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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 27, 2014 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • 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 23

Study Guide Yevamot 23


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

ื•ืื™ืžื ืคืจื˜ ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ืชืคืฉื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ

The Gemara raises a challenge: And say that the verse: โ€œThe daughter of your fatherโ€™s wifeโ€ comes to exclude women who were forbidden, as they are liable for violating prohibitions but were nevertheless married to his father, such as a mamzeret. If so, his sister from such a union would not be considered his sister. Rav Pappa said: Betrothal comes into effect with women who are forbidden, and one would be liable for violating prohibitions despite the fact that union with them is forbidden, and so she is called the wife of your father.

ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืชื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืื™ืฉ ืฉืชื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื”ืื—ืช ืื”ื•ื‘ื” ื•ื”ืื—ืช ืฉื ื•ืื” ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืฉ ืื”ื•ื‘ื” ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืžืงื•ื ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื ื•ืื” ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืžืงื•ื ืืœื ืื”ื•ื‘ื” ืื”ื•ื‘ื” ื‘ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ื” ืฉื ื•ืื” ืฉื ื•ืื” ื‘ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ื™ ืชื”ื™ื™ืŸ

This is derived from the verse in which it is written: โ€œIf a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hatedโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:15). Is there one who is loved by the Omnipresent and one who is hated by the Omnipresent? Rather, โ€œbelovedโ€ means her marriage is beloved, as it was permitted for her to be married, in accordance with halakha, and โ€œhatedโ€ means her marriage is hated because it was not permitted for her to be married, according to halakha. And the Merciful One states: โ€œIf a man has two wives,โ€ meaning that both are considered to be married.

ื•ืื™ืžื ืคืจื˜ ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขืจื•ืช ืื—ื•ืชืš ื‘ืช ืื‘ื™ืš ืื• ื‘ืช ืืžืš ืžื•ืœื“ืช ื‘ื™ืช ืื• ืžื•ืœื“ืช ื—ื•ืฅ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ืœืื‘ื™ืš ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ืœืื‘ื™ืš ื”ื•ืฆื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื—ื•ืชืš ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: Say that this verse comes to exclude a union between oneโ€™s father and a woman that is forbidden to him as they are liable to receive karet, and that since betrothal does not come into effect with her there is no marriage bond. Perhaps a sister born of such a woman would not be prohibited as the daughter of oneโ€™s fatherโ€™s wife. Rava said that the verse states: โ€œThe nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born outsideโ€ (Leviticus 18:9). This includes all daughters, whether from a woman for whom the Sages tell your father: Maintain her within your home, or whether the Sages tell your father she is a woman who is forbidden to him and therefore: Send her out of your home. And the Merciful One states that nevertheless: โ€œShe is your sister.โ€ Even the daughter of a woman who was forbidden to your father such that both parties are liable to receive karet is called your sister.

ืื™ืžื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืื‘ื™ืš ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืื‘ื™ืš ื”ื•ืฆื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื—ื•ืชืš ื”ื™ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืื—ื•ืชื• ืžืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื’ื•ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื‘ืช ืืฉืช ืื‘ื™ืš ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืื™ืฉื•ืช ืœืื‘ื™ืš ื‘ื” ืคืจื˜ ืœืื—ื•ืชื• ืžืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื’ื•ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Say that whether the Sages say to your father: Maintain her, or whether they say to your father: Send her out, and the Merciful One states that โ€œshe is your sister,โ€ this comes to include the additional cases of his sister from a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman. The Gemara rejects this: The verse states: โ€œThe daughter of your fatherโ€™s wife,โ€ and this means whoever can enter a marriage bond with your father. This excludes his sister from a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman, with whom no marital bond is possible.

ื•ืžื” ืจืื™ืช ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื›ืŸ ืชืคืกื™ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืœืžื

The Gemara asks: Since the verse rendering his sister forbidden both includes and excludes cases, what did you see as a reason to include a daughter from a woman who is forbidden and both parties are liable to receive karet, and to exclude the daughter of a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that those relationships that are forbidden because they render both parties liable to receive karet should be included, since in general betrothal can come into effect with them. This is because although this woman is forbidden to his father, she is nevertheless permitted to other men.

ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื’ื•ื™ื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื“ืื™ ืžื’ื™ื™ืจื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืชืคืกื™ ื‘ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื›ื™ ืžื’ื™ื™ืจื” ื’ื•ืคื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it should include a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman, as, if she converts, betrothal can come into effect with the father himself. The Gemara answers: When she converts, she is considered like a different body, i.e., a new person, but when she was a gentile there was no possibility of marital relations with her. Therefore, the verse excludes her.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื’ื•ื™ื” ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžื”ืืฉื” ื•ื™ืœื“ื™ื” ืชื”ื™ื” ืœืื“ื•ื ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who infer a different matter from the verse โ€œyour fatherโ€™s wifeโ€™s nakedness,โ€ from where do they derive the halakha to exclude oneโ€™s sister from a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman? The Gemara answers: They derive it from that which was said with regard to a Canaanite maidservant who was married to a Hebrew slave: โ€œThe wife and her children shall be her masterโ€™sโ€ (Exodus 21:4). From here they learn that the lineage of the maidservantโ€™s children is connected only to their mother and not at all connected to their Jewish father.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื—ื“ ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ื“ ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื” ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืฉืคื—ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื—ื™ื™ืก ืื‘ืœ ื’ื•ื™ื” ื“ืื™ืช ืœื” ื—ื™ื™ืก ืื™ืžื ืœื

The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, not learn this from here? The Gemara responds: One verse was necessary to teach the case of a Canaanite maidservant, and one verse was necessary to teach the case of a gentile woman. And both verses are necessary, as, if the Torah taught us only about a Canaanite maidservant, one could say she is excluded only because she does not have a pedigree, since the Torah ascribes no family relationships to maidservants, but with regard to a gentile woman who does have a pedigree, say no. It was therefore necessary to say that oneโ€™s daughter by a gentile woman does not have the legal status of a daughter.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื’ื•ื™ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ืžืฆื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืฉืคื—ื” ื“ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ืžืฆื•ืช ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

Conversely, if it would teach us only the case of a gentile woman, one might say that this is because she does not have any connection with the mitzvot and therefore her children are in no way Jewish. But since a Canaanite maidservant has a connection with the mitzvot, as she is obligated to observe the prohibitions in the same way as a Jewish woman, say no, i.e., her children should be considered children of their Jewish father. Therefore, this additional proof is necessary.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืฉืคื—ื” ื’ื•ื™ื” ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืฉืคื—ื” ื”ื ื”ื• ืžืฆืจืš ืฆืจื™ื›ื™

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, we found a source that the children of a Canaanite maidservant are not considered the children of their Jewish father, but from where do we derive that children born to a Jewish father by a gentile woman are not considered his children? And if you say: Let us derive it from the case of the Canaanite maidservant, it has already been shown that these are both necessary, and one cannot be derived from the other.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ื™ ื™ืกื™ืจ ืืช ื‘ื ืš ืžืื—ืจื™ ื‘ื ืš ืžื™ืฉืจืืœื™ืช ืงืจื•ื™ ื‘ื ืš ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื ืš ื”ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื™ื” ืงืจื•ื™ ื‘ื ืš ืืœื ื‘ื ื”

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: The verse states: โ€œNeither shall you make marriages with them: Your daughter you shall not give unto his son, nor his daughter shall you take unto your son, for he will turn away your son from following Meโ€ (Deuteronomyย 7:3โ€“4). This teaches that your son born from a Jewish woman is called your son, but your son born from a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son. The verse teaches that since the son of a gentile woman is her son alone, he is not considered related at all to his Jewish father.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชืš ื”ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื™ ืงืจื•ื™ ื‘ื ืš ืœื™ืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ ื ื”ื™ ื“ืžืžื–ืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื›ืฉืจ ื ืžื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื™ืงืจื™

Ravina said: Conclude from here that the son of your daughter by a gentile father is nevertheless called your son, i.e., grandson. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Ravina holds that if a gentile or slave engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is of unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers: There is no conclusive proof from here, because granted, she is not a mamzer, but nevertheless she is still not of unflawed lineage; rather, she is called a Jew who is unfit to marry into the priesthood.

