were not actual brothers but relatives, and yet 鈥渂rothers鈥 is written. One might learn from here that this is free to be allocated elsewhere and teach that such relatives are called brothers even for levirate marriage. Therefore, the Torah wrote 鈥渢ogether鈥 to teach that this applies specifically to those brothers who are united in an inheritance.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬讞讚讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诪讬讬讞讚讬 讘讗讘讗 讜讘讗诪讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the Merciful One had written 鈥渢ogether鈥 alone and not added 鈥渂rothers,鈥 I would say that they must have both the same father and mother together, and that otherwise the mitzva of levirate marriage would not apply. Therefore, 鈥渂rothers鈥 is written to compare this to the children of Jacob, who were brothers from the same father but not the same mother. It is for this reason, then, that it is necessary to write both.

讜讛讗 诪讛讬讻讗 转讬转讬 讬讘讜诐 讘谞讞诇讛 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 讜谞讞诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐 讛讬讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚拽诪砖转专讬 注专讜讛 讙讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚诪讬讬讞讚讬 讘讗讘讗 讜讘讗诪讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara asks about the last supposition: But from where would it be derived that perhaps levirate marriage would apply only if they are full brothers, sharing both a father and mother? Why should one assume that maternal brotherhood is also of import here? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One make levirate marriage dependent upon inheritance? The Torah states that the yavam who performs the levirate marriage will establish the name of his deceased brother, meaning that he inherits from him, and inheritance comes from the father and not from the mother. Nevertheless, this was necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that since this halakha of levirate marriage is a novelty in that a woman who was a forbidden relation to him as a brother鈥檚 wife is now rendered permitted, say that this permissibility will be limited only to cases of brothers with the same father and same mother together. It is due to this possibility that the verbal analogy to the brothers who were the children of Jacob is necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗诪讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛

Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of a widow whose husband had died childless and who is waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage or set her free with 岣litza, who then died before her yavam could take her in levirate marriage, the yavam is permitted to marry her mother. The levirate obligation does not create a familial relation between them. Apparently, Rav Huna says that Rav holds that the levirate bond [zikka] is not substantial. In other words, the bond formed between the yevama and her yavam requiring levirate marriage does not create a halakhic connection between the two. The Gemara asks: Then let him say explicitly: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of he who says that the levirate bond is not substantial, as this issue is in fact a matter of dispute between tanna鈥檌m. Why did he not simply conclude that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna who held that the levirate bond is not substantial?

讗讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘转专讬 讗讘诇 讘讞讚 讬砖 讝讬拽讛

The Gemara answers: If he had said that, I would say: This statement that the levirate bond is not substantial applies only in reference to two brothers, each of whom has the possibility to take her in levirate marriage. In such cases the levirate bond between either one of the brothers and the yevama is not absolute, as it is always possible for the other brother to marry her instead. But in cases of one brother, then since the obligation to the yevama is exclusively his, I would say that the levirate bond is substantial.

讜诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讚 讗讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讬讬诐 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗住讜专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: Then let him say: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the levirate bond is not substantial, even in the case of one brother. The Gemara answers: If he had said that, I would say: Even if his yevama were alive and required levirate marriage with him, he would be allowed to take her mother in marriage. Therefore, this comes to teach us that after death, yes, he is permitted to marry her mother; but while she is alive, he is not. Why not? This is because it is prohibited to nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage. Were he to marry her mother, he would no longer be able to take the daughter in levirate marriage because his wife鈥檚 daughter is forbidden to him. As a result of his marriage, he would cancel the mitzva of levirate marriage so that it could no longer apply to him.

转谞谉 讬讘诪转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讘讗讞讜转讛 讗讬谉 讘讗诪讛 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav Huna: We learned in a mishna (49a): If his yevama dies, he is permitted to marry her sister. A precise reading of this phrase leads to the implication that with regard to her sister, yes, it is permitted, as even if it had been his wife who had died he would be permitted to marry her sister. But with regard to her mother, no, it is not permitted.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诪讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗砖转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讘讗讞讜转讛 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讗诪讛 诇讗 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛

The Gemara rejects this: No evidence can be derived from here, as it is possible to say that the same is true even for her mother, that she too is permitted. But since it taught in the first clause of this mishna: If his wife dies he is permitted to take her sister, and there the language is precise and implies: Her sister, yes, but her mother, no, as she is forbidden by Torah law because it is prohibited for a man to marry both a woman and her daughter even after one of them dies, therefore he used the same language when he taught the latter clause of the same mishna that he is permitted to take her sister. However, in the latter clause it is not an exact reading, and in actuality one is allowed to marry any of her relatives. This completes the Gemara鈥檚 explanation of Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诪转讛 讗住讜专 讘讗诪讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛

And Rav Yehuda said: In the case of a widow who dies while waiting for her brother-in-law to perform 岣litza or levirate marriage, he is prohibited from marrying her mother. The Gemara comments: Apparently Rav Yehuda holds that the levirate bond is substantial; this would mean that the attachment between the yevama and the yavam is like that of marriage and that the yavam is therefore prohibited from marrying her relatives. But it must be asked: Why does Rav Yehuda say it in such a way? Let him say: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the levirate bond is substantial.

讗讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞讚 讗讘诇 讘转专讬 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜讛讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘转专讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬

The Gemara responds: If he would have said that, I would say that with regard to the levirate bond, this applies in the case of one brother, but if there were two brothers then the levirate bond is not substantial. The Gemara objects: But when the tanna鈥檌m disagree, they disagree in a case of two brothers, so how could one think that Rav Yehuda is speaking only in the case of a single brother? Rather, one must say: If he were to say that the conclusive halakhic ruling is that the bond is substantial,

  • 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

thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 2 (17-25): Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 16-22 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

After finishing the first chapter, we will begin the second chapter of Masechet Yevamot. We will learn about a brother...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 17: Matrilineal Descent-Talmud style

Concerns about those with questionable lineage, which sparks a discussion about the 10 Tribes that were exiled in the era...

Yevamot 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 17

讝讜 讞讚讬讬讘 谞讛专 讙讜讝谉 讝讜 讙讬谞讝拽 讜注专讬 诪讚讬 讝讜 讞诪讚谉 讜讞讘专讜转讬讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讝讜 谞讬讛专 讜讞讘专讜转讬讛 讞讘专讜转讬讛 诪讗谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讱 诪讜砖讻讬 讞讬讚拽讬 讜讚讜诪拽讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 诇驻住讜诇

this is 岣dyab. The river of Gozan; this is Ginzak. And the cities of the Medes; this is 岣madan and its surroundings. And some say: This is Nihar and its surroundings. The Gemara asks: Which are its surroundings? Shmuel said: Kerakh, Mushkhei, 岣dkei, and Domakya are the surroundings of 岣madan. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And all of them are for disqualification. In other words, if someone from one of these places wishes to convert, there is concern that he might be a descendant of a Jew and therefore a mamzer. Consequently, they all are disqualified.

讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讬砖专讗诇讬转 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讗诇讗 讘谞讛

Rav Yehuda continued his recounting: When I said this halakha, that there is a concern about the betrothal of gentiles nowadays, before Shmuel, he said to me: One need not worry about this, as your son from a Jewish woman is called your son, i.e., he inherits his lineage from you, and your son from a gentile woman is not called your son, but rather her son. Consequently, all children born to Jews from gentile women are not considered Jews, as their lineage is determined by their gentile mothers.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讘谞讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘谉 讘转讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讙诪讬专讬 讚讘谞转讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讚专讗 讗讬爪讟专讜讬讬 讗爪讟专讜

The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 there Jewish girls who were captured by gentiles, whose children are considered to be Jews? And Ravina said: Learn from this that the son of your daughter from a gentile is called your son. If so, the descendants of Jewish women captured by gentiles would indeed be Jews. The Gemara answers: This is no concern, as it is learned as a tradition that the girls from the ten tribes of that generation became barren and did not give birth to any offspring, whereas some of the exiled men of the ten tribes married gentile women. Consequently, all of the children born there were gentiles.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪砖诐 注讚 砖注砖讗讜诐 讙讜讬诐 讙诪讜专讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛壮 讘讙讚讜 讻讬 讘谞讬诐 讝专讬诐 讬诇讚讜

There are those who say that Rav Yehuda actually related the following: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: They did not move from there, the place where they deliberated on this matter, until they rendered all of them, including those who intermingled with the ten tribes in different locations, full-fledged gentiles. Consequently, there is no concern that their betrothals might be of any effect, as it is stated: 鈥淭hey have dealt treacherously against the Lord, for they have begotten strange children鈥 (Hosea 5:7).

