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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 7, 2014 | 讬状讚 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讛

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

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

Yevamot 34

Study Guide Yevamot 34


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

讜诪讗谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讜讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讜讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi 岣yya, who teaches that this case incurs sixteen sin-offerings, who is this tanna who holds that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists for a more inclusive prohibition, an expanded prohibition, and a simultaneous prohibition? If these men are brothers, the moment that one betrothed a woman, that woman was immediately rendered forbidden to the second brother both as a married woman and as his brother鈥檚 wife. When the second brother betrothed her sister, this added the prohibition pertaining to his wife鈥檚 sister. This is a more inclusive prohibition because, as a result of this betrothal, the second brother is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse not only with his wife鈥檚 sister, who is his brother鈥檚 wife, but also with all of her other sisters. When this woman becomes a menstruating woman, she is forbidden to her husband as well, which is an expanded prohibition. Consequently, the mishna includes examples of all three types of prohibitions and asserts that they all take effect in this case. Therefore, the Gemara wonders which tanna holds that in each of these cases the prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition exists.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖 讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讗专讘注 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: There is one who performs a single act of eating an olive-bulk of food, and he is liable to bring four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering.

讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛讜讗 谞讜转专 诪谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

How so? This halakha applies to one who is ritually impure who ate forbidden fat that was notar from a consecrated offering, i.e., it remained after the time when it was permitted to eat it, and this occurred on Yom Kippur. One who did this is liable to bring one sin offering for eating consecrated food while impure, one for eating forbidden fat, one for eating notar, and one for eating on Yom Kippur. He is also liable to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items. In this case, it was prohibited to eat the fat from the moment the animal was born. When the animal was consecrated, the prohibition against deriving benefit from it took effect on the entire animal, rendering this an expanded prohibition. When the priest became ritually impure and thereby prohibited from partaking of all sanctified foods, a more inclusive prohibition took effect. The moment the fat was rendered notar, it became prohibited to offer it on the altar as well, so that that is another instance of an expanded prohibition. Lastly, on Yom Kippur, an additional, more inclusive prohibition took effect because on Yom Kippur it is prohibited to eat all food, even that which is not consecrated.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘驻讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛砖诐

Rabbi Meir says: There is one more sin-offering for which he may be liable. If it was Shabbat and he carried this olive-bulk of food from one domain to another in his mouth, he is liable for carrying out on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: Liability for the sin-offering that you added is not incurred from violation of the same type of prohibition. He is liable for carrying out the food, not for eating it. In this example, the prohibitions of Shabbat and Yom Kippur take effect at the same moment, and therefore this last case would be an instance of simultaneous prohibitions, and Rabbi Meir holds that they take effect as well. Therefore, this baraita demonstrates that Rabbi Meir holds that prohibitions take effect where other prohibitions already exist in all of these instances: More inclusive prohibitions, expanded prohibitions, and simultaneous prohibitions.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讗诪专 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara continues to clarify the opinion of Rabbi Meir: And in accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Meir? If you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, this is difficult. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua say that one who erred with regard to a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, i.e., one who unwittingly performed a transgression while intending to perform a mitzva is exempt from punishment? In the case in the mishna as well, the men intended to perform the mitzva of marriage but unwittingly violated a transgression because the wives were switched. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, they should be exempt from a sin-offering. Rather, this must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that even if one mistakenly transgressed while attempting to perform a mitzva, he is still obligated to bring a sin-offering.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讚讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇 诇讗

If you wish, resolve this differently and say: Actually, this can be explained even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. When Rabbi Yehoshua says that one who erred with regard to a mitzva is exempt, this applies only to the case of babies who were mixed up in such a way that on Shabbat the mohel mistakenly circumcised a baby whose time had not yet come for circumcision. Since the mohel did not fulfill the mitzva of circumcision, he should be liable for performing prohibited labor on Shabbat. However, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him from a sin-offering since he is pressed for time. Because circumcision must be performed only on the day specified, he was rushed and anxious to perform the circumcision, and due to this sense of urgency he erred and thought that the proper time was on Shabbat. In this case in the mishna, however, where the mistake involved marriage, since the brothers were not pressed for time Rabbi Yehoshua does not deem the brothers exempt.