ื”ืื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืขื” ืื•ืžื•ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ืกื™ืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื”ืžืกื™ืจื™ื

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Shimonโ€™s reasoning: Was this verse not written in relation to the seven nations who inhabited the land of Canaan when Joshua entered Eretz Yisrael but not with regard to other nations? The Gemara responds that the words โ€œHe will turn awayโ€ comes to include all those who would turn oneโ€™s grandson away from God, i.e., any gentile.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืงืจื ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: This works out well for Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the rationale behind the mitzva in the verse and draws halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation. Although the verse is stated with regard to the seven nations, the reason for the verse applies to all other gentile nations. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not draw inferences from the rationale of the verse to apply this ruling to all other nations, from where do they derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Shimon, who applies the rationale of the verse to all other nations.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉืงื™ื“ืฉ ืื—ืช ืžืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ ื–ื” ืžื”ืŸ ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ื•ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ืžืช ื•ืœื• ืื— ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ

MISHNA: In the case of one who betrothed one of two sisters and does not know which of them he betrothed, so that both are forbidden to him, he gives a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one due to the uncertainty. If the man who had betrothed one of these women died before he could give a bill of divorce, and he had one brother, that brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them, but he may not take either in levirate marriage. This is because he does not know which woman is his yevama and which is forbidden to him as the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.

ื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืงื“ืžื• ื•ื›ื ืกื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื

If the man who betrothed one of these women had two brothers, one of them performs แธฅalitza with one of the sisters, but he may not enter into levirate marriage with her due to the possibility that she is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. And one takes the other in levirate marriage if he so desires. If the two brothers married the two sisters before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from their marriage and they are permitted to remain married. The couple who performed levirate marriage second was even permitted to do so, since there was no longer any doubt about the levirate bond.

ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืงื“ืฉื• ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ ื–ื• ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื•ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื• ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืžืชื• ืœื–ื” ืื— ื•ืœื–ื” ืื— ื–ื” ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื–ื” ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ

Furthermore, in the case of two unrelated men who betrothed two sisters: If this one does not know which sister he betrothed and that one does not know which sister he betrothed, this one gives two bills of divorce, one to each of the women, and that one gives two bills of divorce. If the two men died before they divorced, and this one had a brother and that one had a brother, then this brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them, and that brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them.

ืœื–ื” ืื—ื“ ื•ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืงื“ืžื• ื•ื›ื ืกื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืื—ืช ื•ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืื—ืช ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ื—ืœื•ืฆืชื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื•ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ื—ืœื•ืฆืชื• ืฉืœ ื–ื”

If this one had one brother and that one had two brothers, the single brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them, and of the two brothers, one performs แธฅalitza and one performs levirate marriage if he so desires. If they married the sisters before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage and they are not told to divorce them. If this one had two brothers and that one had two brothers, the brother of this one performs แธฅalitza with one sister, and the brother of that one performs แธฅalitza with one sister. The brother of this one who performed แธฅalitza may take the woman who performed แธฅalitza [แธฅalutza] of that otherโ€™s brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed แธฅalitza may take the แธฅalutza of that otherโ€™s brother in levirate marriage.

ืงื“ืžื• ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื—ืœืฆื• ืœื ื™ื™ื‘ืžื• ื”ืฉื ื™ื ืืœื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืงื“ืžื• ื•ื›ื ืกื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื

If the two brothers performed แธฅalitza with both wives before consulting the court, the two brothers of the second man may not take sisters in levirate marriage lest one marry the sister of a woman who with whom he had a levirate bond. Rather, one performs แธฅalitza and one performs levirate marriage if he so desires. If they married their wives before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ืื” ื”ื•ื• ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ

GEMARA: Learn from here in the mishna that betrothals that cannot ultimately lead to consummation are nevertheless betrothals. There is a dispute between Abaye and Rava in tractate Kiddushin with regard to a case of a betrothal that, due to some halakhic complication, can never be consummated. The cases in this mishna may not be consummated, since each of the two sisters is forbidden due to the uncertainty as to whether she is the woman he betrothed or the sister of the woman he betrothed. Therefore, both are forbidden to him. Nevertheless, the mishna instructs that he must give a bill of divorce to both of them. This implies that such betrothals are valid, in contrast to Ravaโ€™s opinion that betrothals that cannot ultimately be consummated are not betrothals at all.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื›ืจื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ื•ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case when at first both sisters were recognized and at the moment of betrothal he knew whom he betrothed; it was a betrothal destined for consummation. But later the two sisters were mixed up so that he was no longer certain which he betrothed. If so, there was not any flaw in the betrothal itself initially. The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: And he does not know which of them he betrothed, but it does not teach: It is unknown completely. This implies that the matter was known at some time. The Gemara adds: Conclude from here that this is the case.

ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืกื™ืคื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืžืช ื•ืœื• ืื— ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ื“ื•ืงื ืžื™ื—ืœืฅ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ืื‘ืœ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ืœื ื“ืงื ืคื’ืข ื‘ืื—ื•ืช ื–ืงื•ืงืชื•

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the mishna teaching us in the segment of the mishna referring to the giving of two bills of divorce? That is obvious. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the last clause of the mishna, as there it teaches: If he died and he had one brother, that brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them; if he had two brothers, one performs แธฅalitza and the other one enters into levirate marriage if he so desires. Specifically, one brother must perform แธฅalitza first, and only subsequently the other brother may perform levirate marriage. But one brother may not enter levirate marriage first, before the other brother has performed แธฅalitza, as he would thereby encounter the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.

ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืงื“ืฉื• ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ืื” ื”ื•ื• ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื›ืจื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื•ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The mishna says: In the case of two unrelated men who betrothed two sisters: If this one does not know which sister he betrothed and that one does not know which sister he betrothed, this one gives two bills of divorce, one to each of the women, and that one gives two bills of divorce. The Gemara asks: Learn from here that betrothals that cannot ultimately lead to consummation are valid betrothals. The Gemara rejects this: Here too, this is referring to a case where they were recognized and later mixed up. The language is also precise, as it teaches: And he does not know, meaning that he does not know now whom he betrothed, and it does not teach: It is unknown. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude this from here that this is the case.

ื•ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืกื™ืคื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืžืชื• ืœื–ื” ืื—ื“ ื•ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื

The Gemara asks: If so, what does it come to teach us in relating that both of them must give bills of divorce? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach the last clause, where it says: If they died and this one had one brother and this one had two, the single brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them. And of the two, one performs แธฅalitza and one enters levirate marriage if he so desires.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื™ืฉื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ื’ื–ื•ืจ ืชืจื™ ืื˜ื• ื—ื“ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: That is obvious, as this is identical to the halakha taught in the first clause of the mishna. Why should this case be different from the previous case of two brothers? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach this lest you say the Sages should issue a decree in the case of two brothers due to the case of one brother. In a case of one brother he may only perform แธฅalitza but may not enter into levirate marriage. Without this mishna one may have thought the same should be true for two brothers. This comes to teach us that they did not issue such a decree, and in this case one of them is allowed to enter into levirate marriage.

ื•ื“ื•ืงื ืžื™ื—ืœืฅ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ืื‘ืœ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ืœื ื“ืงื ืคื’ืข ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื” ืœืฉื•ืง

And this is specifically if the brother of one man first performs แธฅalitza and subsequently the brother of the other man consummates the levirate marriage, but if he consummated the levirate marriage first, then no, that is prohibited. And why is that? He might be encountering the prohibition of a yevama to a member of the public. Possibly the woman he married was not his yevama but someone elseโ€™s yevama, and until the other manโ€™s brother performs แธฅalitza with her she is still forbidden to other men.

ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื ืชื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื”ืš ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ื’ื–ื•ืจ ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ื‘ืœื ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The mishna taught: If this one had two brothers and that one had two brothers, the brother of this who performed แธฅalitza may take the แธฅalutza of that otherโ€™s brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed แธฅalitza may take the แธฅalutza of that otherโ€™s brother in levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? This clause is identical to that previous halakha. The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say: Let the Sages issue a decree lest he consummate the levirate marriage without the other first performing แธฅalitza at all. This comes to teach us that such a decree is not issued. Rather, one of each pair of brothers can enter a levirate marriage.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืื—ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ืžื”ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื•ืžืชื• ื”ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ื—ื•ืœืฆื•ืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช

The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (26a): If there were four brothers, and two of them were married to two sisters, and those married to the sisters died, then those two sisters perform แธฅalitza but may not enter into levirate marriage with the remaining brothers, since each woman is the sister of a woman with a levirate bond to each of the brothers. Why not say here as well that each is the sister of a woman with a levirate bond?

ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared?

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

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 23-29 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week the Gemara will introduce us to numerous cases with numerous brothers who marry numerous sisters and then some...
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...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 23: When Youre Not Sure Whom You Betrothed

A study of the divergent opinions of R. Yosi and the sages on the progeny of a non-Jewish maidservant, or...