讬转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 注转讬讚讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讚注讘讚讬 讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讻讬 讞专讘讬 转专诪讜讚 讜讛讗 讞专讬讘 讛讛讬讗 转诪讜讚 讛讜讗讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 转专诪讜讚 讛讬讬谞讜 转诪讜讚 讗讻驻讜诇讬 讛讜讗 讚诪讻驻诇 讞专讬讘 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗讜转讬讘 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讗讬 讞专讬讘 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗讜转讬讘 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗

搂 The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef sat behind Rav Kahana, and Rav Kahana sat before Rav Yehuda, and he sat and he said this tradition: In the future, the Jews will establish a Festival day when Tarmod is destroyed. The Gemara asks: But it has already been destroyed. The Gemara answers: That place that was destroyed was Tamud, not Tarmod. Rav Ashi said: Tarmod is the same as Tamud. However, the city is doubled. In other words, when it is destroyed from this side it is settled on that side, and when it is destroyed from that side it is settled on this side. Consequently, it has not yet been entirely destroyed.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讜拽讗 讛讜讬 讘砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诪讛 讙讘专讗 讜诪讛 讙讘专讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讛专驻谞讬讗 诪讗转讬讛 讗讻住讬祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻住祝 讙诇讙诇转讗 诇讛讬讻讗 讬讛讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻讜诐 谞讛专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪驻讜诐 谞讛专讗 讗转

The Gemara relates: Rav Hamnuna sat before Ulla and was engaged in the study of halakha. Ulla said about him: What a man; what a man. In other words: What a great man this Rav Hamnuna is. If only Harpanya were not his city, as the inhabitants of that place are all of flawed lineage, which indicates that the lineage of Rav Hamnuna is likewise impaired. Rav Hamnuna was ashamed. Ulla said to him: Where do you give the money for payment of the poll tax? He said to him: I pay it to the city of Pum Nahara, as my city is subject to taxation by that city. He said to him: If so, you are from Pum Nahara, not Harpanya, and your lineage is evidently not flawed.

诪讗讬 讛专驻谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛专 砖讛讻诇 驻讜谞讬谉 讘讜 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专 诪砖驻讞转讜 讜砖讘讟讜 谞驻谞讛 诇砖诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讛讬讗 注诪讜拽讛 诪砖讗讜诇 砖谞讗诪专 诪讬讚 砖讗讜诇 讗驻讚诐 诪诪讜转 讗讙讗诇诐 讜讗讬诇讜 驻住讜诇 讚讬讚讛讜 诇讬转 诇讛讜 转拽谞转讗

搂 The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the name Harpanya? Rabbi Zeira said: It means the mountain to which all turn [har shehakol ponin bo]. In other words, it is the destination for all those who could not find wives anywhere else, as most of its population is of flawed lineage. It is taught in a baraita: All those who do not know their family or tribe turn there. Rava said: This type of flaw is appalling and is deeper than the netherworld, as is stated: 鈥淪hall I ransom them from the power of the netherworld? Shall I redeem them from death?鈥 (Hosea 13:14). This verse indicates that it is possible to be ransomed and released from the netherworld, whereas their disqualification cannot be rectified.

驻住讜诇讬 讚讛专驻谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 驻住讜诇讬 讚诪讬砖讜谉 讜驻住讜诇讬 讚诪讬砖讜谉 诪砖讜诐 驻住讜诇讬 讚转专诪讜讚 驻住讜诇讬 讚转专诪讜讚 诪砖讜诐 注讘讚讬 砖诇诪讛

The Gemara comments: Those who are disqualified from Harpanya are unfit due to the disqualification of the inhabitants of nearby Meishon, who were unfit and intermarried with the residents of Harpanya. Those disqualified from Meishon are unfit due to those disqualified from Tarmod, and those disqualified from Tarmod are disqualified due to the servants of Solomon.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 拽讘讗 专讘讗 讜拽讘讗 讝讜讟讗 诪讬讙谞讚专 讜讗讝讬诇 诇砖讗讜诇 讜诪砖讗讜诇 诇转专诪讜讚 讜诪转专诪讜讚 诇诪讬砖谉 讜诪诪讬砖谉 诇讛专驻谞讬讗

The Gemara comments: And this explains the folk saying that people say in this regard: A large ephah and a small ephah, which are both inaccurate utensils that may not be used for measuring, roll onward to the netherworld, and from the netherworld to Tarmod, and from Tarmod to Meishon, and from Meishon to Harpanya. The same idea expressed by the Sages with regard to the disqualification of lineage was also incorporated into a well-known adage among commoners.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 谞砖讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜谞讜诇讚 诇讛谉 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讬讘诐 讛砖谞讬 讗转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜讛砖谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 爪专转讛

