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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 30, 2022 | 讻状讝 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讘

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

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

Yevamot 23

Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda derived from the verse 鈥渢he daughter of his father鈥檚 wife鈥 to exclude a daughter of a union of his father and a Canaanite slave or a non-Jewish woman from being considered one鈥檚 sister. The drasha is based on the word 鈥渨ife鈥 which seems to imply proper marriage. The Gemara questions why that case was limited, but others were not, such as, a sister born out of wedlock or from a prohibited relationship (either regular negative commandment, or one punishable by karet). In the end, only the non-Jewish woman is derived from the verse regarding the 鈥渄aughter of his father鈥檚 wife鈥 and a different verse is used to derive a child from a Canaanite slave. From where do the rabbis derive the law about a non-Jewish woman (since they use the 鈥渄aughter of his father鈥檚 wife鈥 to teach that one who has relations with his sister who is also his father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter is punished double)? They derive it from the verse that says not to marry off your daughters to gentiles as they will turn your son (grandson) away. This is the verse from where we learn that a child鈥檚 Jewishness goes by the mother. That leads us to say that if a man has a child with a non-Jewish woman, the child is not Jewish and therefore not considered one鈥檚 sister. If a person betrothed a woman and isn鈥檛 sure if he betrothed her or her sister, he needs to divorce them both. If he died childless before he divorces her, his brother does chalitza to each. If he has two brothers, one does chalitza with one of the women and then the other can do yibum with the other. What if both brothers went ahead and married the sisters (one to each)? What if all these scenarios took place with two different men who each betrothed one of the women but do not know which one? The Mishna plays out all the scenarios in the previous case, but with two and has some more permutations as well. The Gemara tries to see whether we can learn something from our Mishna about whether or not betrothal is valid in a case where the man and woman are not permitted to have sexual relations with each other.

 

讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讟 诇讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 转驻砖讬 讘讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara raises a challenge: And say that the verse: 鈥淭he daughter of your father鈥檚 wife鈥 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.

讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉 诇讗讬砖 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讛讗讞转 讗讛讜讘讛 讜讛讗讞转 砖谞讜讗讛 讜讻讬 讬砖 讗讛讜讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讬砖 砖谞讜讗讛 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 讗诇讗 讗讛讜讘讛 讗讛讜讘讛 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬讛 砖谞讜讗讛 砖谞讜讗讛 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬讛 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉

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

讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讟 诇讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 注专讜转 讗讞讜转讱 讘转 讗讘讬讱 讗讜 讘转 讗诪讱 诪讜诇讚转 讘讬转 讗讜 诪讜诇讚转 讞讜抓 讘讬谉 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 诇讗讘讬讱 拽讬讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 诇讗讘讬讱 讛讜爪讗 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: Say that this verse comes to exclude a union between one鈥檚 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 one鈥檚 father鈥檚 wife. Rava said that the verse states: 鈥淭he nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born outside鈥 (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: 鈥淪he is your sister.鈥 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.

讗讬诪讗 讘讬谉 砖讗讜诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讱 拽讬讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讗讜诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讱 讛讜爪讗 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 诇专讘讜转 讗讞讜转讜 诪砖驻讞讛 讜讙讜讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讱 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讬砖讜转 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讛 驻专讟 诇讗讞讜转讜 诪砖驻讞讛 讜讙讜讬讛

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 鈥渟he is your sister,鈥 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: 鈥淭he daughter of your father鈥檚 wife,鈥 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.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 砖讻谉 转驻住讬 讘讛谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇注诇诪讗

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.

讗讚专讘讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讙讜讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讚讗讬 诪讙讬讬专讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讻讬 诪讙讬讬专讛 讙讜驻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讬讗

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.