讜讛专讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讬谉 讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇 讜拽驻讟专 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜谞讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专

The Gemara objects: And yet in the case of eating teruma, where one is not pressed for time and nevertheless Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him if the act involved a mitzva, as we learned in a mishna (Pesa岣m 72b): If a priest was partaking of teruma and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza and thereby disqualified from the priesthood and prohibited from eating teruma, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to pay the value of the principal and an additional fifth, like any non-priest who unwittingly ate teruma. However, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because at the time of consumption he intended to perform a mitzva, for he thought that he was a priest eating of the teruma.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讘注专讘 讛驻住讞 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讝诪谞讛 讘讛讜诇

The Gemara responds: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna: Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: Here we are dealing with leavened teruma that was being eaten by the priest on the eve of Passover, for he is pressed for time. In this case, he would rush to eat it so that it would not have to be burned.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara offers a different attribution of the mishna: And if you wish, say a different explanation: The mishna is not according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who deems one liable in cases of more inclusive prohibitions and expanded prohibitions. Rather, the mishna is referring only to cases of simultaneous prohibitions, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛讜 讚砖讜讬谞讛讜 砖诇讬讞 讜砖讜讜 讗讬谞讛讜 砖诇讬讞 讜驻讙注 砖诇讬讞 讘砖诇讬讞 讗诇讗 谞讚讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to all of the prohibitions in the mishna, you can find that they take effect simultaneously in the case where the men appointed a single agent to betroth the women for them, and the women appointed an agent to accept the betrothals for them, and one agent encounters the other agent. In this scenario, all the men become betrothed to all the women the moment that the agents meet, and the prohibitions all take effect simultaneously. However, with regard to the prohibition pertaining to menstruating women, how can you find the case where both women become menstruating women at the exact time of betrothal?

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖讜驻注讜转 诪转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 诇讗讞讬讜讘讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诪转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讞讬讜讘讬 讗讬谞讛讬

Rav Amram said that Rav said: This is referring to a situation where the women continuously discharge menstrual blood from within the thirteenth year of the brothers until after they reached the age of thirteen, in order to deem the men liable for the prohibition pertaining to a menstruating woman. At the moment that the boys reached maturity and the betrothals went into effect, the sisters were forbidden as menstruating women. And the women were continuously discharging blood from within the twelfth year of the women until after the age of twelve, in order to deem the women liable for engaging in relations as a menstruating woman. Therefore, if this took place in such a way that on the exact day when the men reached maturity, i.e., their thirteenth birthday, the women reached maturity, i.e., their twelfth birthday, and at that moment they were menstruating, then all of the prohibitions would take effect simultaneously and they would be liable on all counts, according to Rabbi Shimon as well.

诪驻专讬砖讬诐 讗讜转谉 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转注讘专转 讘讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 砖讘注诇讜 讜砖谞讜 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖砖 注砖专讛 讞讟讗讜转 转诇转讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 讛讜讬讬谉

搂 The mishna taught that we separate these women from their husbands for three months, as perhaps they became pregnant. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it known that a virgin woman does not become pregnant from her first sexual act? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This is referring to a situation where they engaged in intercourse and then repeated the act, so that it is possible that the women were impregnated during the second act of intercourse. The Gemara asks: But if this is so, how can one explain that which Rabbi 岣yya teaches: Here, then, are sixteen sin-offerings? If there were indeed two acts of intercourse, then there should be thirty-two sin-offerings, since each prohibition was violated twice.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讻讞 讜讻讞 讟讜讘讗 讛讜讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讚讘讻讞 专讗砖讜谉 拽讞砖讬讘 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讞砖讬讘

