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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 24, 2014 | 诇壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

  • 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 20

Study Guide Yevamot 20


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

砖诪讙专砖讛 讘讙讟 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 讜讬讘诪讛 注讚讬讬谉 讬讘讜诪讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 注诇讬讛 讜转讬讘注讬 讞诇讬爪讛

that he must divorce his yevama with a bill of divorce and she does not also require 岣litza. And he may remarry her, if he wishes, after the divorce; as the halakha is not ruled in accordance with the opinion that after he performs the mitzva she is once more forbidden to him as his brother鈥檚 wife. Why? There, too, let the halakha say that the verse states: 鈥淎nd consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema],鈥 as explained above, meaning that the first levirate bond is still upon her and she should also require 岣litza.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 讻讬讜谉 砖诇拽讞讛 谞注砖讬转 讻讗砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讬讘诪讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd take her to him to be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy聽25:5) to teach that once he has taken her, her legal status is that of his wife in every sense. The Gemara objects: If so, here too, in the case of a brother born after the levirate marriage, according to the opinion of the Rabbis this same principle should apply. The Gemara answers that The Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema],鈥 that is, even after the marriage she is still considered to be the wife of the deceased brother [yevama] with respect to any brothers who are born later.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 砖讚讬 讛讬转讬专讗 讗讛讬转讬专讗 讜砖讚讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara asks: What did you see to distinguish in this way and say that once she is married the levirate obligation is totally abrogated with regard to 岣litza, but that she remains prohibited as the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist with respect to any brothers born in the future? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason to say: Toss that which is permitted on that which is permitted, and toss that which is prohibited on that which is prohibited. In other words, in cases where the woman becomes permitted to her yavam through levirate marriage, it stands to reason that this permitted state is absolute, but with regard to the prohibition against taking the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist, it stands to reason that the verse comes to teach that she retains her prohibited status with respect to any brothers born in the future.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 讘讛讬转专 讜诇讗 注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗诪讜 砖谞砖讗讛 讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 讗讞 讜诪转 转转讬讬讘诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 讘讛讬转专

The Gemara suggests: But according to Rabbi Shimon, who said that since he came and found her in a permitted state a brother born subsequently may perform levirate marriage since she was never for a single moment prohibited to him; however, if that is so, consider the case of one鈥檚 maternal half sister, who married his paternal half brother; their marriage was fully permissible since the husband and wife were in no way related to each other. And then his brother was born and the married brother died; in that case, let the sister enter into levirate marriage with her newly born half brother for the same reason, i.e., since he came and found her in a permitted state, as when he was born she was already his brother鈥檚 wife.

讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转讜 诇讛讬讻谉 讗讝诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诐 诇讛讬讻谉 讗讝诇 讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬转讬专讗 讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬转讬专讗

The Gemara challenges this suggestion: How can you say that? What happened to the prohibition against marrying his sister, to where did it go? This widow is the maternal sister of the newly born brother and is therefore forbidden to him. The Gemara objects: If so, here too, one could have said: What happened to the prohibition against marrying the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist, to where did it go? In this case as well, the prohibition against marrying the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist already applied from the first brother, so why does Rabbi Shimon see this as abrogated by marriage? The Gemara answers that the comparison is unsound. This prohibition against marrying one鈥檚 sister has no case where it is permitted and so in this case is also not canceled, whereas that prohibition against marrying a brother鈥檚 wife has a case where it is permitted, when the mitzva of levirate marriage applies to a second brother and is therefore removed completely before the third brother is born.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇诇 讗诪专讜 讘讬讘诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 诇讗 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讜讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

MISHNA: The Sages stated a principle about a yevama: Whoever is forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden relations to her yavam neither performs 岣litza nor enters into levirate marriage and is completely exempt. If she is forbidden by a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or by a prohibition stemming from sanctity, as will be explained later, then since in these cases the obligation of levirate marriage is not fundamentally nullified she performs 岣litza in order to become free of the levirate bond, and due to her prohibition she does not enter into levirate marriage.

讗讞讜转讛 砖讛讬讗 讬讘诪转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The Sages stated another principle: If two sisters who had been married to two brothers who subsequently died happened before the third brother for levirate marriage, and one of those sisters is a close relation to this third brother and is therefore forbidden to him, she is exempt from levirate marriage. But the other, her sister who is her yevama, i.e., her sister-in-law, performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. In this case, they are not ruled to be two sisters who happened before him simultaneously for levirate marriage, since one of them is prohibited to him as a forbidden relation, and therefore she never actually happened before him at all.

讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞转讬谉 讜诪诪讝专

The mishna explains: A prohibition resulting from a mitzva is referring to secondary forbidden relationships, which are prohibited by rabbinic law. The Sages prohibited marriage to certain women who were not forbidden by the Torah but were nevertheless deemed forbidden incestuous relations. A prohibition stemming from sanctity is referring to marriage of a widow to a High Priest, a divorc茅e or a woman who has performed 岣litza [岣lutza] to a common priest, a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret] or a Gibeonite woman to an Israelite, and also an Israelite woman to a Gibeonite or to a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer].

