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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 28, 2014 | 讚壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 24

Study Guide Yevamot 24


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

讛转诐 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 讗住讜专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 讛讻讗 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗讬诪讜专 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪转专诪讬讗 诇讬讛

There, in that mishna, if it is according to the one who said that the levirate bond is substantial, then there is a bond in that case, as two sisters were certainly married to the brothers and require levirate marriage. And if it is according to the one who said that it is prohibited to nullify the levirate mitzva through marrying the sister of the yevama, then the explanation of that mishna is that it is prohibited to nullify the levirate mitzva and for this reason they must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. However, here, in this mishna, there is uncertainty concerning the betrothal such that with regard to each one of the brothers, one could say that possibly he encountered his own yevama. Perhaps each brother took his own brother鈥檚 wife in levirate marriage, and for this reason the Sages did not issue a decree.

拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讻讜壮 转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞诇讜爪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜住驻拽 讞诇讜爪讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna states that if they married their wives before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage. Sheila teaches a baraita that clarifies the mishna: And this is the case even if both of the brothers were priests. A woman who performed 岣litza is normally forbidden to a priest, yet in this case, although the brother of the other man performed 岣litza, they are not required to divorce. What is the reason for this halakha? It is as follows: A 岣lutza is forbidden to a priest by rabbinic law because her status is similar to that of a divorc茅e, who is forbidden to a priest by Torah law. And in a case of uncertainty as to whether she is a 岣lutza, since it may not have been her yavam who performed the ceremony, the Sages did not issue a decree.

讜讞诇讜爪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讙专讜砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讙专讜砖讛 讞诇讜爪讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And is the prohibition against a 岣lutza marrying a priest really by rabbinic law? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: 鈥淭hey shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy unto his God鈥 (Leviticus聽21:7). I have derived only a divorc茅e; from where do I derive that a priest may not marry a 岣lutza? The verse states: 鈥淣either shall they take a woman.鈥 The repetition of the word 鈥渨oman鈥 extends the halakha to include a 岣lutza. The Gemara answers: This prohibition is by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讜讛 讘讙讚讜诇 诇讬讬讘诐 讜讗诐 拽讚诐 讛拽讟谉 讝讻讛

MISHNA: It is a mitzva for the eldest to consummate the levirate marriage, i.e., the eldest takes precedence over the other brothers, though they too are obligated. But if the younger brother consummated the levirate marriage first, he acquires the yevama as his wife.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讬讛 讛讘讻讜专 诪讬讻谉 砖诪爪讜讛 讘讙讚讜诇 诇讬讬讘诐 讗砖专 转诇讚 驻专讟 诇讗讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讗讬谉 讬讜诇讚转 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讜 诇谞讞诇讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught the following interpretation of the verse: 鈥淎nd it shall be that the firstborn that she bears shall be established in the name of his dead brother and his name will not be blotted out of Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:6). From here the Sages derive that the mitzva to consummate the levirate marriage is upon the eldest. The next phrase: 鈥淭hat she bears,鈥 is interpreted to exclude levirate marriage in the case of a widow who is an aylonit, who cannot bear children. From the next phrase: 鈥淪hall be established in the name of his dead brother,鈥 it is derived that the same brother who performs the mitzva of levirate marriage is established in his brother鈥檚 name with regard to inheritance, i.e., he inherits his brother鈥檚 property.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇谞讞诇讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇砖诐 讬讜住祝 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讬讜住祝 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讜 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讛诐 讬拽专讗讜 讘谞讞诇转诐 诪讛 砖诐 讛讗诪讜专 诇讛诇谉 谞讞诇讛 讗祝 砖诐 讛讗诪讜专 讻讗谉 诇谞讞诇讛

The baraita continues and asks: Do you say that he succeeds in the name of his brother for inheritance, or perhaps it is only to inherit his name? If, e.g., the deceased brother was named Yosef, they must call the son born from levirate marriage Yosef, or if his name was Yo岣nan, then they must call him Yo岣nan. The baraita answers: It is stated here: 鈥淗e shall succeed in the name of his brother,鈥 and it is stated there: 鈥淭hey shall be called after the name of their brothers in their inheritance鈥 (Genesis 48:6). Just as the word 鈥渘ame鈥 stated there in Genesis is referring explicitly to inheritance, so too, the word 鈥渘ame鈥 stated here in Leviticus means with regard to inheritance.

讜诇讗 讬诪讞讛 砖诪讜 驻专讟 诇住专讬住 砖砖诪讜 诪讞讜讬

The baraita continues to expound the next phrase of the verse: 鈥淎nd his name will not be blotted out of Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:6). This excludes the case where the deceased was a eunuch, as his name is already blotted out, since it is impossible for him to have children.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪拽专讗 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚讬 驻砖讜讟讜 讛讻讗 讗转讗讬 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诪驻砖讟讬讛 诇讙诪专讬

Rava said: Even though in the entire Torah a verse does not depart from its literal meaning, and even if the Sages offer a homiletical interpretation of the verses, the literal meaning remains intact, here the verbal analogy teaching that the word 鈥渘ame鈥 is referring to inheritance comes to remove the verse from its literal meaning altogether.

讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖诐 砖诐 诪诪砖 诇诪讗谉 拽诪讝讛专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讘诐 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讱 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Were it not for the verbal analogy, would I have said that the meaning of the word 鈥渘ame鈥 is the actual name? The verse would be incomprehensible according to the literal reading. Whom is the Merciful One instructing in this verse? To whom does the possessive pronoun in the phrase 鈥渉is brother鈥 apply? If He is speaking to the yavam, He should have stated: Shall succeed in the name of your dead brother. And if the verse is instructing the court about the halakha in general, it should have said: Shall succeed in the name of his father鈥檚 brother.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讬讘诐 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讜 讗诇讗 讗转讗讬 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇讙诪专讬

The Gemara rejects this question: And perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying to the court: Say to the yavam that the child born to him shall be established in the name of his brother. Were it not for the verbal analogy, the verse could have been understood according to its literal meaning. Rather, the verbal analogy comes to remove it from its literal meaning altogether.

讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 拽专讗 讘讙讚讜诇 讻转讬讘 讗讬诪讗 讘讻讜专 诇讬讬讘诐 驻砖讜讟 诇讗 诇讬讬讘诐

The Gemara challenges the baraita: Now that you say that the verse: 鈥淎nd it shall be that the firstborn that she bears鈥 is written in reference to the eldest brother, say that the firstborn brother consummates the levirate marriage but that an ordinary brother, i.e., not the firstborn, may not consummate the levirate marriage, and that if the firstborn son is unable to enter into levirate marriage or is no longer alive, no one else may perform the mitzva.

讗诐 讻谉 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讚诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara answers: If so that the mitzva of levirate marriage applies only to the firstborn, then in the case of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, which the Merciful One excluded by the verse: 鈥淚f brothers dwell together,鈥 why do I need such an exclusion? If only the firstborn is obligated to perform levirate marriage, then there is no need to separately exclude the case of a wife of one鈥檚 brother with whom one did not coexist, because by definition one in that position cannot be the firstborn.

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 讛讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讬讘讜诐 讘谞讞诇讛 转诇讛 专讞诪谞讗 讜谞讞诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐

Rav A岣 refutes the Gemara鈥檚 answer: But say that the verse comes to exclude the case of a brother with whom one did not coexist when one is nevertheless the firstborn of the mother, e.g., if the father had two wives. The Gemara rejects this: You cannot say that, as the Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon inheritance, and inheritance comes from the father and not from the mother.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 转转拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 诇讗 转转拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讬转 讘讻讜专 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讬讘诐 拽讟谉

The Gemara again challenges the baraita: Then say that when there is a firstborn the mitzva of levirate marriage can be fulfilled by any of the brothers, but that when there is no firstborn, e.g., if he had already died, the mitzva of levirate marriage may not be fulfilled by any of the younger brothers. The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd one of them dies鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), without specifying which brother dies. Are we not dealing even with the case where the firstborn died, and yet the Merciful One states that the younger brother should consummate the levirate marriage?

讜讗讬诪讗 讚诪讬转 拽讟谉 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讬讘诐 讘讻讜专 讛讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜

The Gemara refutes this answer: Say that the case in the Torah is referring to when the younger brother died, and only then the Merciful One states that the firstborn must consummate the levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 the Merciful One explicitly exclude the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, which can apply only to a brother who was not the firstborn?

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 拽讚诐 拽讟谉 讝讻讛 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 拽讚诐 拽讟谉 诇讗 讝讻讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讛讜拽砖讛 讬砖讬讘转 讗讞讬诐 讝讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara challenges the halakha: Say that when there is no firstborn brother, if a younger brother went ahead and consummated the levirate marriage, then he acquires his yevama as a wife. But if there is a firstborn, and the younger brother went ahead and performed levirate marriage first, then he does not acquire his yevama as a wife, because the Torah specifies that the firstborn brother must perform the mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: The verse states: 鈥淚f brothers dwell together鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), implying that the brothers鈥 dwellings were equated one with the other, and all the brothers are equally obligated in this mitzva.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 诇讬讛讚专 讗讙讚讜诇 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗爪诇 讙讚讜诇 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬 讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 诪爪讜讛 讘讙讚讜诇 诇讬讬讘诐 诇讗 专爪讛 讛讜诇讻讬诐 讗爪诇 讗讞讬讜 讛拽讟谉 诇讗 专爪讛 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗爪诇 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara challenges the halakha again: Then say: When there is a firstborn, let the mitzva return to the eldest brother if the other brothers refuse to perform levirate marriage. But when there is no firstborn, the court does not return to the eldest, as the mitzva primarily applies specifically to the firstborn, and if there is no firstborn, none of the brothers take precedence. Why did Abaye the Elder teach: It is a mitzva for the eldest of the brothers to consummate the levirate marriage? If the eldest did not wish to do so, then the court goes to his younger brother. If he also did not wish to do so, the court returns again to the eldest. This implies that the eldest, even if he is not the firstborn, has a greater mitzva than the younger brothers.