讜专讘谞谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖驻讞讛 讜讙讜讬讛 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚讜谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who infer a different matter from the verse 鈥測our father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 nakedness,鈥 from where do they derive the halakha to exclude one鈥檚 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: 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 21:4). From here they learn that the lineage of the maidservant鈥檚 children is connected only to their mother and not at all connected to their Jewish father.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讚 讘砖驻讞讛 讜讞讚 讘讙讜讬讛 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖驻讞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 诇讛 讞讬讬住 讗讘诇 讙讜讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讞讬讬住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

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 one鈥檚 daughter by a gentile woman does not have the legal status of a daughter.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讜讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖讬讬讻讗 讘诪爪讜转 讗讘诇 砖驻讞讛 讚砖讬讬讻讗 讘诪爪讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讜专讘谞谉 讗砖讻讞谉 砖驻讞讛 讙讜讬讛 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪砖驻讞讛 讛谞讛讜 诪爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬住讬专 讗转 讘谞讱 诪讗讞专讬 讘谞讱 诪讬砖专讗诇讬转 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讗诇讗 讘谞讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: The verse states: 鈥淣either 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 Me鈥 (Deuteronomy聽7:3鈥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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘谉 讘转讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 谞讛讬 讚诪诪讝专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讻砖专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讬砖专讗诇 驻住讜诇 诪讬拽专讬

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.

讛讗讬 讘砖讘注讛 讗讜诪讜转 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬住讬专 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讛诪住讬专讬诐

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 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 鈥淗e will turn away鈥 comes to include all those who would turn one鈥檚 grandson away from God, i.e., any gentile.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖拽讬讚砖 讗讞转 诪砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 讗讬 讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讬讚砖 谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 诪转 讜诇讜 讗讞 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉

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 岣litza 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.

讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚诐

If the man who betrothed one of these women had two brothers, one of them performs 岣litza 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.

砖谞讬诐 砖拽讚砖讜 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬 讝讜 拽讬讚砖 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讜 拽讬讚砖 讝讛 谞讜转谉 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 诪转讜 诇讝讛 讗讞 讜诇讝讛 讗讞 讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉 讜讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉

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 岣litza with both of them, and that brother performs 岣litza with both of them.

诇讝讛 讗讞讚 讜诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讛讬讞讬讚 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉 讜讛砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚诐 诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇讗讞转 讜讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇讗讞转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讬讬讘诐 讞诇讜爪转讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讬讬讘诐 讞诇讜爪转讜 砖诇 讝讛

If this one had one brother and that one had two brothers, the single brother performs 岣litza with both of them, and of the two brothers, one performs 岣litza 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 岣litza with one sister, and the brother of that one performs 岣litza with one sister. The brother of this one who performed 岣litza may take the woman who performed 岣litza [岣lutza] of that other鈥檚 brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed 岣litza may take the 岣lutza of that other鈥檚 brother in levirate marriage.

拽讚诪讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讞诇爪讜 诇讗 讬讬讘诪讜 讛砖谞讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚诐

If the two brothers performed 岣litza 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 岣litza 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.

讙诪壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪住讜专讬谉 诇讘讬讗讛 讛讜讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

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 Rava鈥檚 opinion that betrothals that cannot ultimately be consummated are not betrothals at all.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讚讜注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪转 讜诇讜 讗讞 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 讚讜拽讗 诪讬讞诇抓 讜讛讚专 讬讘讜诪讬 讗讘诇 讬讘讜诪讬 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 驻讙注 讘讗讞讜转 讝拽讜拽转讜

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 岣litza with both of them; if he had two brothers, one performs 岣litza and the other one enters into levirate marriage if he so desires. Specifically, one brother must perform 岣litza 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 岣litza, as he would thereby encounter the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.

砖谞讬诐 砖拽讚砖讜 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讻讜壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪住讜专讬谉 诇讘讬讗讛 讛讜讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪转讜 诇讝讛 讗讞讚 讜诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讛讬讞讬讚 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉 讜讛砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐

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 岣litza with both of them. And of the two, one performs 岣litza and one enters levirate marriage if he so desires.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 转专讬 讗讟讜 讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 岣litza 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.