讙诪壮 讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜讻讚专讘 讗住讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: This principle stated in the mishna about yevamot, what other cases does it add? Since the entire list of cases involving a forbidden relation was already detailed in the first chapter, what is this mishna adding? Rafram bar Pappa said: It comes to include the case of a rival wife of a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children. Not only does an aylonit herself not enter into levirate marriage, since she is unable to give birth, but her rival wife is exempt as well. And this is like the principle of Rav Asi, who said that the rival wife of an aylonit is forbidden because the aylonit herself remains prohibited to the yavam as the wife of his brother, as she was never rendered permitted by the obligation of levirate marriage. Therefore, her rival wife is the rival wife of someone prohibited as a forbidden relation.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 砖讗讬住讜专讛 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讗 爪专转讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬住讜专讛 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 爪专转讛 诇讗 讗住讬专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专驻专诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘 讗住讬

And there are those who say that Rafram bar Pappa鈥檚 statement was made in a different context. It was taught in the mishna: Whoever is forbidden to her yavam by a prohibition of forbidden relations is completely exempt, which implies that it is specifically in such a case that her rival wife is forbidden. But any case when one wife is not forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden relations but is instead forbidden for some other reason, then her rival wife is not forbidden. This case comes to exclude what? Rafram said: It excludes the rival wife of an aylonit, who requires levirate marriage or 岣litza because the aylonit is not prohibited as a forbidden relation. And this statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi.

讗讞讜转讛 砖讛讬讗 讬讘诪转讛 讗讞讜转讛 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 驻讙注 讘讗讞讜转 讝拽讜拽转讜 讗诇讗 讗讞讜转讛 讚讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛

The mishna states: Her sister who is her yevama performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. The Gemara clarifies this: Whose sister? If we say it is the sister of one who is forbidden due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva, since by Torah law she is cast before him for levirate marriage, then this would in fact simply be a case of two sisters who fell simultaneously before him, both requiring levirate marriage, since according to Torah law there is no prohibition against entering into levirate marriage with such a woman. If so, it turns out that he encounters the sister of the woman with whom he has a levirate bond; but that case has already been taught. Rather, it must refer to the sister of a woman who is forbidden to him by a prohibition of forbidden relations, and since he may not enter into levirate marriage with a forbidden relation, her sister is not considered to be the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. Therefore, the sister may be taken in levirate marriage.

讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 砖谞讬讜转 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪爪讜讛 诇砖诪讜注 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

The mishna states that a prohibition resulting from a mitzva is referring to secondary forbidden relationships, which are prohibited by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: Why is this called a prohibition resulting from a mitzva? Abaye said: This is because it is a mitzva to listen to and obey the words of the Sages.

讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛讜 讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讗诇讛讬讛诐

The mishna states: A prohibition stemming from sanctity is referring to a marriage of a widow to a High Priest, a divorc茅e or a 岣lutza to a common priest. The Gemara asks: Why are these called a prohibition stemming from sanctity? As it is written with regard to the priests: 鈥淭hey shall be sacred to their God鈥they shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman divorced by her husband鈥 (Leviticus 21:6鈥7).

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞诇讬祝 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讛 讛诪爪讜转

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda switches the terms: A prohibition resulting from a mitzva is referring to a widow to the High Priest, or a divorc茅e or a 岣lutza to a common priest. And why is this called a prohibition resulting from a mitzva? As it is written in summarization at the end of Leviticus: 鈥淭hese are the mitzvot that the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai鈥 (Leviticus 27:34).

讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 讛诪拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 谞拽专讗 拽讚讜砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 拽讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 专砖注 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽讚砖 注爪诪讱 讘诪讜转专 诇讱

A prohibition stemming from sanctity is referring to secondary relationships forbidden by rabbinic law. And why is this called a prohibition stemming from sanctity? Abaye said: Whoever fulfills the words of the Sages is called sacred. Rava said to him: The language you use is not precise, since if so, whoever does not fulfill the words of the Sages is not called sacred, which implies that he is also not called wicked. However, anyone who transgresses the words of the Sages is in fact referred to as wicked. Rather, Rava said that the reason why this is called a prohibition stemming from sanctity is that the term sanctity indicates differentiation or separation, and there is a principle that you must sanctify yourself by refraining from that which is permitted to you by Torah law. The Sages decreed against secondary forbidden relations so that one would not eventually come to transgress Torah law.

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 拽驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉

The mishna states that the levirate bond of a widow to a High Priest requires her to perform 岣litza, and she may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara comments: The halakha that a widow does not enter into levirate marriage with a High Priest is taught categorically, merely in a general manner. It is no different whether she is a widow from marriage or she is a widow from betrothal alone.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙专讬讚讗 讛讜讗 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛

Granted, she certainly may not enter into levirate marriage if she is a widow from marriage, since she is forbidden to the High Priest by the positive mitzva stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take a wife in her virginity鈥 (Leviticus 21:13), and by the prohibition stated in the verse: 鈥淎 widow, or one divorced鈥hese he shall not take鈥 (Leviticus 21:14). And a positive mitzva, levirate marriage, does not override both a prohibition, not marrying a widow, and a positive mitzva, marrying a virgin, together. However, if she is a widow from betrothal, then there is only a prohibition, as she is still a virgin. In that case, why not say that the positive mitzva of levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition against marrying a widow from betrothal?

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注诇转讛 讬讘诪转讜 讛砖注专讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讘诪转讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讘诪转讜 讬砖 诇讱 讬讘诪讛 讗讞转 砖注讜诇讛 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注讜诇讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉

Rav Giddel said that Rav said in response: The verse states: 鈥淗is yevama shall ascend to the gate to the Elders and say: My brother-in-law refused to establish a name for his brother in Israel, he did not wish to consummate the levirate marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:7). As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淗is yevama,鈥 since it is clear to whom the verse refers and no new information is added by this word, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淗is yevama鈥? It comes to teach that there is one yevama who ascends for 岣litza but may not ascend for levirate marriage, and her brother-in-law is not given a choice. Who is this? This is a woman with whom it is prohibited for her yavam to enter into levirate marriage, as he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition, and the positive mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition.