讻讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讘讻讜专转讜 讙专诪讛 诇讜 讗祝 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇转讜 讙专诪讛 诇讜

The Gemara answers: Since it is derived that the eldest brother takes precedence from the verse about the firstborn, then just as with regard to the firstborn, his status as firstborn causes him to take precedence, so too, with regard to the eldest, his status as eldest causes him to take precedence.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诪讬讬讘诐 讘讻讜专 诇讬砖拽讜诇 谞讞诇讛 讻讬 诪讬讬讘诐 驻砖讜讟 诇讗 诇讬砖拽讜诇 谞讞诇讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讜 讜讛专讬 拽诐

The Gemara challenges the halakha again: Then say that if the firstborn consummates the levirate marriage he receives his deceased brother鈥檚 inheritance, but if an ordinary brother consummates the levirate marriage he does not receive the inheritance. The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭he firstborn that she bears shall be established in the name of his dead brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:6), and if the younger brother performs levirate marriage he has established his brother鈥檚 name and thereby earns the inheritance.

讜讗诇讗 讘讻讜专 讚拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara asks: But if there is no difference between the firstborn and the eldest, why does the Merciful One call the brother who enters levirate marriage the firstborn?

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙专讬注讜转讗 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 讗祝 讛讗讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

With regard to what halakha was that word written in the Torah? This is in order to limit the inheritance. Just as a firstborn does not take in inheritance property due as he does property possessed, but instead receives a double inheritance only from that property already in actual possession of their father, so too, this one who enters levirate marriage, whether firstborn or younger, does not take in inheritance property due as he does property possessed.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讟注谉 注诇 讛砖驻讞讛 讜谞砖转讞专专讛 讗讜 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛 讜谞转讙讬讬专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讜讗诐 讻谞住 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚讜 讛谞讟注谉 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻谞住 讬讜爪讬讗

MISHNA: One suspected by others of engaging in sexual relations with a Canaanite maidservant and she was later set free, or one suspected of relations with a gentile woman and she subsequently converted, may not marry that woman, since this will strengthen the suspicions against him. But if he did marry her, they, the judges of the court, do not remove her from him, i.e., they do not require him to divorce her. With regard to one who is suspected of illicit relations with a married woman and they, the judges of the court, removed her from her husband, i.e., required them to divorce due to this, even if the man suspected of the illicit relations subsequently married her, he must divorce her.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讙讬讜专转 诪讬讛讗 讛讜讬讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讞讚 讗讬砖 砖谞转讙讬讬专 诇砖讜诐 讗砖讛 讜讗讞讚 讗砖讛 砖谞转讙讬讬专讛 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖谞转讙讬讬专 诇砖讜诐 砖讜诇讞谉 诪诇讻讬诐 诇砖讜诐 注讘讚讬 砖诇诪讛 讗讬谞谉 讙专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who is suspected of relations with a gentile woman who later converted may never marry her. This implies that she is, however, a convert, although it appears that she converted only in order that he might marry her. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: Both a man who converted for the sake of a woman and a woman who converted for the sake of a man, and similarly, one who converted for the sake of the king鈥檚 table, so that he could serve in a prestigious capacity, or for the sake of Solomon鈥檚 servants, who were also considered prestigious, in all of these cases they are not converts; this is the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讬专讬 讗专讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 讙讬专讬 讞诇讜诪讜转 讜讗讞讚 讙讬专讬 诪专讚讻讬 讜讗住转专 讗讬谞谉 讙专讬诐 注讚 砖讬转讙讬讬专讜 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛

As Rabbi Ne岣mya would say: With regard to converts by lions, i.e., forced converts such as the Samaritans [Kutim] described in II聽Kings (17:24鈥25); and converts who convert based on their dreams; and converts of the time of Mordecai and Esther described in the verse, 鈥淎nd many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them鈥 (Esther 8:17); all of these are not converts until they are converted at this present time.

讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of the words: Could it enter your mind to say only at this present time? Since he mentioned the converts of Mordecai and Esther, who were deceased before Rabbi Ne岣mya made this statement, he therefore cannot possibly mean this phrase literally. Rather, say: Like at this present time, when the Jewish people are in exile and there is no material benefit to conversion.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讻讜诇诐 讙专讬诐 讛诐

Returning to the question above: How could a woman who converted for the sake of a man be considered a true convert? The Gemara answers: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that baraita that Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that they are all converts.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛住专 诪诪讱 注拽砖讜转 驻讛 讜诇讝讜转 砖驻转讬诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: If so, why is one suspected of relations with such a woman not permitted to enter into marriage with her ab initio as well? The Gemara answers: The reason for the prohibition is due to the following statement of Rav Asi. As Rav Asi said with regard to such cases: 鈥淧ut away from yourself a twisted mouth, and perverse lips put far from you鈥 (Proverbs聽4:24). If they were to marry, they would give substance to the prior suspicions.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讙专讬诐 诇讬诪讜转 讛诪砖讬讞 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 拽讘诇讜 讙专讬诐 诇讗 讘讬诪讬 讚讜讚 讜诇讗 讘讬诪讬 砖诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讛谉 讙讜专 讬讙讜专 讗驻住 诪讗讜转讬 诪讬 讙专 讗转讱 注诇讬讱 讬驻讜诇 讗讘诇 讗讬讚讱 诇讗

The Sages taught: Converts are not accepted in the days of the Messiah. Similarly, they did not accept converts in the days of King David or in the days of King Solomon. Rabbi Eliezer said: What is the verse that hints at this halakha? 鈥淏ehold, they may gather together [gor yagur], but without Me; whosoever shall gather together [gar] with you shall fall on yours鈥 (Isaiah 54:15). The word gor implies that only a convert [ger] who becomes part of the Jewish people when the Jews are living in exile, at a time when God is not clearly revealed, i.e., 鈥渨ithout Me,鈥 are considered part of the Jewish people. But another who wishes to convert in a time when God is clearly revealed shall not be accepted.