讜讚讜拽讗 诪讬讞诇抓 讜讛讚专 讬讘讜诪讬 讗讘诇 讬讘讜诪讬 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 驻讙注 讘讬讘诪讛 诇砖讜拽

And this is specifically if the brother of one man first performs 岣litza 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 else鈥檚 yevama, and until the other man鈥檚 brother performs 岣litza with her she is still forbidden to other men.

诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讚诇诪讗 诪讬讬讘诐 讘诇讗 讞诇讬爪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna taught: If this one had two brothers and that one had two brothers, the brother of this who performed 岣litza may take the 岣lutza of that other鈥檚 brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed 岣litza may take the 岣lutza of that other鈥檚 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 岣litza 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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜诪转讜 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛讗讞讬讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转

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 岣litza 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?

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗

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

讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讟 诇讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 转驻砖讬 讘讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara raises a challenge: And say that the verse: 鈥淭he daughter of your father鈥檚 wife鈥 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.

讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉 诇讗讬砖 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讛讗讞转 讗讛讜讘讛 讜讛讗讞转 砖谞讜讗讛 讜讻讬 讬砖 讗讛讜讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讬砖 砖谞讜讗讛 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 讗诇讗 讗讛讜讘讛 讗讛讜讘讛 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬讛 砖谞讜讗讛 砖谞讜讗讛 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬讛 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 转讛讬讬谉

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

讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讟 诇讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 注专讜转 讗讞讜转讱 讘转 讗讘讬讱 讗讜 讘转 讗诪讱 诪讜诇讚转 讘讬转 讗讜 诪讜诇讚转 讞讜抓 讘讬谉 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 诇讗讘讬讱 拽讬讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 诇讗讘讬讱 讛讜爪讗 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: Say that this verse comes to exclude a union between one鈥檚 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 one鈥檚 father鈥檚 wife. Rava said that the verse states: 鈥淭he nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born outside鈥 (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: 鈥淪he is your sister.鈥 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.

讗讬诪讗 讘讬谉 砖讗讜诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讱 拽讬讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讗讜诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讱 讛讜爪讗 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 诇专讘讜转 讗讞讜转讜 诪砖驻讞讛 讜讙讜讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讱 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讬砖讜转 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讛 驻专讟 诇讗讞讜转讜 诪砖驻讞讛 讜讙讜讬讛

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 鈥渟he is your sister,鈥 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: 鈥淭he daughter of your father鈥檚 wife,鈥 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.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 砖讻谉 转驻住讬 讘讛谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇注诇诪讗

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.

讗讚专讘讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讙讜讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讚讗讬 诪讙讬讬专讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讻讬 诪讙讬讬专讛 讙讜驻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讬讗

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.

讜专讘谞谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖驻讞讛 讜讙讜讬讛 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚讜谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who infer a different matter from the verse 鈥測our father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 nakedness,鈥 from where do they derive the halakha to exclude one鈥檚 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: 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 21:4). From here they learn that the lineage of the maidservant鈥檚 children is connected only to their mother and not at all connected to their Jewish father.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讚 讘砖驻讞讛 讜讞讚 讘讙讜讬讛 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖驻讞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 诇讛 讞讬讬住 讗讘诇 讙讜讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讞讬讬住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

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 one鈥檚 daughter by a gentile woman does not have the legal status of a daughter.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讜讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖讬讬讻讗 讘诪爪讜转 讗讘诇 砖驻讞讛 讚砖讬讬讻讗 讘诪爪讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讜专讘谞谉 讗砖讻讞谉 砖驻讞讛 讙讜讬讛 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪砖驻讞讛 讛谞讛讜 诪爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬住讬专 讗转 讘谞讱 诪讗讞专讬 讘谞讱 诪讬砖专讗诇讬转 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 讗诇讗 讘谞讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: The verse states: 鈥淣either 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 Me鈥 (Deuteronomy聽7:3鈥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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘谉 讘转讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 拽专讜讬 讘谞讱 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 谞讛讬 讚诪诪讝专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讻砖专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讬砖专讗诇 驻住讜诇 诪讬拽专讬

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.