Yevamot 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 23

ื•ืื™ืžื ืคืจื˜ ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ืชืคืฉื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ

The Gemara raises a challenge: And say that the verse: โ€œThe daughter of your fatherโ€™s wifeโ€ comes to exclude women who were forbidden, as they are liable for violating prohibitions but were nevertheless married to his father, such as a mamzeret. If so, his sister from such a union would not be considered his sister. Rav Pappa said: Betrothal comes into effect with women who are forbidden, and one would be liable for violating prohibitions despite the fact that union with them is forbidden, and so she is called the wife of your father.

ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืชื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืื™ืฉ ืฉืชื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื”ืื—ืช ืื”ื•ื‘ื” ื•ื”ืื—ืช ืฉื ื•ืื” ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืฉ ืื”ื•ื‘ื” ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืžืงื•ื ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื ื•ืื” ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืžืงื•ื ืืœื ืื”ื•ื‘ื” ืื”ื•ื‘ื” ื‘ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ื” ืฉื ื•ืื” ืฉื ื•ืื” ื‘ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ื™ ืชื”ื™ื™ืŸ

This is derived from the verse in which it is written: โ€œIf a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hatedโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:15). Is there one who is loved by the Omnipresent and one who is hated by the Omnipresent? Rather, โ€œbelovedโ€ means her marriage is beloved, as it was permitted for her to be married, in accordance with halakha, and โ€œhatedโ€ means her marriage is hated because it was not permitted for her to be married, according to halakha. And the Merciful One states: โ€œIf a man has two wives,โ€ meaning that both are considered to be married.

ื•ืื™ืžื ืคืจื˜ ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขืจื•ืช ืื—ื•ืชืš ื‘ืช ืื‘ื™ืš ืื• ื‘ืช ืืžืš ืžื•ืœื“ืช ื‘ื™ืช ืื• ืžื•ืœื“ืช ื—ื•ืฅ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ืœืื‘ื™ืš ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ืœืื‘ื™ืš ื”ื•ืฆื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื—ื•ืชืš ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: Say that this verse comes to exclude a union between oneโ€™s father and a woman that is forbidden to him as they are liable to receive karet, and that since betrothal does not come into effect with her there is no marriage bond. Perhaps a sister born of such a woman would not be prohibited as the daughter of oneโ€™s fatherโ€™s wife. Rava said that the verse states: โ€œThe nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born outsideโ€ (Leviticus 18:9). This includes all daughters, whether from a woman for whom the Sages tell your father: Maintain her within your home, or whether the Sages tell your father she is a woman who is forbidden to him and therefore: Send her out of your home. And the Merciful One states that nevertheless: โ€œShe is your sister.โ€ Even the daughter of a woman who was forbidden to your father such that both parties are liable to receive karet is called your sister.

ืื™ืžื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืื‘ื™ืš ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืื‘ื™ืš ื”ื•ืฆื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื—ื•ืชืš ื”ื™ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืื—ื•ืชื• ืžืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื’ื•ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื‘ืช ืืฉืช ืื‘ื™ืš ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืื™ืฉื•ืช ืœืื‘ื™ืš ื‘ื” ืคืจื˜ ืœืื—ื•ืชื• ืžืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื’ื•ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Say that whether the Sages say to your father: Maintain her, or whether they say to your father: Send her out, and the Merciful One states that โ€œshe is your sister,โ€ this comes to include the additional cases of his sister from a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman. The Gemara rejects this: The verse states: โ€œThe daughter of your fatherโ€™s wife,โ€ and this means whoever can enter a marriage bond with your father. This excludes his sister from a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman, with whom no marital bond is possible.

ื•ืžื” ืจืื™ืช ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื›ืŸ ืชืคืกื™ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืœืžื

The Gemara asks: Since the verse rendering his sister forbidden both includes and excludes cases, what did you see as a reason to include a daughter from a woman who is forbidden and both parties are liable to receive karet, and to exclude the daughter of a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that those relationships that are forbidden because they render both parties liable to receive karet should be included, since in general betrothal can come into effect with them. This is because although this woman is forbidden to his father, she is nevertheless permitted to other men.

ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื’ื•ื™ื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื“ืื™ ืžื’ื™ื™ืจื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืชืคืกื™ ื‘ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื›ื™ ืžื’ื™ื™ืจื” ื’ื•ืคื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it should include a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman, as, if she converts, betrothal can come into effect with the father himself. The Gemara answers: When she converts, she is considered like a different body, i.e., a new person, but when she was a gentile there was no possibility of marital relations with her. Therefore, the verse excludes her.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื’ื•ื™ื” ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžื”ืืฉื” ื•ื™ืœื“ื™ื” ืชื”ื™ื” ืœืื“ื•ื ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who infer a different matter from the verse โ€œyour fatherโ€™s wifeโ€™s nakedness,โ€ from where do they derive the halakha to exclude oneโ€™s sister from a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman? The Gemara answers: They derive it from that which was said with regard to a Canaanite maidservant who was married to a Hebrew slave: โ€œThe wife and her children shall be her masterโ€™sโ€ (Exodus 21:4). From here they learn that the lineage of the maidservantโ€™s children is connected only to their mother and not at all connected to their Jewish father.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื—ื“ ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ื“ ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื” ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืฉืคื—ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื—ื™ื™ืก ืื‘ืœ ื’ื•ื™ื” ื“ืื™ืช ืœื” ื—ื™ื™ืก ืื™ืžื ืœื

The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, not learn this from here? The Gemara responds: One verse was necessary to teach the case of a Canaanite maidservant, and one verse was necessary to teach the case of a gentile woman. And both verses are necessary, as, if the Torah taught us only about a Canaanite maidservant, one could say she is excluded only because she does not have a pedigree, since the Torah ascribes no family relationships to maidservants, but with regard to a gentile woman who does have a pedigree, say no. It was therefore necessary to say that oneโ€™s daughter by a gentile woman does not have the legal status of a daughter.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื’ื•ื™ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ืžืฆื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืฉืคื—ื” ื“ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ืžืฆื•ืช ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

Conversely, if it would teach us only the case of a gentile woman, one might say that this is because she does not have any connection with the mitzvot and therefore her children are in no way Jewish. But since a Canaanite maidservant has a connection with the mitzvot, as she is obligated to observe the prohibitions in the same way as a Jewish woman, say no, i.e., her children should be considered children of their Jewish father. Therefore, this additional proof is necessary.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืฉืคื—ื” ื’ื•ื™ื” ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืฉืคื—ื” ื”ื ื”ื• ืžืฆืจืš ืฆืจื™ื›ื™

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, we found a source that the children of a Canaanite maidservant are not considered the children of their Jewish father, but from where do we derive that children born to a Jewish father by a gentile woman are not considered his children? And if you say: Let us derive it from the case of the Canaanite maidservant, it has already been shown that these are both necessary, and one cannot be derived from the other.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ื™ ื™ืกื™ืจ ืืช ื‘ื ืš ืžืื—ืจื™ ื‘ื ืš ืžื™ืฉืจืืœื™ืช ืงืจื•ื™ ื‘ื ืš ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื ืš ื”ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื™ื” ืงืจื•ื™ ื‘ื ืš ืืœื ื‘ื ื”

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: The verse states: โ€œNeither shall you make marriages with them: Your daughter you shall not give unto his son, nor his daughter shall you take unto your son, for he will turn away your son from following Meโ€ (Deuteronomyย 7:3โ€“4). This teaches that your son born from a Jewish woman is called your son, but your son born from a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son. The verse teaches that since the son of a gentile woman is her son alone, he is not considered related at all to his Jewish father.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชืš ื”ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื™ ืงืจื•ื™ ื‘ื ืš ืœื™ืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ ื ื”ื™ ื“ืžืžื–ืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื›ืฉืจ ื ืžื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื™ืงืจื™

Ravina said: Conclude from here that the son of your daughter by a gentile father is nevertheless called your son, i.e., grandson. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Ravina holds that if a gentile or slave engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is of unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers: There is no conclusive proof from here, because granted, she is not a mamzer, but nevertheless she is still not of unflawed lineage; rather, she is called a Jew who is unfit to marry into the priesthood.