讜讗讬诪讗 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讞驻讜抓 讛讗讬砖 诇拽讞转 讛讗 讞驻抓 诪讬讬讘诐 讻诇 讛注讜诇讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 注讜诇讛 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 注讜诇讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇讞诇讬爪讛

The Gemara asks: Say that this is referring to those women who are forbidden and would be liable to receive the penalty of karet as well, i.e., that these too may not enter into levirate marriage but nevertheless require 岣litza. The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if the man does not wish to take his yevama鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:7). This implies that if he wishes, he takes her in levirate marriage; it depends upon his wishes. However, one who is eligible for levirate marriage is eligible for 岣litza. And conversely, one who is ineligible for levirate marriage is ineligible for 岣litza and therefore does not require 岣litza at all. Since those relations that carry a penalty of karet have no possibility of entering into levirate marriage, they do not require 岣litza either.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讬讘诪转讜 讜诪讛 专讗讬转

The Gemara asks: If so, those relations who are forbidden as he would be liable for the violation of a standard prohibition also should not require 岣litza, as they may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: But the Merciful One included one category of yevama who is eligible for 岣litza alone and not levirate marriage through the term: 鈥淗is yevama.鈥 The Gemara asks: And what did you see to conclude that the additional term is referring to relations who are forbidden and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition and not those who are liable to receive karet?

诪住转讘专讗 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 转驻住讬 讘讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara answers: That stands to reason, since betrothal takes effect with those women who are forbidden and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition. That is, if a man betroths a woman who is forbidden to him and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition, then although he violates a prohibition in doing so, the betrothal is valid and cannot be ended without a bill of divorce. Therefore, such a woman also requires 岣litza. In contrast, betrothal does not take effect at all with those who are forbidden and would be liable to receive the punishment of karet, and therefore in these cases the laws of levirate marriage and 岣litza do not apply at all.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讜讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讜 讞诇抓 诇讛 谞驻讟专讛 爪专转讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讞诇讬爪讛 专诪讬讗 诇讬讬讘讜诐 诇讗 专诪讬讗 讻讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 谞驻讟专讛 爪专转讛

Rava raised an objection to the explanation of Rav: It is taught in a baraita with regard to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva and a prohibition stemming from sanctity that if he engages in intercourse with such a woman or performs 岣litza with her, her rival wife is exempt, even though it was prohibited for him to have engaged in intercourse with her in the first place. If it enters your mind that women who are forbidden, as he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition, require 岣litza by Torah law but do not require levirate marriage, then when he engages in intercourse with his yevama why is her rival wife exempt? If there is no biblical mitzva to engage in intercourse with her, his action would carry no halakhic validity and the rival wife should not be exempt.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讞诇抓 诇讛 讗讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛

Rava raised the objection and he resolved it: The baraita teaches it disjunctively; it did not all deal with the same case. When the baraita says: Engages in intercourse with her, it is referring to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva. If one engages in intercourse with a yevama prohibited to him by rabbinic law, since by Torah law levirate marriage with her is valid, then although his act involved the transgression of a rabbinic decree, he nevertheless fulfilled the Torah mitzva and the rival wife is thereby exempt. When the baraita says: Performs 岣litza with her, it is referring to a prohibition stemming from sanctity, and by Torah law there is no option of levirate marriage because of the prohibited relation; therefore, only 岣litza exempts her rival wife.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 住专讬住 讗讚诐 讜讛讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗讜 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讻讬爪讚 诪转讜 讜诇讛诐 讗讞讬诐 讜诇讛诐 谞砖讬诐 讜注诪讚讜 讗讞讬谉 讜注砖讜 诪讗诪专 讘谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讜谞转谞讜 讙讟 讜讞诇爪讜 诪讛 砖注砖讜 注砖讜 讜讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜

Rava raised an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta (Yevamot 11:3): A man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals or one whose penis has been severed, one who is a eunuch caused by man and not from birth or by disease, or an elderly man, all of whom are incapable of fathering children, one either performs 岣litza or levirate marriage. How so? If any of these infertile men died, and they had brothers and they also had wives, and they then died childless, and the brothers proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed 岣litza, whatever they did is done; i.e., their act was effective. And if any one of the brothers engaged in intercourse with the widow of one of those infertile men, he thereby acquired the woman as a wife according to the laws of levirate marriage.

诪转讜 讗讞讬诐 讜注诪讚讜 讛诐 讜注砖讜 诪讗诪专 讘谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讜谞转谞讜 讙讟 讗讜 砖讞诇爪讜 诪讛 砖注砖讜 注砖讜 讜讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜 讜讗住讜专 诇拽讬讬诪谉 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讞诇讬爪讛 专诪讬讗 诇讬讬讘讜诐 诇讗 专诪讬讗 讗诐 讘注诇讜 讗诪讗讬 拽谞讜

The inverse is also true: If the brothers died childless, and the infertile men proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives, or gave a bill of divorce, or performed 岣litza, whatever they did is done and took effect. And if they engaged in intercourse with their yevama, they thereby acquired the yevama as their wife. However, it is forbidden to maintain them, i.e., allow them to continue to live as husband and wife, because it is stated: 鈥淥ne with crushed testicles or whose penis has been severed shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:2); they are prohibited from entering the congregation, i.e., marrying a Jew. And if it enters your mind that women who are forbidden, as he would be liable for the violation a prohibition, require 岣litza by Torah law but do not require levirate marriage, then one could ask: if they engaged in intercourse why are they acquired as wives even though there would be no mitzva of levirate marriage because the men are prohibited from marrying them?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 谞诪讬 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讗诇讛讬讛诐

Rather, Rav鈥檚 opinion is rejected, and Rava said an alternative explanation: The reason why a High Priest does not take a widow from betrothal in levirate marriage is because that relationship is also a violation of both a positive mitzva and a prohibition and therefore a different positive mitzva does not override it. How so? As it is written: 鈥淭hey shall be sacred to their God鈥 (Leviticus 21:6), which teaches that there is a positive mitzva of sanctity associated with all prohibitions applying to priests. Therefore, any such prohibition contains both a positive and a negative mitzva.

诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻转讬讘 讜讛转拽讚砖转诐

The Gemara asks: This resolves the issue of priestly prohibitions, but what is there to say about a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret] or a Gibeonite woman, who are prohibited from entering the congregation due to considerations of sanctity? They too may not enter into levirate marriage despite the positive mitzva, which would ordinarily override a prohibition. The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to all of the mitzvot: 鈥淪anctify yourselves, therefore, and be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 11:44). This teaches that in addition to the prohibition, there is the positive mitzva of sanctity.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 谞诪讬 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转拽讚砖转诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗讟讜 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, then every single prohibition in the entire Torah contains both a positive mitzva and a prohibition, as it is written: 鈥淪anctify yourselves鈥 (Leviticus 11:44). Rather, this reasoning must be rejected, and Rava stated a different reason: While in essence the mitzva of levirate marriage does apply here, nevertheless, a widow from betrothal is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with the High Priest by rabbinic decree, due to the case of a widow from marriage.

诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝讬专讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗讟讜 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara asks: What is there to say about the case of a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman? There appears to be no reason for a rabbinic decree in such cases. The Gemara answers: There, one must say that intercourse with a mamzeret even when the mitzva of levirate marriage applies was prohibited by rabbinic decree due to cases when the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply. The decree was issued lest one come to think that since in the case of levirate marriage a mamzeret is permitted, even in cases when there is no levirate marriage a mamzeret is similarly permitted.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜 诇讗 转转讬讬讘诐 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讬讬讘讜诐 讘谞讞诇讛 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, and the levirate marriage is prohibited lest it become confused with another case, then the wife of a paternal brother should not enter into levirate marriage; i.e., by the same logic, although the Torah allowed it, the Sages should have established a rabbinic decree requiring that she perform 岣litza due to the case of the wife of a maternal brother, who always remains prohibited as a brother鈥檚 wife. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon inheritance, and it is well known by everyone that only patrilineal relatives inherit, so there is no likelihood of confusion.

讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 转转讬讬讘诐 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讘讘谞讬诐 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The Gemara objects further: Then a childless woman should not enter into levirate marriage even though the mitzva applies to her; there should be a rabbinic decree due to the case of a woman who has children. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon children; it is well known by everyone that the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to establish one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 name and that levirate marriage applies only when there are no children. Here, too, there is no likelihood of error.

讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 诇讗 转转讬讬讘诐 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讘讬砖讬讘讛 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The Gemara challenges further: The wife of a brother with whom one did coexist should not enter into levirate marriage; there should be a rabbinic decree due to the case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. The Gemara responds: The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon a common dwelling together and coexistence of brothers, and this is well known by everyone since the matter is explicit in the Torah.

讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诇讗 转转讬讬讘诪谞讛 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

The Gemara continues to object: No woman should enter into levirate marriage; there should be a rabbinic decree due to the case of an aylonit. Since an aylonit may not enter into levirate marriage, all other women should be prohibited by rabbinic decree from doing so to avoid confusion. The Gemara answers: The case of an aylonit is not commonplace, and the Sages did not institute rabbinic decrees on matters that are not common. The Gemara asks: If so, neither a mamzeret nor a Gibeonite woman is commonplace either. Therefore, since the likelihood of taking a mamzeret in levirate marriage is so small, there is no danger that one might think it is permitted to marry a mamzeret even where the mitzva does not apply.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝专讛 讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讟讜 讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讛

Rather, Rava said that it is necessary to reject the previous suggestion and to offer a different reason: The first act of intercourse is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the likelihood of a second act of intercourse. Although intercourse the first time with the yevama is the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, which does override the prohibition, once the mitzva is fulfilled with that act there is no longer any positive mitzva involved. Afterward, this yevama becomes prohibited because there is no longer a positive mitzva to override the prohibition. Therefore, due to the possibility that one might engage in intercourse a second time with this woman, the Sages decreed that even the first act is prohibited.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜 讘讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗住讜专 诇拽讬讬诪谉 讘讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讛

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If one of those yevamin who may not marry their yevama due to a prohibition engaged in intercourse with her, he acquired her with the first act of intercourse; however, it is prohibited to retain her for a second act of intercourse.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讟讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讚诪拽讬讬诐 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara continues with a retraction from Rava: Rava then said, and some say it was actually Rav Ashi who said: That which I said, that the reason for the rabbinic decree was to prevent a second act of intercourse, is not correct, as there is a simpler explanation. As Reish Lakish said about the same matter: In every place that you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition applying to the same matter, if you can fulfill both of them together, this is best, and the positive mitzva does not override the prohibition. And if there is not any possibility of fulfilling both, then let the positive mitzva come and override the prohibition. Here, too, in the case of levirate marriage, it is possible, by way of 岣litza, to fulfill the positive mitzva and not to transgress the prohibition prohibiting marriage to these women.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara raises an objection to this last statement by Rava from that which is taught in a baraita: And if one of those yevamin engaged in intercourse, he acquired her as a wife. This shows that although it is possible to perform the mitzva by way of 岣litza, if he nevertheless performs levirate marriage then the positive mitzva overrides the prohibition and the yevama is thereby acquired as his wife. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation, and Rava鈥檚 last explanation is rejected. The previous explanation is the correct one: The prohibition is due to rabbinic decree.

讗讬转诪专 讘讬讗转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

搂 On the same subject, it was stated with regard to the case of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow who was his yevama requiring levirate marriage that the amora鈥檌m Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar disputed the matter. One said that intercourse does not exempt her rival wife who had also been married to the High Priest鈥檚 brother, since the act was prohibited, and one said that it does exempt her rival wife, because although intercourse was forbidden, it is nevertheless a valid enactment of levirate marriage, and so her rival wife is thereby exempt.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

  • 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 20: The Mitzvah of Halitzah

A new mishnah that establishes some principles about a yevamah... which is established by means of hypothetical examples that can...