MISHNA: Each of the women enumerated in the first chapter causes exemption from levirate marriage and 岣litza for her rival wives. This is due to the close family relationship she has with her brother-in-law, making her forbidden to him. The single exception is the case explained in this mishna. What is the case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist? For example: If there were two brothers, and one of them died childless, and subsequently a brother of theirs was born, after which the second brother, the elder, took his deceased brother鈥檚 wife in levirate marriage, and then died as well. Consequently, two women require levirate marriage: The widow of the first brother who had been taken in levirate marriage by the second brother, and the widow of the second brother, the first widow鈥檚 rival wife. The first widow, who had been the wife of the first brother to die, goes out without any obligation to be taken in levirate marriage by the youngest brother who was born later, since she is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. The first deceased brother never lived at the same time as the newly born brother. The second widow, who had been married to the second brother, is exempt due to her rival wife.

注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 砖谞讬讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The mishna discusses an additional situation: If the second brother had performed only levirate betrothal with her, meaning that he had not yet consummated the marriage, and then died, both the wife betrothed by a levirate betrothal to the second brother and the wife of the second brother fall before the youngest brother born after the death of the first brother. In that case, the first wife certainly goes out and is exempt from both 岣litza and levirate marriage, since she is to him the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. The second, however, was never effectively the rival wife of the first brother鈥檚 wife, as the first brother鈥檚 wife had only been betrothed by levirate betrothal and was not fully married to the second brother. Therefore, she performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 砖谞讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬

GEMARA: Rav Na岣an said: He who taught the version of the mishna which reads: The first widow goes out, is not mistaken in his version, and he who taught a variant version of the mishna which reads: The second widow goes out, is not mistaken either, since it is possible to understand the mishna both ways. Both versions of the text can refer to the same woman, i.e., the wife of the first brother, by different titles. The Gemara explains that he who taught:

专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗讬 专讗砖讜谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇谞驻讬诇讛 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 砖谞讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗讬 砖谞讬讛 砖谞讬讛 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讻谞住 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讬讛 砖谞讬讛 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉

The first, is not mistaken, as what is the meaning of first? It means the first to fall before her yavam for levirate marriage. And he who taught referring to her as the second is not mistaken either, as what is the meaning of second? It means the second to enter marriage. Since the second deceased brother was already married to one woman, this yevama whom he took in levirate marriage was his second wife. The Gemara wonders: Is this the necessary order of events? Are we not also dealing with a scenario in which the second brother took the wife of the first brother in levirate marriage and then later took another wife? Would such a situation not merit the same ruling? Rather, what is the meaning of calling the wife of the first brother the second? It means she who had been married for a second time. She had already been married twice, whereas the wife of the second brother had been married only once.

讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛诐 讬砖讬讘讛 讗讞转 讘注讜诇诐 驻专讟 诇讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讬讞讚讜 诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 讘谞讞诇讛 驻专讟 诇讗讞讬讜 诪谉 讛讗诐

搂 The Gemara turns from a review of the language used in the mishna to a discussion of the halakhot of a wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist. Where is it written that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply in the case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states 鈥淚f brothers dwell together and one of them dies鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), meaning that they had a common dwelling together in the world. This excludes the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Furthermore, it is derived: 鈥淭ogether鈥 means that they were united together in an inheritance; i.e., they are united in that they inherit together. In other words, since property is inherited by sons from their father, it can be inferred that the verse is speaking specifically of brothers from the same father. This excludes his maternal half brother, with whom he is not united by inheritance, since only brothers who share the same father inherit from each other.

专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讬诇讬祝 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐

Rabba said: One learns the ruling that levirate marriage applies only to brothers from the same father by the verbal analogy between the term brotherhood used in the context of levirate marriage and the term brotherhood from the children of Jacob. Just as there, with regard to the children of Jacob, they are all brothers from the father and not from the mother, since they were from four different mothers, so too, here, in the case of levirate marriage, it is referring specifically to brothers from the father and not from the mother.