讛谞讟注谉 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讜讘注讚讬诐

搂 The mishna states that one who was suspected of relations with a married woman may not marry her even after she divorces her husband. Even if they marry without permission, they must divorce. Rav said: This is only in a case when there were witnesses to her infidelity, and because of their testimony the court required her first husband divorce her. However, if her first husband divorced her due to suspicion and rumors but without witnesses, her second husband would not be obligated to divorce her.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗讬 砖诪注转转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讟注谉 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 注诇 讬讚讜 讜谞转讙专砖讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讗诐 讻谞住 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗

Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav was dozing or sleeping he said that halakha, and it is mistaken. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who was suspected of adultery with a married woman and as a result the court requires her husband to divorce her, and later she married someone else and was then divorced by this other, if the one who had been suspected of illicit relations with her then married her, he need not divorce her.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讻讬 讗转讗 讗讞专 讜讗驻住拽讬讛 诇拽诇讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讜讟注诪讗 讚讗转讗 讗讞专 讜讗驻住拽讬讛 诇拽诇讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 诪驻拽讬谞谉

The Gemara clarifies this: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is referring to a case where there are witnesses to their adultery, when another came and put an end to the rumor of her misconduct by marrying her, what of it? If there were witnesses, the adulterers may never marry each other. Rather, is it not referring to a case where there were no witnesses to the adultery, and the reason she does not have to be divorced from her third husband, with whom she committed adultery while married to her first husband, is specifically because another came and, by marrying her, put an end to the rumor? This implies that were it not so, i.e., had she not married someone else before marrying the man suspected of committing adultery with her, the court would have removed her from him and required them to divorce, even without witnesses to their adultery. This contradicts Rav鈥檚 statement above that they must divorce only if there were witnesses to the infidelity.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗转讗 讗讞专 讜讗驻住拽讬讛 诇拽诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讗讬 诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗转讗 讗讞专 讜讗驻住拽讬讛 诇拽诇讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住

The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you that the same is true even if another did not come and put an end to the rumor by marrying her. The same principle applies: If there were witnesses to the adultery the court removes her and requires them to divorce, but if there were no witnesses, the court does not remove her. And this is what the baraita is saying: The novelty in this baraita is that even though another came and put an end to the rumor by marrying her, nevertheless, the suspected adulterer may not marry her ab initio due to the original suspicions.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 转爪讗 讜讗诐 讘讗讜 注讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 诇讛 讻诪讛 讘谞讬诐 转爪讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a different baraita that qualifies the previous one: In what case is this statement, that the court removes her from the suspected adulterer, said? It is when she has no children from her first husband. But if she has children from him, she is not required to be divorced from the suspected adulterer. On the contrary, if they were required to divorce, it could strengthen the original rumor and others might suspect that her children are mamzerim. However, if witnesses to her impurity, i.e., her adultery, came and testified that she had relations with this man while she was married, then even if she has several children from the first husband, she is required to be divorced. This implies that a woman without children from her first husband must separate from a man suspected of illicit relations with her on strength of suspicion alone.

专讘 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讜讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讜诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗讜拽诪讬 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讜讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讜讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讜讗讬 诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讜拽诪讛 讘砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐

The Gemara answers and explains that Rav establishes the mishna as referring only to a case where she has children by her first husband and there are witnesses to her adultery. In such a situation, she and the adulterer must divorce, but without witnesses they are not required to divorce. The Gemara asks: What forced Rav to establish the mishna as referring to a case where she has children and there are witnesses and explain that the reason that the court removes her from the suspected adulterer is because there were witnesses, but that if there were no witnesses they do not remove her? Why does he not establish the mishna as referring to a case where there were no children and that they must divorce even if there were no witnesses?

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 诇讬转谞讬 讛讜爪讬讗讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘注讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讬

Rava said: The language of the mishna was difficult for him; due to that he deemed it necessary to interpret it as he did. Why does the tanna specifically teach: They remove her from him [hotziuha]? Let it teach: He divorces her [hotziah] in the singular. Rather, every time the plural form: They remove her, is used, it is referring to the judges of the court. And a court removes a woman from her suspected adulterer only if there were witnesses, and not due to suspicion alone.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪转谞讬讬转讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讜讻诇 讬讜爪讗 讜讗砖讛 讞讜讙专转 讘住讬谞专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讜注专 讛讚讘专 转爪讗 专讜拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讬诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讜注专 讛讚讘专 转爪讗

If you wish, say a different answer for Rav鈥檚 explanation: Those baraitot that require the wife and the suspected adulterer to divorce even without witnesses to the adultery are taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where a husband saw a peddler leaving the house, and when he entered he found his wife retying her smock [sinar], i.e., putting her clothes back on, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter because it looks as though she committed adultery with the peddler, she must be divorced by her husband. Alternatively, if the husband entered after the peddler had left and found saliva above the netting of the bed, implying that someone had lain on the bed and spit upward, although no actual act was witnessed, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter, she must be divorced.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Principles of Uncertainty – Gefet 31

https://youtu.be/lON7WSBZAHM The mishna on daf 24b discusses a situation where there is a suspicion that a man had forbidden relations...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 24:Converting for the Sake of Marriage

On the mitzvah that is on the eldest of brothers to do yibum. Plus, what is the purpose of yibum?!...
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...