Yevamot 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 20

砖诪讙专砖讛 讘讙讟 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 讜讬讘诪讛 注讚讬讬谉 讬讘讜诪讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 注诇讬讛 讜转讬讘注讬 讞诇讬爪讛

that he must divorce his yevama with a bill of divorce and she does not also require 岣litza. And he may remarry her, if he wishes, after the divorce; as the halakha is not ruled in accordance with the opinion that after he performs the mitzva she is once more forbidden to him as his brother鈥檚 wife. Why? There, too, let the halakha say that the verse states: 鈥淎nd consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema],鈥 as explained above, meaning that the first levirate bond is still upon her and she should also require 岣litza.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 讻讬讜谉 砖诇拽讞讛 谞注砖讬转 讻讗砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讬讘诪讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd take her to him to be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy聽25:5) to teach that once he has taken her, her legal status is that of his wife in every sense. The Gemara objects: If so, here too, in the case of a brother born after the levirate marriage, according to the opinion of the Rabbis this same principle should apply. The Gemara answers that The Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema],鈥 that is, even after the marriage she is still considered to be the wife of the deceased brother [yevama] with respect to any brothers who are born later.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 砖讚讬 讛讬转讬专讗 讗讛讬转讬专讗 讜砖讚讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara asks: What did you see to distinguish in this way and say that once she is married the levirate obligation is totally abrogated with regard to 岣litza, but that she remains prohibited as the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist with respect to any brothers born in the future? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason to say: Toss that which is permitted on that which is permitted, and toss that which is prohibited on that which is prohibited. In other words, in cases where the woman becomes permitted to her yavam through levirate marriage, it stands to reason that this permitted state is absolute, but with regard to the prohibition against taking the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist, it stands to reason that the verse comes to teach that she retains her prohibited status with respect to any brothers born in the future.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 讘讛讬转专 讜诇讗 注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗诪讜 砖谞砖讗讛 讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 讗讞 讜诪转 转转讬讬讘诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 讘讛讬转专

The Gemara suggests: But according to Rabbi Shimon, who said that since he came and found her in a permitted state a brother born subsequently may perform levirate marriage since she was never for a single moment prohibited to him; however, if that is so, consider the case of one鈥檚 maternal half sister, who married his paternal half brother; their marriage was fully permissible since the husband and wife were in no way related to each other. And then his brother was born and the married brother died; in that case, let the sister enter into levirate marriage with her newly born half brother for the same reason, i.e., since he came and found her in a permitted state, as when he was born she was already his brother鈥檚 wife.

讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转讜 诇讛讬讻谉 讗讝诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诐 诇讛讬讻谉 讗讝诇 讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬转讬专讗 讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬转讬专讗

The Gemara challenges this suggestion: How can you say that? What happened to the prohibition against marrying his sister, to where did it go? This widow is the maternal sister of the newly born brother and is therefore forbidden to him. The Gemara objects: If so, here too, one could have said: What happened to the prohibition against marrying the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist, to where did it go? In this case as well, the prohibition against marrying the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist already applied from the first brother, so why does Rabbi Shimon see this as abrogated by marriage? The Gemara answers that the comparison is unsound. This prohibition against marrying one鈥檚 sister has no case where it is permitted and so in this case is also not canceled, whereas that prohibition against marrying a brother鈥檚 wife has a case where it is permitted, when the mitzva of levirate marriage applies to a second brother and is therefore removed completely before the third brother is born.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇诇 讗诪专讜 讘讬讘诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 诇讗 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讜讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

MISHNA: The Sages stated a principle about a yevama: Whoever is forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden relations to her yavam neither performs 岣litza nor enters into levirate marriage and is completely exempt. If she is forbidden by a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or by a prohibition stemming from sanctity, as will be explained later, then since in these cases the obligation of levirate marriage is not fundamentally nullified she performs 岣litza in order to become free of the levirate bond, and due to her prohibition she does not enter into levirate marriage.

讗讞讜转讛 砖讛讬讗 讬讘诪转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The Sages stated another principle: If two sisters who had been married to two brothers who subsequently died happened before the third brother for levirate marriage, and one of those sisters is a close relation to this third brother and is therefore forbidden to him, she is exempt from levirate marriage. But the other, her sister who is her yevama, i.e., her sister-in-law, performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. In this case, they are not ruled to be two sisters who happened before him simultaneously for levirate marriage, since one of them is prohibited to him as a forbidden relation, and therefore she never actually happened before him at all.

讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞转讬谉 讜诪诪讝专

The mishna explains: A prohibition resulting from a mitzva is referring to secondary forbidden relationships, which are prohibited by rabbinic law. The Sages prohibited marriage to certain women who were not forbidden by the Torah but were nevertheless deemed forbidden incestuous relations. A prohibition stemming from sanctity is referring to marriage of a widow to a High Priest, a divorc茅e or a woman who has performed 岣litza [岣lutza] to a common priest, a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret] or a Gibeonite woman to an Israelite, and also an Israelite woman to a Gibeonite or to a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer].