讛讗讬 讘砖讘注讛 讗讜诪讜转 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬住讬专 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讛诪住讬专讬诐

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 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 鈥淗e will turn away鈥 comes to include all those who would turn one鈥檚 grandson away from God, i.e., any gentile.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖拽讬讚砖 讗讞转 诪砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 讗讬 讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讬讚砖 谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 诪转 讜诇讜 讗讞 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉

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 岣litza 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.

讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚诐

If the man who betrothed one of these women had two brothers, one of them performs 岣litza 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.

砖谞讬诐 砖拽讚砖讜 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬 讝讜 拽讬讚砖 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讜 拽讬讚砖 讝讛 谞讜转谉 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 诪转讜 诇讝讛 讗讞 讜诇讝讛 讗讞 讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉 讜讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉

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 岣litza with both of them, and that brother performs 岣litza with both of them.

诇讝讛 讗讞讚 讜诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讛讬讞讬讚 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉 讜讛砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚诐 诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇讗讞转 讜讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇讗讞转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讬讬讘诐 讞诇讜爪转讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讬讬讘诐 讞诇讜爪转讜 砖诇 讝讛

If this one had one brother and that one had two brothers, the single brother performs 岣litza with both of them, and of the two brothers, one performs 岣litza 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 岣litza with one sister, and the brother of that one performs 岣litza with one sister. The brother of this one who performed 岣litza may take the woman who performed 岣litza [岣lutza] of that other鈥檚 brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed 岣litza may take the 岣lutza of that other鈥檚 brother in levirate marriage.

拽讚诪讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讞诇爪讜 诇讗 讬讬讘诪讜 讛砖谞讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚诐

If the two brothers performed 岣litza 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 岣litza 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.

讙诪壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪住讜专讬谉 诇讘讬讗讛 讛讜讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

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 Rava鈥檚 opinion that betrothals that cannot ultimately be consummated are not betrothals at all.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讚讜注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪转 讜诇讜 讗讞 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 讚讜拽讗 诪讬讞诇抓 讜讛讚专 讬讘讜诪讬 讗讘诇 讬讘讜诪讬 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 驻讙注 讘讗讞讜转 讝拽讜拽转讜

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 岣litza with both of them; if he had two brothers, one performs 岣litza and the other one enters into levirate marriage if he so desires. Specifically, one brother must perform 岣litza 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 岣litza, as he would thereby encounter the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.

砖谞讬诐 砖拽讚砖讜 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讻讜壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪住讜专讬谉 诇讘讬讗讛 讛讜讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪转讜 诇讝讛 讗讞讚 讜诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讛讬讞讬讚 讞讜诇抓 诇砖转讬讛谉 讜讛砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐

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 岣litza with both of them. And of the two, one performs 岣litza and one enters levirate marriage if he so desires.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 转专讬 讗讟讜 讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 岣litza 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.

讜讚讜拽讗 诪讬讞诇抓 讜讛讚专 讬讘讜诪讬 讗讘诇 讬讘讜诪讬 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 驻讙注 讘讬讘诪讛 诇砖讜拽

And this is specifically if the brother of one man first performs 岣litza 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 else鈥檚 yevama, and until the other man鈥檚 brother performs 岣litza with her she is still forbidden to other men.

诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讝讛 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讚诇诪讗 诪讬讬讘诐 讘诇讗 讞诇讬爪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna taught: If this one had two brothers and that one had two brothers, the brother of this who performed 岣litza may take the 岣lutza of that other鈥檚 brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed 岣litza may take the 岣lutza of that other鈥檚 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 岣litza 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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜诪转讜 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛讗讞讬讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转

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 岣litza 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?

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗

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

Scroll To Top