Yevamot 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 24

讛转诐 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 讗住讜专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 讛讻讗 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗讬诪讜专 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪转专诪讬讗 诇讬讛

There, in that mishna, if it is according to the one who said that the levirate bond is substantial, then there is a bond in that case, as two sisters were certainly married to the brothers and require levirate marriage. And if it is according to the one who said that it is prohibited to nullify the levirate mitzva through marrying the sister of the yevama, then the explanation of that mishna is that it is prohibited to nullify the levirate mitzva and for this reason they must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. However, here, in this mishna, there is uncertainty concerning the betrothal such that with regard to each one of the brothers, one could say that possibly he encountered his own yevama. Perhaps each brother took his own brother鈥檚 wife in levirate marriage, and for this reason the Sages did not issue a decree.

拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讻讜壮 转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞诇讜爪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜住驻拽 讞诇讜爪讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna states that if they married their wives before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage. Sheila teaches a baraita that clarifies the mishna: And this is the case even if both of the brothers were priests. A woman who performed 岣litza is normally forbidden to a priest, yet in this case, although the brother of the other man performed 岣litza, they are not required to divorce. What is the reason for this halakha? It is as follows: A 岣lutza is forbidden to a priest by rabbinic law because her status is similar to that of a divorc茅e, who is forbidden to a priest by Torah law. And in a case of uncertainty as to whether she is a 岣lutza, since it may not have been her yavam who performed the ceremony, the Sages did not issue a decree.

讜讞诇讜爪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讙专讜砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讙专讜砖讛 讞诇讜爪讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And is the prohibition against a 岣lutza marrying a priest really by rabbinic law? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: 鈥淭hey shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy unto his God鈥 (Leviticus聽21:7). I have derived only a divorc茅e; from where do I derive that a priest may not marry a 岣lutza? The verse states: 鈥淣either shall they take a woman.鈥 The repetition of the word 鈥渨oman鈥 extends the halakha to include a 岣lutza. The Gemara answers: This prohibition is by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讜讛 讘讙讚讜诇 诇讬讬讘诐 讜讗诐 拽讚诐 讛拽讟谉 讝讻讛

MISHNA: It is a mitzva for the eldest to consummate the levirate marriage, i.e., the eldest takes precedence over the other brothers, though they too are obligated. But if the younger brother consummated the levirate marriage first, he acquires the yevama as his wife.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讬讛 讛讘讻讜专 诪讬讻谉 砖诪爪讜讛 讘讙讚讜诇 诇讬讬讘诐 讗砖专 转诇讚 驻专讟 诇讗讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讗讬谉 讬讜诇讚转 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讜 诇谞讞诇讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught the following interpretation of the verse: 鈥淎nd it shall be that the firstborn that she bears shall be established in the name of his dead brother and his name will not be blotted out of Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:6). From here the Sages derive that the mitzva to consummate the levirate marriage is upon the eldest. The next phrase: 鈥淭hat she bears,鈥 is interpreted to exclude levirate marriage in the case of a widow who is an aylonit, who cannot bear children. From the next phrase: 鈥淪hall be established in the name of his dead brother,鈥 it is derived that the same brother who performs the mitzva of levirate marriage is established in his brother鈥檚 name with regard to inheritance, i.e., he inherits his brother鈥檚 property.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇谞讞诇讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇砖诐 讬讜住祝 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讬讜住祝 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讜 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讛诐 讬拽专讗讜 讘谞讞诇转诐 诪讛 砖诐 讛讗诪讜专 诇讛诇谉 谞讞诇讛 讗祝 砖诐 讛讗诪讜专 讻讗谉 诇谞讞诇讛

The baraita continues and asks: Do you say that he succeeds in the name of his brother for inheritance, or perhaps it is only to inherit his name? If, e.g., the deceased brother was named Yosef, they must call the son born from levirate marriage Yosef, or if his name was Yo岣nan, then they must call him Yo岣nan. The baraita answers: It is stated here: 鈥淗e shall succeed in the name of his brother,鈥 and it is stated there: 鈥淭hey shall be called after the name of their brothers in their inheritance鈥 (Genesis 48:6). Just as the word 鈥渘ame鈥 stated there in Genesis is referring explicitly to inheritance, so too, the word 鈥渘ame鈥 stated here in Leviticus means with regard to inheritance.

讜诇讗 讬诪讞讛 砖诪讜 驻专讟 诇住专讬住 砖砖诪讜 诪讞讜讬

The baraita continues to expound the next phrase of the verse: 鈥淎nd his name will not be blotted out of Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:6). This excludes the case where the deceased was a eunuch, as his name is already blotted out, since it is impossible for him to have children.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪拽专讗 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚讬 驻砖讜讟讜 讛讻讗 讗转讗讬 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诪驻砖讟讬讛 诇讙诪专讬

Rava said: Even though in the entire Torah a verse does not depart from its literal meaning, and even if the Sages offer a homiletical interpretation of the verses, the literal meaning remains intact, here the verbal analogy teaching that the word 鈥渘ame鈥 is referring to inheritance comes to remove the verse from its literal meaning altogether.

讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖诐 砖诐 诪诪砖 诇诪讗谉 拽诪讝讛专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讘诐 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讱 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Were it not for the verbal analogy, would I have said that the meaning of the word 鈥渘ame鈥 is the actual name? The verse would be incomprehensible according to the literal reading. Whom is the Merciful One instructing in this verse? To whom does the possessive pronoun in the phrase 鈥渉is brother鈥 apply? If He is speaking to the yavam, He should have stated: Shall succeed in the name of your dead brother. And if the verse is instructing the court about the halakha in general, it should have said: Shall succeed in the name of his father鈥檚 brother.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讬讘诐 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讜 讗诇讗 讗转讗讬 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇讙诪专讬

The Gemara rejects this question: And perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying to the court: Say to the yavam that the child born to him shall be established in the name of his brother. Were it not for the verbal analogy, the verse could have been understood according to its literal meaning. Rather, the verbal analogy comes to remove it from its literal meaning altogether.

讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 拽专讗 讘讙讚讜诇 讻转讬讘 讗讬诪讗 讘讻讜专 诇讬讬讘诐 驻砖讜讟 诇讗 诇讬讬讘诐

The Gemara challenges the baraita: Now that you say that the verse: 鈥淎nd it shall be that the firstborn that she bears鈥 is written in reference to the eldest brother, say that the firstborn brother consummates the levirate marriage but that an ordinary brother, i.e., not the firstborn, may not consummate the levirate marriage, and that if the firstborn son is unable to enter into levirate marriage or is no longer alive, no one else may perform the mitzva.

讗诐 讻谉 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讚诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara answers: If so that the mitzva of levirate marriage applies only to the firstborn, then in the case of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, which the Merciful One excluded by the verse: 鈥淚f brothers dwell together,鈥 why do I need such an exclusion? If only the firstborn is obligated to perform levirate marriage, then there is no need to separately exclude the case of a wife of one鈥檚 brother with whom one did not coexist, because by definition one in that position cannot be the firstborn.

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 讛讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讬讘讜诐 讘谞讞诇讛 转诇讛 专讞诪谞讗 讜谞讞诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐

Rav A岣 refutes the Gemara鈥檚 answer: But say that the verse comes to exclude the case of a brother with whom one did not coexist when one is nevertheless the firstborn of the mother, e.g., if the father had two wives. The Gemara rejects this: You cannot say that, as the Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon inheritance, and inheritance comes from the father and not from the mother.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 转转拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 诇讗 转转拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讬转 讘讻讜专 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讬讘诐 拽讟谉

The Gemara again challenges the baraita: Then say that when there is a firstborn the mitzva of levirate marriage can be fulfilled by any of the brothers, but that when there is no firstborn, e.g., if he had already died, the mitzva of levirate marriage may not be fulfilled by any of the younger brothers. The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd one of them dies鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), without specifying which brother dies. Are we not dealing even with the case where the firstborn died, and yet the Merciful One states that the younger brother should consummate the levirate marriage?

讜讗讬诪讗 讚诪讬转 拽讟谉 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讬讘诐 讘讻讜专 讛讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜

The Gemara refutes this answer: Say that the case in the Torah is referring to when the younger brother died, and only then the Merciful One states that the firstborn must consummate the levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 the Merciful One explicitly exclude the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, which can apply only to a brother who was not the firstborn?

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 拽讚诐 拽讟谉 讝讻讛 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 拽讚诐 拽讟谉 诇讗 讝讻讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讛讜拽砖讛 讬砖讬讘转 讗讞讬诐 讝讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara challenges the halakha: Say that when there is no firstborn brother, if a younger brother went ahead and consummated the levirate marriage, then he acquires his yevama as a wife. But if there is a firstborn, and the younger brother went ahead and performed levirate marriage first, then he does not acquire his yevama as a wife, because the Torah specifies that the firstborn brother must perform the mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: The verse states: 鈥淚f brothers dwell together鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), implying that the brothers鈥 dwellings were equated one with the other, and all the brothers are equally obligated in this mitzva.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 诇讬讛讚专 讗讙讚讜诇 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗爪诇 讙讚讜诇 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬 讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 诪爪讜讛 讘讙讚讜诇 诇讬讬讘诐 诇讗 专爪讛 讛讜诇讻讬诐 讗爪诇 讗讞讬讜 讛拽讟谉 诇讗 专爪讛 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗爪诇 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara challenges the halakha again: Then say: When there is a firstborn, let the mitzva return to the eldest brother if the other brothers refuse to perform levirate marriage. But when there is no firstborn, the court does not return to the eldest, as the mitzva primarily applies specifically to the firstborn, and if there is no firstborn, none of the brothers take precedence. Why did Abaye the Elder teach: It is a mitzva for the eldest of the brothers to consummate the levirate marriage? If the eldest did not wish to do so, then the court goes to his younger brother. If he also did not wish to do so, the court returns again to the eldest. This implies that the eldest, even if he is not the firstborn, has a greater mitzva than the younger brothers.