讙诪壮 讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜讻讚专讘 讗住讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: This principle stated in the mishna about yevamot, what other cases does it add? Since the entire list of cases involving a forbidden relation was already detailed in the first chapter, what is this mishna adding? Rafram bar Pappa said: It comes to include the case of a rival wife of a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children. Not only does an aylonit herself not enter into levirate marriage, since she is unable to give birth, but her rival wife is exempt as well. And this is like the principle of Rav Asi, who said that the rival wife of an aylonit is forbidden because the aylonit herself remains prohibited to the yavam as the wife of his brother, as she was never rendered permitted by the obligation of levirate marriage. Therefore, her rival wife is the rival wife of someone prohibited as a forbidden relation.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 砖讗讬住讜专讛 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讗 爪专转讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬住讜专讛 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 爪专转讛 诇讗 讗住讬专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专驻专诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪专转 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘 讗住讬

And there are those who say that Rafram bar Pappa鈥檚 statement was made in a different context. It was taught in the mishna: Whoever is forbidden to her yavam by a prohibition of forbidden relations is completely exempt, which implies that it is specifically in such a case that her rival wife is forbidden. But any case when one wife is not forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden relations but is instead forbidden for some other reason, then her rival wife is not forbidden. This case comes to exclude what? Rafram said: It excludes the rival wife of an aylonit, who requires levirate marriage or 岣litza because the aylonit is not prohibited as a forbidden relation. And this statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi.

讗讞讜转讛 砖讛讬讗 讬讘诪转讛 讗讞讜转讛 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 驻讙注 讘讗讞讜转 讝拽讜拽转讜 讗诇讗 讗讞讜转讛 讚讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛

The mishna states: Her sister who is her yevama performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. The Gemara clarifies this: Whose sister? If we say it is the sister of one who is forbidden due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva, since by Torah law she is cast before him for levirate marriage, then this would in fact simply be a case of two sisters who fell simultaneously before him, both requiring levirate marriage, since according to Torah law there is no prohibition against entering into levirate marriage with such a woman. If so, it turns out that he encounters the sister of the woman with whom he has a levirate bond; but that case has already been taught. Rather, it must refer to the sister of a woman who is forbidden to him by a prohibition of forbidden relations, and since he may not enter into levirate marriage with a forbidden relation, her sister is not considered to be the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. Therefore, the sister may be taken in levirate marriage.

讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 砖谞讬讜转 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪爪讜讛 诇砖诪讜注 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

The mishna states that a prohibition resulting from a mitzva is referring to secondary forbidden relationships, which are prohibited by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: Why is this called a prohibition resulting from a mitzva? Abaye said: This is because it is a mitzva to listen to and obey the words of the Sages.

讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛讜 讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讗诇讛讬讛诐

The mishna states: A prohibition stemming from sanctity is referring to a marriage of a widow to a High Priest, a divorc茅e or a 岣lutza to a common priest. The Gemara asks: Why are these called a prohibition stemming from sanctity? As it is written with regard to the priests: 鈥淭hey shall be sacred to their God鈥they shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman divorced by her husband鈥 (Leviticus 21:6鈥7).

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞诇讬祝 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讛 讛诪爪讜转

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda switches the terms: A prohibition resulting from a mitzva is referring to a widow to the High Priest, or a divorc茅e or a 岣lutza to a common priest. And why is this called a prohibition resulting from a mitzva? As it is written in summarization at the end of Leviticus: 鈥淭hese are the mitzvot that the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai鈥 (Leviticus 27:34).

讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 讛诪拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 谞拽专讗 拽讚讜砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 拽讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 专砖注 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽讚砖 注爪诪讱 讘诪讜转专 诇讱

A prohibition stemming from sanctity is referring to secondary relationships forbidden by rabbinic law. And why is this called a prohibition stemming from sanctity? Abaye said: Whoever fulfills the words of the Sages is called sacred. Rava said to him: The language you use is not precise, since if so, whoever does not fulfill the words of the Sages is not called sacred, which implies that he is also not called wicked. However, anyone who transgresses the words of the Sages is in fact referred to as wicked. Rather, Rava said that the reason why this is called a prohibition stemming from sanctity is that the term sanctity indicates differentiation or separation, and there is a principle that you must sanctify yourself by refraining from that which is permitted to you by Torah law. The Sages decreed against secondary forbidden relations so that one would not eventually come to transgress Torah law.

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 拽驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉

The mishna states that the levirate bond of a widow to a High Priest requires her to perform 岣litza, and she may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara comments: The halakha that a widow does not enter into levirate marriage with a High Priest is taught categorically, merely in a general manner. It is no different whether she is a widow from marriage or she is a widow from betrothal alone.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙专讬讚讗 讛讜讗 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛

Granted, she certainly may not enter into levirate marriage if she is a widow from marriage, since she is forbidden to the High Priest by the positive mitzva stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take a wife in her virginity鈥 (Leviticus 21:13), and by the prohibition stated in the verse: 鈥淎 widow, or one divorced鈥hese he shall not take鈥 (Leviticus 21:14). And a positive mitzva, levirate marriage, does not override both a prohibition, not marrying a widow, and a positive mitzva, marrying a virgin, together. However, if she is a widow from betrothal, then there is only a prohibition, as she is still a virgin. In that case, why not say that the positive mitzva of levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition against marrying a widow from betrothal?

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注诇转讛 讬讘诪转讜 讛砖注专讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讘诪转讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讘诪转讜 讬砖 诇讱 讬讘诪讛 讗讞转 砖注讜诇讛 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注讜诇讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉

Rav Giddel said that Rav said in response: The verse states: 鈥淗is yevama shall ascend to the gate to the Elders and say: My brother-in-law refused to establish a name for his brother in Israel, he did not wish to consummate the levirate marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:7). As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淗is yevama,鈥 since it is clear to whom the verse refers and no new information is added by this word, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淗is yevama鈥? It comes to teach that there is one yevama who ascends for 岣litza but may not ascend for levirate marriage, and her brother-in-law is not given a choice. Who is this? This is a woman with whom it is prohibited for her yavam to enter into levirate marriage, as he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition, and the positive mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition.