讜诇讬诇祝 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪注专讬讜转 讚谞讬谉 讗讞讬诐 诪讗讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讞讬诐 诪讗讞讬讱

The Gemara raises an objection: Why should we learn from the children of Jacob? Let it derive the meaning of the term brotherhood by verbal analogy to the term brotherhood from the verses discussing those with whom relations are forbidden. In the halakhot of forbidden relations, both paternal and maternal half brothers are considered brothers, and are thereby subject to such prohibitions as those against relations with a brother鈥檚 wife. The Gemara answers: The first analogy is preferable, as we infer 鈥渂rothers鈥 from 鈥渂rothers.鈥 The word 鈥渂rothers鈥 is stated both with regard to the children of Jacob and with regard to the halakhot of levirate marriage, whereas with regard to forbidden relations it says 鈥測our brother,鈥 and one cannot make an inference to 鈥渂rothers鈥 from 鈥測our brother.鈥

诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讘 讛讻讛谉 讜讘讗 讛讻讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讬讘讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讬讗讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara objects: What difference does it make if there is a minor difference between the words being compared? As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse 鈥渁nd the priest shall return [veshav]鈥 (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse 鈥渁nd the priest shall come [uva]鈥 (Leviticus 14:44), from which it is derived that this is the halakha with regard to returning, i.e., it is after seven days, and this is the same halakha with regard to coming, that it is after seven days. Consequently, a less pronounced difference of one letter between the Hebrew words for 鈥渂rothers鈥 and 鈥測our brother鈥 should certainly not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy. The Gemara responds: This applies when nothing else was more similar, but where there is something similar we infer from that which is more similar. In such situations, it is preferable to learn from the word that bears greater similarity.

讜诇讬诇祝 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪诇讜讟 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗讞讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 诪住转讘专讗 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 诪砖讜诐 讚诪驻谞讬 诪讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讻转讘 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 注讘讚讬讱 讘谞讬 讗讘讬谞讜 讜讻转讬讘 讗讞讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara objects on another count: Let the halakha derive the meaning of the term brotherhood from the term brotherhood from Lot, as it is written that Abraham said to Lot: 鈥淔or we are brothers鈥 (Genesis 13:8). From here one could conclude that the word brothers means relatives and not necessarily brothers. The Gemara rejects this: It is more reasonable to derive from the children of Jacob, due to the fact that the word 鈥渂rothers鈥 is free in its context and is therefore available to be used in a verbal analogy: Since it could have written: We your servants are twelve children of our father, but instead it writes: 鈥淭welve brothers, the children of one man鈥 (Genesis聽42:13), learn from here that this comes to render the word 鈥渂rothers鈥 free so that it may be allocated to another matter, i.e., the definition of brothers.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讗讞讬诐 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讬讞讚讜 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬诇祝 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪诇讜讟 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诇讗讬讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讻转讘 专注讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讗讞讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬讞讚讜 讛诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 讘谞讞诇讛

The Gemara comments: And although Rav Yehuda and Rabba learned the same ruling from two different passages, according to both it was necessary to write 鈥渂rothers鈥 and it was necessary to write 鈥渢ogether鈥 in the verses discussing levirate marriage, as, if the Merciful One had written only 鈥渂rothers,鈥 I would say that one should infer the meaning of the term 鈥渂rothers鈥 from the term 鈥渂rothers鈥 from Lot. And if you would say it is not free there in the same way that the word 鈥渂rothers鈥 is free in the passage concerning the children of Jacob, this is not so; in fact, it is free. With regard to Lot it could have written: Friends, as they were not actual brothers but relatives, and yet 鈥渂rothers鈥 is written. One might learn from here that this is free to be allocated elsewhere and teach that such relatives are called brothers even for levirate marriage. Therefore, the Torah wrote 鈥渢ogether鈥 to teach that this applies specifically to those brothers who are united in an inheritance.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬讞讚讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诪讬讬讞讚讬 讘讗讘讗 讜讘讗诪讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the Merciful One had written 鈥渢ogether鈥 alone and not added 鈥渂rothers,鈥 I would say that they must have both the same father and mother together, and that otherwise the mitzva of levirate marriage would not apply. Therefore, 鈥渂rothers鈥 is written to compare this to the children of Jacob, who were brothers from the same father but not the same mother. It is for this reason, then, that it is necessary to write both.