The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning, that Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 enumeration of sin-offerings applies to all acts of intercourse, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems one liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every thrusting movement during a single act of intercourse, there would be many prohibitions that were violated. This would greatly multiply the number of sin-offerings required. Rather, it must be that Rabbi 岣yya, with regard to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion, is enumerating only the first thrusting movement in the intercourse. And so too, with regard to the Rabbis鈥 opinion, he is enumerating only the first act of intercourse. If there were two acts of intercourse, however, the number of sin-offerings would be doubled.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉

Rava said to Rav Na岣an:

讜讛讗 转诪专 讘讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讬注讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转诪专 讘讗爪讘注 诪注讻讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻诇 诪讜注讻讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 转诪专 砖诪谉 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪谉 转诪专 注诇 砖诐 转诪专 砖诪注讻讛 讘讗爪讘注讛 讜讛讗 讛讜讜 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 砖诪砖讜 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻谉

But didn鈥檛 Tamar become pregnant from the first act of intercourse, despite the fact that she was a virgin at the time of her sexual act with Judah? Rav Na岣an said: Tamar broke her hymen with her finger prior to intercourse, and it is due to this that she became pregnant from the first act of intercourse, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said: All of those women from the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who break their hymens are named Tamar by nickname. And why are they named Tamar? They are called this on account of Tamar, who broke her hymen with her finger. The Gemara wonders about the proof from Tamar itself: But weren鈥檛 there Er and Onan, her previous husbands, who presumably engaged in sexual intercourse with her? The Gemara responds: Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and therefore she was still a virgin.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讚砖 讚砖 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讝讜专讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛诇诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻诪注砖讛 注专 讜讗讜谞谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: After a woman gives birth, her husband penetrates inside and spills his semen outside for the entire twenty-four months during which the baby is breastfeeding, so that his wife not become pregnant, as that would terminate her milk production and the child might die. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. They said to him: These acts are nothing other than acts similar to those of Er and Onan, which are prohibited. Regardless, it can be deduced from here that Er and Onan engaged in normative sexual intercourse with Tamar, only they did not fully complete the sexual act.

讻诪注砖讛 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 讻诪注砖讛 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 讻诪注砖讛 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘讗 讗诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜砖讞转 讗专爪讛 讜诇讗 讻诪注砖讛 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讻讗 讻讚专讻讛

The Gemara answers: The Tosefta actually means that what they did was similar to the act of Er and Onan in some ways, but not similar to the act of Er and Onan in other ways. The Gemara elaborates: It was similar to the act of Er and Onan in that there was a spilling of semen, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it came to pass when he had intercourse with his brother鈥檚 wife, that he spilled it on the ground鈥 (Genesis 38:9). Yet it was not similar to the act of Er and Onan, as there Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, while here the Tosefta is referring to sexual intercourse in a typical manner.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗讜谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜砖讞转 讗专爪讛 讗诇讗 注专 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诪转 讙诐 讗讜转讜 讗祝 讛讜讗 讘讗讜转讜 诪讬转讛 诪转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讜谞谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 诇讜 讬讛讬讛 讛讝专注 讗诇讗 注专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 讛讻讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转注讘专 讜讬讻讞讬砖 讬驻讬讛