讜讗讬诪讗 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讞驻讜抓 讛讗讬砖 诇拽讞转 讛讗 讞驻抓 诪讬讬讘诐 讻诇 讛注讜诇讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 注讜诇讛 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 注讜诇讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇讞诇讬爪讛

The Gemara asks: Say that this is referring to those women who are forbidden and would be liable to receive the penalty of karet as well, i.e., that these too may not enter into levirate marriage but nevertheless require 岣litza. The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if the man does not wish to take his yevama鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:7). This implies that if he wishes, he takes her in levirate marriage; it depends upon his wishes. However, one who is eligible for levirate marriage is eligible for 岣litza. And conversely, one who is ineligible for levirate marriage is ineligible for 岣litza and therefore does not require 岣litza at all. Since those relations that carry a penalty of karet have no possibility of entering into levirate marriage, they do not require 岣litza either.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讬讘诪转讜 讜诪讛 专讗讬转

The Gemara asks: If so, those relations who are forbidden as he would be liable for the violation of a standard prohibition also should not require 岣litza, as they may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: But the Merciful One included one category of yevama who is eligible for 岣litza alone and not levirate marriage through the term: 鈥淗is yevama.鈥 The Gemara asks: And what did you see to conclude that the additional term is referring to relations who are forbidden and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition and not those who are liable to receive karet?

诪住转讘专讗 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 转驻住讬 讘讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara answers: That stands to reason, since betrothal takes effect with those women who are forbidden and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition. That is, if a man betroths a woman who is forbidden to him and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition, then although he violates a prohibition in doing so, the betrothal is valid and cannot be ended without a bill of divorce. Therefore, such a woman also requires 岣litza. In contrast, betrothal does not take effect at all with those who are forbidden and would be liable to receive the punishment of karet, and therefore in these cases the laws of levirate marriage and 岣litza do not apply at all.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讜讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讜 讞诇抓 诇讛 谞驻讟专讛 爪专转讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讞诇讬爪讛 专诪讬讗 诇讬讬讘讜诐 诇讗 专诪讬讗 讻讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 谞驻讟专讛 爪专转讛

Rava raised an objection to the explanation of Rav: It is taught in a baraita with regard to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva and a prohibition stemming from sanctity that if he engages in intercourse with such a woman or performs 岣litza with her, her rival wife is exempt, even though it was prohibited for him to have engaged in intercourse with her in the first place. If it enters your mind that women who are forbidden, as he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition, require 岣litza by Torah law but do not require levirate marriage, then when he engages in intercourse with his yevama why is her rival wife exempt? If there is no biblical mitzva to engage in intercourse with her, his action would carry no halakhic validity and the rival wife should not be exempt.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讞诇抓 诇讛 讗讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛

Rava raised the objection and he resolved it: The baraita teaches it disjunctively; it did not all deal with the same case. When the baraita says: Engages in intercourse with her, it is referring to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva. If one engages in intercourse with a yevama prohibited to him by rabbinic law, since by Torah law levirate marriage with her is valid, then although his act involved the transgression of a rabbinic decree, he nevertheless fulfilled the Torah mitzva and the rival wife is thereby exempt. When the baraita says: Performs 岣litza with her, it is referring to a prohibition stemming from sanctity, and by Torah law there is no option of levirate marriage because of the prohibited relation; therefore, only 岣litza exempts her rival wife.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 住专讬住 讗讚诐 讜讛讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗讜 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讻讬爪讚 诪转讜 讜诇讛诐 讗讞讬诐 讜诇讛诐 谞砖讬诐 讜注诪讚讜 讗讞讬谉 讜注砖讜 诪讗诪专 讘谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讜谞转谞讜 讙讟 讜讞诇爪讜 诪讛 砖注砖讜 注砖讜 讜讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜

Rava raised an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta (Yevamot 11:3): A man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals or one whose penis has been severed, one who is a eunuch caused by man and not from birth or by disease, or an elderly man, all of whom are incapable of fathering children, one either performs 岣litza or levirate marriage. How so? If any of these infertile men died, and they had brothers and they also had wives, and they then died childless, and the brothers proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed 岣litza, whatever they did is done; i.e., their act was effective. And if any one of the brothers engaged in intercourse with the widow of one of those infertile men, he thereby acquired the woman as a wife according to the laws of levirate marriage.

诪转讜 讗讞讬诐 讜注诪讚讜 讛诐 讜注砖讜 诪讗诪专 讘谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讜谞转谞讜 讙讟 讗讜 砖讞诇爪讜 诪讛 砖注砖讜 注砖讜 讜讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜 讜讗住讜专 诇拽讬讬诪谉 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讞诇讬爪讛 专诪讬讗 诇讬讬讘讜诐 诇讗 专诪讬讗 讗诐 讘注诇讜 讗诪讗讬 拽谞讜

The inverse is also true: If the brothers died childless, and the infertile men proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives, or gave a bill of divorce, or performed 岣litza, whatever they did is done and took effect. And if they engaged in intercourse with their yevama, they thereby acquired the yevama as their wife. However, it is forbidden to maintain them, i.e., allow them to continue to live as husband and wife, because it is stated: 鈥淥ne with crushed testicles or whose penis has been severed shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:2); they are prohibited from entering the congregation, i.e., marrying a Jew. And if it enters your mind that women who are forbidden, as he would be liable for the violation a prohibition, require 岣litza by Torah law but do not require levirate marriage, then one could ask: if they engaged in intercourse why are they acquired as wives even though there would be no mitzva of levirate marriage because the men are prohibited from marrying them?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 谞诪讬 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讗诇讛讬讛诐

Rather, Rav鈥檚 opinion is rejected, and Rava said an alternative explanation: The reason why a High Priest does not take a widow from betrothal in levirate marriage is because that relationship is also a violation of both a positive mitzva and a prohibition and therefore a different positive mitzva does not override it. How so? As it is written: 鈥淭hey shall be sacred to their God鈥 (Leviticus 21:6), which teaches that there is a positive mitzva of sanctity associated with all prohibitions applying to priests. Therefore, any such prohibition contains both a positive and a negative mitzva.

诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻转讬讘 讜讛转拽讚砖转诐

The Gemara asks: This resolves the issue of priestly prohibitions, but what is there to say about a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret] or a Gibeonite woman, who are prohibited from entering the congregation due to considerations of sanctity? They too may not enter into levirate marriage despite the positive mitzva, which would ordinarily override a prohibition. The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to all of the mitzvot: 鈥淪anctify yourselves, therefore, and be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 11:44). This teaches that in addition to the prohibition, there is the positive mitzva of sanctity.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 谞诪讬 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转拽讚砖转诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗讟讜 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, then every single prohibition in the entire Torah contains both a positive mitzva and a prohibition, as it is written: 鈥淪anctify yourselves鈥 (Leviticus 11:44). Rather, this reasoning must be rejected, and Rava stated a different reason: While in essence the mitzva of levirate marriage does apply here, nevertheless, a widow from betrothal is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with the High Priest by rabbinic decree, due to the case of a widow from marriage.

诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝讬专讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗讟讜 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara asks: What is there to say about the case of a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman? There appears to be no reason for a rabbinic decree in such cases. The Gemara answers: There, one must say that intercourse with a mamzeret even when the mitzva of levirate marriage applies was prohibited by rabbinic decree due to cases when the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply. The decree was issued lest one come to think that since in the case of levirate marriage a mamzeret is permitted, even in cases when there is no levirate marriage a mamzeret is similarly permitted.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜 诇讗 转转讬讬讘诐 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讬讬讘讜诐 讘谞讞诇讛 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, and the levirate marriage is prohibited lest it become confused with another case, then the wife of a paternal brother should not enter into levirate marriage; i.e., by the same logic, although the Torah allowed it, the Sages should have established a rabbinic decree requiring that she perform 岣litza due to the case of the wife of a maternal brother, who always remains prohibited as a brother鈥檚 wife. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon inheritance, and it is well known by everyone that only patrilineal relatives inherit, so there is no likelihood of confusion.

讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 转转讬讬讘诐 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讘讘谞讬诐 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The Gemara objects further: Then a childless woman should not enter into levirate marriage even though the mitzva applies to her; there should be a rabbinic decree due to the case of a woman who has children. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon children; it is well known by everyone that the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to establish one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 name and that levirate marriage applies only when there are no children. Here, too, there is no likelihood of error.

讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 诇讗 转转讬讬讘诐 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讘讬砖讬讘讛 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The Gemara challenges further: The wife of a brother with whom one did coexist should not enter into levirate marriage; there should be a rabbinic decree due to the case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. The Gemara responds: The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon a common dwelling together and coexistence of brothers, and this is well known by everyone since the matter is explicit in the Torah.

讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诇讗 转转讬讬讘诪谞讛 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

The Gemara continues to object: No woman should enter into levirate marriage; there should be a rabbinic decree due to the case of an aylonit. Since an aylonit may not enter into levirate marriage, all other women should be prohibited by rabbinic decree from doing so to avoid confusion. The Gemara answers: The case of an aylonit is not commonplace, and the Sages did not institute rabbinic decrees on matters that are not common. The Gemara asks: If so, neither a mamzeret nor a Gibeonite woman is commonplace either. Therefore, since the likelihood of taking a mamzeret in levirate marriage is so small, there is no danger that one might think it is permitted to marry a mamzeret even where the mitzva does not apply.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝专讛 讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讟讜 讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讛

Rather, Rava said that it is necessary to reject the previous suggestion and to offer a different reason: The first act of intercourse is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the likelihood of a second act of intercourse. Although intercourse the first time with the yevama is the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, which does override the prohibition, once the mitzva is fulfilled with that act there is no longer any positive mitzva involved. Afterward, this yevama becomes prohibited because there is no longer a positive mitzva to override the prohibition. Therefore, due to the possibility that one might engage in intercourse a second time with this woman, the Sages decreed that even the first act is prohibited.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜 讘讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗住讜专 诇拽讬讬诪谉 讘讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讛

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If one of those yevamin who may not marry their yevama due to a prohibition engaged in intercourse with her, he acquired her with the first act of intercourse; however, it is prohibited to retain her for a second act of intercourse.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讟讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讚诪拽讬讬诐 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara continues with a retraction from Rava: Rava then said, and some say it was actually Rav Ashi who said: That which I said, that the reason for the rabbinic decree was to prevent a second act of intercourse, is not correct, as there is a simpler explanation. As Reish Lakish said about the same matter: In every place that you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition applying to the same matter, if you can fulfill both of them together, this is best, and the positive mitzva does not override the prohibition. And if there is not any possibility of fulfilling both, then let the positive mitzva come and override the prohibition. Here, too, in the case of levirate marriage, it is possible, by way of 岣litza, to fulfill the positive mitzva and not to transgress the prohibition prohibiting marriage to these women.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara raises an objection to this last statement by Rava from that which is taught in a baraita: And if one of those yevamin engaged in intercourse, he acquired her as a wife. This shows that although it is possible to perform the mitzva by way of 岣litza, if he nevertheless performs levirate marriage then the positive mitzva overrides the prohibition and the yevama is thereby acquired as his wife. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation, and Rava鈥檚 last explanation is rejected. The previous explanation is the correct one: The prohibition is due to rabbinic decree.

讗讬转诪专 讘讬讗转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

搂 On the same subject, it was stated with regard to the case of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow who was his yevama requiring levirate marriage that the amora鈥檌m Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar disputed the matter. One said that intercourse does not exempt her rival wife who had also been married to the High Priest鈥檚 brother, since the act was prohibited, and one said that it does exempt her rival wife, because although intercourse was forbidden, it is nevertheless a valid enactment of levirate marriage, and so her rival wife is thereby exempt.

Scroll To Top