讻讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讘讻讜专转讜 讙专诪讛 诇讜 讗祝 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇转讜 讙专诪讛 诇讜

The Gemara answers: Since it is derived that the eldest brother takes precedence from the verse about the firstborn, then just as with regard to the firstborn, his status as firstborn causes him to take precedence, so too, with regard to the eldest, his status as eldest causes him to take precedence.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诪讬讬讘诐 讘讻讜专 诇讬砖拽讜诇 谞讞诇讛 讻讬 诪讬讬讘诐 驻砖讜讟 诇讗 诇讬砖拽讜诇 谞讞诇讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬拽讜诐 注诇 砖诐 讗讞讬讜 讜讛专讬 拽诐

The Gemara challenges the halakha again: Then say that if the firstborn consummates the levirate marriage he receives his deceased brother鈥檚 inheritance, but if an ordinary brother consummates the levirate marriage he does not receive the inheritance. The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭he firstborn that she bears shall be established in the name of his dead brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:6), and if the younger brother performs levirate marriage he has established his brother鈥檚 name and thereby earns the inheritance.

讜讗诇讗 讘讻讜专 讚拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara asks: But if there is no difference between the firstborn and the eldest, why does the Merciful One call the brother who enters levirate marriage the firstborn?

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙专讬注讜转讗 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 讗祝 讛讗讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

With regard to what halakha was that word written in the Torah? This is in order to limit the inheritance. Just as a firstborn does not take in inheritance property due as he does property possessed, but instead receives a double inheritance only from that property already in actual possession of their father, so too, this one who enters levirate marriage, whether firstborn or younger, does not take in inheritance property due as he does property possessed.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讟注谉 注诇 讛砖驻讞讛 讜谞砖转讞专专讛 讗讜 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛 讜谞转讙讬讬专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讜讗诐 讻谞住 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚讜 讛谞讟注谉 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻谞住 讬讜爪讬讗

MISHNA: One suspected by others of engaging in sexual relations with a Canaanite maidservant and she was later set free, or one suspected of relations with a gentile woman and she subsequently converted, may not marry that woman, since this will strengthen the suspicions against him. But if he did marry her, they, the judges of the court, do not remove her from him, i.e., they do not require him to divorce her. With regard to one who is suspected of illicit relations with a married woman and they, the judges of the court, removed her from her husband, i.e., required them to divorce due to this, even if the man suspected of the illicit relations subsequently married her, he must divorce her.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讙讬讜专转 诪讬讛讗 讛讜讬讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讞讚 讗讬砖 砖谞转讙讬讬专 诇砖讜诐 讗砖讛 讜讗讞讚 讗砖讛 砖谞转讙讬讬专讛 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖谞转讙讬讬专 诇砖讜诐 砖讜诇讞谉 诪诇讻讬诐 诇砖讜诐 注讘讚讬 砖诇诪讛 讗讬谞谉 讙专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who is suspected of relations with a gentile woman who later converted may never marry her. This implies that she is, however, a convert, although it appears that she converted only in order that he might marry her. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: Both a man who converted for the sake of a woman and a woman who converted for the sake of a man, and similarly, one who converted for the sake of the king鈥檚 table, so that he could serve in a prestigious capacity, or for the sake of Solomon鈥檚 servants, who were also considered prestigious, in all of these cases they are not converts; this is the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讬专讬 讗专讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 讙讬专讬 讞诇讜诪讜转 讜讗讞讚 讙讬专讬 诪专讚讻讬 讜讗住转专 讗讬谞谉 讙专讬诐 注讚 砖讬转讙讬讬专讜 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛

As Rabbi Ne岣mya would say: With regard to converts by lions, i.e., forced converts such as the Samaritans [Kutim] described in II聽Kings (17:24鈥25); and converts who convert based on their dreams; and converts of the time of Mordecai and Esther described in the verse, 鈥淎nd many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them鈥 (Esther 8:17); all of these are not converts until they are converted at this present time.

讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of the words: Could it enter your mind to say only at this present time? Since he mentioned the converts of Mordecai and Esther, who were deceased before Rabbi Ne岣mya made this statement, he therefore cannot possibly mean this phrase literally. Rather, say: Like at this present time, when the Jewish people are in exile and there is no material benefit to conversion.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讻讜诇诐 讙专讬诐 讛诐

Returning to the question above: How could a woman who converted for the sake of a man be considered a true convert? The Gemara answers: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that baraita that Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that they are all converts.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛住专 诪诪讱 注拽砖讜转 驻讛 讜诇讝讜转 砖驻转讬诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: If so, why is one suspected of relations with such a woman not permitted to enter into marriage with her ab initio as well? The Gemara answers: The reason for the prohibition is due to the following statement of Rav Asi. As Rav Asi said with regard to such cases: 鈥淧ut away from yourself a twisted mouth, and perverse lips put far from you鈥 (Proverbs聽4:24). If they were to marry, they would give substance to the prior suspicions.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讙专讬诐 诇讬诪讜转 讛诪砖讬讞 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 拽讘诇讜 讙专讬诐 诇讗 讘讬诪讬 讚讜讚 讜诇讗 讘讬诪讬 砖诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讛谉 讙讜专 讬讙讜专 讗驻住 诪讗讜转讬 诪讬 讙专 讗转讱 注诇讬讱 讬驻讜诇 讗讘诇 讗讬讚讱 诇讗

The Sages taught: Converts are not accepted in the days of the Messiah. Similarly, they did not accept converts in the days of King David or in the days of King Solomon. Rabbi Eliezer said: What is the verse that hints at this halakha? 鈥淏ehold, they may gather together [gor yagur], but without Me; whosoever shall gather together [gar] with you shall fall on yours鈥 (Isaiah 54:15). The word gor implies that only a convert [ger] who becomes part of the Jewish people when the Jews are living in exile, at a time when God is not clearly revealed, i.e., 鈥渨ithout Me,鈥 are considered part of the Jewish people. But another who wishes to convert in a time when God is clearly revealed shall not be accepted.