讜讛讗 诪讛讬讻讗 转讬转讬 讬讘讜诐 讘谞讞诇讛 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 讜谞讞诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐 讛讬讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚拽诪砖转专讬 注专讜讛 讙讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚诪讬讬讞讚讬 讘讗讘讗 讜讘讗诪讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara asks about the last supposition: But from where would it be derived that perhaps levirate marriage would apply only if they are full brothers, sharing both a father and mother? Why should one assume that maternal brotherhood is also of import here? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One make levirate marriage dependent upon inheritance? The Torah states that the yavam who performs the levirate marriage will establish the name of his deceased brother, meaning that he inherits from him, and inheritance comes from the father and not from the mother. Nevertheless, this was necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that since this halakha of levirate marriage is a novelty in that a woman who was a forbidden relation to him as a brother鈥檚 wife is now rendered permitted, say that this permissibility will be limited only to cases of brothers with the same father and same mother together. It is due to this possibility that the verbal analogy to the brothers who were the children of Jacob is necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗诪讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛

Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of a widow whose husband had died childless and who is waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage or set her free with 岣litza, who then died before her yavam could take her in levirate marriage, the yavam is permitted to marry her mother. The levirate obligation does not create a familial relation between them. Apparently, Rav Huna says that Rav holds that the levirate bond [zikka] is not substantial. In other words, the bond formed between the yevama and her yavam requiring levirate marriage does not create a halakhic connection between the two. The Gemara asks: Then let him say explicitly: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of he who says that the levirate bond is not substantial, as this issue is in fact a matter of dispute between tanna鈥檌m. Why did he not simply conclude that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna who held that the levirate bond is not substantial?

讗讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘转专讬 讗讘诇 讘讞讚 讬砖 讝讬拽讛

The Gemara answers: If he had said that, I would say: This statement that the levirate bond is not substantial applies only in reference to two brothers, each of whom has the possibility to take her in levirate marriage. In such cases the levirate bond between either one of the brothers and the yevama is not absolute, as it is always possible for the other brother to marry her instead. But in cases of one brother, then since the obligation to the yevama is exclusively his, I would say that the levirate bond is substantial.

讜诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讚 讗讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讬讬诐 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗住讜专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: Then let him say: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the levirate bond is not substantial, even in the case of one brother. The Gemara answers: If he had said that, I would say: Even if his yevama were alive and required levirate marriage with him, he would be allowed to take her mother in marriage. Therefore, this comes to teach us that after death, yes, he is permitted to marry her mother; but while she is alive, he is not. Why not? This is because it is prohibited to nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage. Were he to marry her mother, he would no longer be able to take the daughter in levirate marriage because his wife鈥檚 daughter is forbidden to him. As a result of his marriage, he would cancel the mitzva of levirate marriage so that it could no longer apply to him.

转谞谉 讬讘诪转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讘讗讞讜转讛 讗讬谉 讘讗诪讛 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav Huna: We learned in a mishna (49a): If his yevama dies, he is permitted to marry her sister. A precise reading of this phrase leads to the implication that with regard to her sister, yes, it is permitted, as even if it had been his wife who had died he would be permitted to marry her sister. But with regard to her mother, no, it is not permitted.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诪讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗砖转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讘讗讞讜转讛 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讗诪讛 诇讗 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛

The Gemara rejects this: No evidence can be derived from here, as it is possible to say that the same is true even for her mother, that she too is permitted. But since it taught in the first clause of this mishna: If his wife dies he is permitted to take her sister, and there the language is precise and implies: Her sister, yes, but her mother, no, as she is forbidden by Torah law because it is prohibited for a man to marry both a woman and her daughter even after one of them dies, therefore he used the same language when he taught the latter clause of the same mishna that he is permitted to take her sister. However, in the latter clause it is not an exact reading, and in actuality one is allowed to marry any of her relatives. This completes the Gemara鈥檚 explanation of Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诪转讛 讗住讜专 讘讗诪讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛

And Rav Yehuda said: In the case of a widow who dies while waiting for her brother-in-law to perform 岣litza or levirate marriage, he is prohibited from marrying her mother. The Gemara comments: Apparently Rav Yehuda holds that the levirate bond is substantial; this would mean that the attachment between the yevama and the yavam is like that of marriage and that the yavam is therefore prohibited from marrying her relatives. But it must be asked: Why does Rav Yehuda say it in such a way? Let him say: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the levirate bond is substantial.

讗讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞讚 讗讘诇 讘转专讬 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜讛讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘转专讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬

The Gemara responds: If he would have said that, I would say that with regard to the levirate bond, this applies in the case of one brother, but if there were two brothers then the levirate bond is not substantial. The Gemara objects: But when the tanna鈥檌m disagree, they disagree in a case of two brothers, so how could one think that Rav Yehuda is speaking only in the case of a single brother? Rather, one must say: If he were to say that the conclusive halakhic ruling is that the bond is substantial,

Scroll To Top