ื”ืื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืขื” ืื•ืžื•ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ืกื™ืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื”ืžืกื™ืจื™ื

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Shimonโ€™s reasoning: Was this verse not written in relation to the seven nations who inhabited the land of Canaan when Joshua entered Eretz Yisrael but not with regard to other nations? The Gemara responds that the words โ€œHe will turn awayโ€ comes to include all those who would turn oneโ€™s grandson away from God, i.e., any gentile.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืงืจื ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: This works out well for Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the rationale behind the mitzva in the verse and draws halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation. Although the verse is stated with regard to the seven nations, the reason for the verse applies to all other gentile nations. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not draw inferences from the rationale of the verse to apply this ruling to all other nations, from where do they derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Shimon, who applies the rationale of the verse to all other nations.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉืงื™ื“ืฉ ืื—ืช ืžืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ ื–ื” ืžื”ืŸ ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ื•ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ืžืช ื•ืœื• ืื— ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ

MISHNA: In the case of one who betrothed one of two sisters and does not know which of them he betrothed, so that both are forbidden to him, he gives a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one due to the uncertainty. If the man who had betrothed one of these women died before he could give a bill of divorce, and he had one brother, that brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them, but he may not take either in levirate marriage. This is because he does not know which woman is his yevama and which is forbidden to him as the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.

ื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืงื“ืžื• ื•ื›ื ืกื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื

If the man who betrothed one of these women had two brothers, one of them performs แธฅalitza with one of the sisters, but he may not enter into levirate marriage with her due to the possibility that she is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. And one takes the other in levirate marriage if he so desires. If the two brothers married the two sisters before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from their marriage and they are permitted to remain married. The couple who performed levirate marriage second was even permitted to do so, since there was no longer any doubt about the levirate bond.

ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืงื“ืฉื• ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ ื–ื• ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื•ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื• ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืžืชื• ืœื–ื” ืื— ื•ืœื–ื” ืื— ื–ื” ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื–ื” ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ

Furthermore, in the case of two unrelated men who betrothed two sisters: If this one does not know which sister he betrothed and that one does not know which sister he betrothed, this one gives two bills of divorce, one to each of the women, and that one gives two bills of divorce. If the two men died before they divorced, and this one had a brother and that one had a brother, then this brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them, and that brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them.

ืœื–ื” ืื—ื“ ื•ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืงื“ืžื• ื•ื›ื ืกื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืื—ืช ื•ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืื—ืช ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ื—ืœื•ืฆืชื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื•ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ื—ืœื•ืฆืชื• ืฉืœ ื–ื”

If this one had one brother and that one had two brothers, the single brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them, and of the two brothers, one performs แธฅalitza and one performs levirate marriage if he so desires. If they married the sisters before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage and they are not told to divorce them. If this one had two brothers and that one had two brothers, the brother of this one performs แธฅalitza with one sister, and the brother of that one performs แธฅalitza with one sister. The brother of this one who performed แธฅalitza may take the woman who performed แธฅalitza [แธฅalutza] of that otherโ€™s brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed แธฅalitza may take the แธฅalutza of that otherโ€™s brother in levirate marriage.

ืงื“ืžื• ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื—ืœืฆื• ืœื ื™ื™ื‘ืžื• ื”ืฉื ื™ื ืืœื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืงื“ืžื• ื•ื›ื ืกื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื

If the two brothers performed แธฅalitza with both wives before consulting the court, the two brothers of the second man may not take sisters in levirate marriage lest one marry the sister of a woman who with whom he had a levirate bond. Rather, one performs แธฅalitza and one performs levirate marriage if he so desires. If they married their wives before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ืื” ื”ื•ื• ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ

GEMARA: Learn from here in the mishna that betrothals that cannot ultimately lead to consummation are nevertheless betrothals. There is a dispute between Abaye and Rava in tractate Kiddushin with regard to a case of a betrothal that, due to some halakhic complication, can never be consummated. The cases in this mishna may not be consummated, since each of the two sisters is forbidden due to the uncertainty as to whether she is the woman he betrothed or the sister of the woman he betrothed. Therefore, both are forbidden to him. Nevertheless, the mishna instructs that he must give a bill of divorce to both of them. This implies that such betrothals are valid, in contrast to Ravaโ€™s opinion that betrothals that cannot ultimately be consummated are not betrothals at all.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื›ืจื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ื•ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case when at first both sisters were recognized and at the moment of betrothal he knew whom he betrothed; it was a betrothal destined for consummation. But later the two sisters were mixed up so that he was no longer certain which he betrothed. If so, there was not any flaw in the betrothal itself initially. The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: And he does not know which of them he betrothed, but it does not teach: It is unknown completely. This implies that the matter was known at some time. The Gemara adds: Conclude from here that this is the case.

ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืกื™ืคื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืžืช ื•ืœื• ืื— ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ื“ื•ืงื ืžื™ื—ืœืฅ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ืื‘ืœ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ืœื ื“ืงื ืคื’ืข ื‘ืื—ื•ืช ื–ืงื•ืงืชื•

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the mishna teaching us in the segment of the mishna referring to the giving of two bills of divorce? That is obvious. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the last clause of the mishna, as there it teaches: If he died and he had one brother, that brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them; if he had two brothers, one performs แธฅalitza and the other one enters into levirate marriage if he so desires. Specifically, one brother must perform แธฅalitza first, and only subsequently the other brother may perform levirate marriage. But one brother may not enter levirate marriage first, before the other brother has performed แธฅalitza, as he would thereby encounter the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.

ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืงื“ืฉื• ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ืื” ื”ื•ื• ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื›ืจื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื•ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The mishna says: In the case of two unrelated men who betrothed two sisters: If this one does not know which sister he betrothed and that one does not know which sister he betrothed, this one gives two bills of divorce, one to each of the women, and that one gives two bills of divorce. The Gemara asks: Learn from here that betrothals that cannot ultimately lead to consummation are valid betrothals. The Gemara rejects this: Here too, this is referring to a case where they were recognized and later mixed up. The language is also precise, as it teaches: And he does not know, meaning that he does not know now whom he betrothed, and it does not teach: It is unknown. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude this from here that this is the case.

ื•ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืกื™ืคื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืžืชื• ืœื–ื” ืื—ื“ ื•ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื

The Gemara asks: If so, what does it come to teach us in relating that both of them must give bills of divorce? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach the last clause, where it says: If they died and this one had one brother and this one had two, the single brother performs แธฅalitza with both of them. And of the two, one performs แธฅalitza and one enters levirate marriage if he so desires.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื™ืฉื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ื’ื–ื•ืจ ืชืจื™ ืื˜ื• ื—ื“ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: That is obvious, as this is identical to the halakha taught in the first clause of the mishna. Why should this case be different from the previous case of two brothers? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach this lest you say the Sages should issue a decree in the case of two brothers due to the case of one brother. In a case of one brother he may only perform แธฅalitza but may not enter into levirate marriage. Without this mishna one may have thought the same should be true for two brothers. This comes to teach us that they did not issue such a decree, and in this case one of them is allowed to enter into levirate marriage.

ื•ื“ื•ืงื ืžื™ื—ืœืฅ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ืื‘ืœ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ืœื ื“ืงื ืคื’ืข ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื” ืœืฉื•ืง

And this is specifically if the brother of one man first performs แธฅalitza and subsequently the brother of the other man consummates the levirate marriage, but if he consummated the levirate marriage first, then no, that is prohibited. And why is that? He might be encountering the prohibition of a yevama to a member of the public. Possibly the woman he married was not his yevama but someone elseโ€™s yevama, and until the other manโ€™s brother performs แธฅalitza with her she is still forbidden to other men.

ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืœื–ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื ืชื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื”ืš ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ื’ื–ื•ืจ ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ื‘ืœื ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The mishna taught: If this one had two brothers and that one had two brothers, the brother of this who performed แธฅalitza may take the แธฅalutza of that otherโ€™s brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed แธฅalitza may take the แธฅalutza of that otherโ€™s brother in levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? This clause is identical to that previous halakha. The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say: Let the Sages issue a decree lest he consummate the levirate marriage without the other first performing แธฅalitza at all. This comes to teach us that such a decree is not issued. Rather, one of each pair of brothers can enter a levirate marriage.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืื—ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ืžื”ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื•ืžืชื• ื”ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ื—ื•ืœืฆื•ืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช

The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (26a): If there were four brothers, and two of them were married to two sisters, and those married to the sisters died, then those two sisters perform แธฅalitza but may not enter into levirate marriage with the remaining brothers, since each woman is the sister of a woman with a levirate bond to each of the brothers. Why not say here as well that each is the sister of a woman with a levirate bond?

ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared?

Scroll To Top