讛谞讟注谉 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讜讘注讚讬诐

搂 The mishna states that one who was suspected of relations with a married woman may not marry her even after she divorces her husband. Even if they marry without permission, they must divorce. Rav said: This is only in a case when there were witnesses to her infidelity, and because of their testimony the court required her first husband divorce her. However, if her first husband divorced her due to suspicion and rumors but without witnesses, her second husband would not be obligated to divorce her.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗讬 砖诪注转转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讟注谉 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 注诇 讬讚讜 讜谞转讙专砖讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讗诐 讻谞住 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗

Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav was dozing or sleeping he said that halakha, and it is mistaken. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who was suspected of adultery with a married woman and as a result the court requires her husband to divorce her, and later she married someone else and was then divorced by this other, if the one who had been suspected of illicit relations with her then married her, he need not divorce her.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讻讬 讗转讗 讗讞专 讜讗驻住拽讬讛 诇拽诇讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讜讟注诪讗 讚讗转讗 讗讞专 讜讗驻住拽讬讛 诇拽诇讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 诪驻拽讬谞谉

The Gemara clarifies this: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is referring to a case where there are witnesses to their adultery, when another came and put an end to the rumor of her misconduct by marrying her, what of it? If there were witnesses, the adulterers may never marry each other. Rather, is it not referring to a case where there were no witnesses to the adultery, and the reason she does not have to be divorced from her third husband, with whom she committed adultery while married to her first husband, is specifically because another came and, by marrying her, put an end to the rumor? This implies that were it not so, i.e., had she not married someone else before marrying the man suspected of committing adultery with her, the court would have removed her from him and required them to divorce, even without witnesses to their adultery. This contradicts Rav鈥檚 statement above that they must divorce only if there were witnesses to the infidelity.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗转讗 讗讞专 讜讗驻住拽讬讛 诇拽诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讗讬 诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗转讗 讗讞专 讜讗驻住拽讬讛 诇拽诇讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住

The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you that the same is true even if another did not come and put an end to the rumor by marrying her. The same principle applies: If there were witnesses to the adultery the court removes her and requires them to divorce, but if there were no witnesses, the court does not remove her. And this is what the baraita is saying: The novelty in this baraita is that even though another came and put an end to the rumor by marrying her, nevertheless, the suspected adulterer may not marry her ab initio due to the original suspicions.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 转爪讗 讜讗诐 讘讗讜 注讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 诇讛 讻诪讛 讘谞讬诐 转爪讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a different baraita that qualifies the previous one: In what case is this statement, that the court removes her from the suspected adulterer, said? It is when she has no children from her first husband. But if she has children from him, she is not required to be divorced from the suspected adulterer. On the contrary, if they were required to divorce, it could strengthen the original rumor and others might suspect that her children are mamzerim. However, if witnesses to her impurity, i.e., her adultery, came and testified that she had relations with this man while she was married, then even if she has several children from the first husband, she is required to be divorced. This implies that a woman without children from her first husband must separate from a man suspected of illicit relations with her on strength of suspicion alone.

专讘 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讜讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讜诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗讜拽诪讬 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讜讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讜讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讜讗讬 诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讜拽诪讛 讘砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐

The Gemara answers and explains that Rav establishes the mishna as referring only to a case where she has children by her first husband and there are witnesses to her adultery. In such a situation, she and the adulterer must divorce, but without witnesses they are not required to divorce. The Gemara asks: What forced Rav to establish the mishna as referring to a case where she has children and there are witnesses and explain that the reason that the court removes her from the suspected adulterer is because there were witnesses, but that if there were no witnesses they do not remove her? Why does he not establish the mishna as referring to a case where there were no children and that they must divorce even if there were no witnesses?

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 诇讬转谞讬 讛讜爪讬讗讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘注讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讬

Rava said: The language of the mishna was difficult for him; due to that he deemed it necessary to interpret it as he did. Why does the tanna specifically teach: They remove her from him [hotziuha]? Let it teach: He divorces her [hotziah] in the singular. Rather, every time the plural form: They remove her, is used, it is referring to the judges of the court. And a court removes a woman from her suspected adulterer only if there were witnesses, and not due to suspicion alone.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪转谞讬讬转讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讜讻诇 讬讜爪讗 讜讗砖讛 讞讜讙专转 讘住讬谞专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讜注专 讛讚讘专 转爪讗 专讜拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讬诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讜注专 讛讚讘专 转爪讗

If you wish, say a different answer for Rav鈥檚 explanation: Those baraitot that require the wife and the suspected adulterer to divorce even without witnesses to the adultery are taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where a husband saw a peddler leaving the house, and when he entered he found his wife retying her smock [sinar], i.e., putting her clothes back on, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter because it looks as though she committed adultery with the peddler, she must be divorced by her husband. Alternatively, if the husband entered after the peddler had left and found saliva above the netting of the bed, implying that someone had lain on the bed and spit upward, although no actual act was witnessed, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter, she must be divorced.

Scroll To Top