The Gemara continues to clarify what took place: Granted, Onan engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse with her, as it is written with regard to his act: 鈥淭hat he spilled it on the ground鈥 (Genesis 38:9). However, from where do we derive that Er engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse with her? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: As it is written with regard to Onan: 鈥淎nd He slew him also鈥 (Genesis 38:10). This indicates that he, too, died the same death for performing the same transgression as his brother. The Gemara asks: Granted, Onan engaged in anal intercourse because he did not want Tamar to give birth as 鈥渉e knew that the seed would not be his鈥 (Genesis 38:9). However, with regard to Er, what is the reason he acted in this way? The Gemara responds: He did so in order that she not become pregnant and become less beautiful as a result of her pregnancy.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜转讛 驻专讟 诇讻诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻专讟 诇砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讬诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 转讻砖讬讟讬 讻诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转注讘专转 诪讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the woman, with whom a man shall lie giving seed, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:18). The extra term 鈥渨ith whom鈥 comes to exclude a bride who does not become ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: It excludes the case of sexual intercourse performed in an atypical manner. Hon, son of Rav Na岣an, said to Rav Na岣an: Shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda holds: The Torah spared a bride鈥檚 adornments, including her make-up, and therefore exempted her from submersion in water, as that might cause them ruin? Rav Na岣an said to him: That is not the reason. Rather, it is because a woman does not become pregnant from the first act of intercourse. Therefore, that act of intercourse would not cause ritual impurity, as it is not considered intercourse that can result in the implanting of seed.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 砖讻讘转 讝专注 驻专讟 诇讛注专讗讛 讗讜转讛 驻专讟 诇砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛注专讗讛 诪砖讻讘转 讝专注 谞驻拽讗 讗讜转讛 驻专讟 诇讻诇讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree? The Rabbis hold that the phrase 鈥済iving seed鈥 excludes the initial stage of intercourse, during which there is no emission of semen. And the extra phrase 鈥渨ith whom鈥 excludes intercourse that is performed in an atypical way. Rabbi Yehuda, on the other hand, holds that the exclusion of both atypical sexual intercourse and the initial stage of intercourse were derived from the phrase 鈥済iving seed,鈥 as neither of these are sexual acts that might bring about the birth of a seed, i.e., a child. The phrase 鈥渨ith whom鈥 then excludes a bride.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖砖讛转讛 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 注砖专 砖谞讬诐 讜谞砖讗转 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讚注转讛 诇讛谞砖讗 讗讘诇 讚注转讛 诇讛谞砖讗 诪转注讘专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讗 诪专谞谞讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘转专讬讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讚注转讗讬 注诇讱 讛讜讗讬

On the topic of intercourse that cannot result in conception, the Gemara relates the following: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Any woman who waits after her husband has died or divorced her for ten years without intercourse and is then married can no longer bear children. Rav Na岣an said: They taught this principle only with regard to cases where she did not intend to get married at a later time, but if she intended to get married at some point, she can become pregnant later on. Rava said to his wife, the daughter of Rav 岣sda: The Sages are gossiping about you. From the time she was widowed from her first husband until the time that she was married to Rava, more than ten years passed, yet she bore him children. It seemed as though she had engaged in intercourse in the meantime. She said to him: My mind was on you. Indeed, it is told that already as a young girl she prophesized that she would marry Rava.

讛讛讬讗 讚讗转讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讗谞讗 砖讛讬转讬 讗讞专 讘注诇讬 注砖专 砖谞讬诐 讜讬诇讚转讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讘转讬 讗诇 转讜爪讬讗讬 诇注讝 注诇 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讙讜讬 谞讘注诇转讬

The Gemara relates: A certain woman who came before Rav Yosef said to him: My teacher, I waited after my husband鈥檚 death for ten years, and nevertheless I gave birth. He said to her: My daughter, do not cast aspersions on the statement of the Sages. She said to him in confession: I had sexual intercourse with a gentile during those ten years.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻讜诇谉 爪专讬讻讜转 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讜专转 讜诪砖讜讞专专转 拽讟谞讛 讗讘诇 拽讟谞讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

Shmuel said: And all of those women who had sexual intercourse, and there is therefore a concern that they might be pregnant, must wait three months before marrying so as to differentiate between a child born from the previous intercourse and a child born from this marriage, except for a female convert who is a minor and a female released slave who is a minor. Although it is possible that they had sexual intercourse, they cannot become pregnant in any case. However, a female Israelite who was a minor and had intercourse must wait three months like all other women.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘诪讬讗讜谉 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 讜讗讬 讘讙讟 讛讗诪专讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讝谞讜转

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what situation is this statement referring? If it is referring to a minor who was released from her marriage by refusal, as a minor girl who was married to a man by her mother or brothers may refuse to remain married to her husband until reaching majority, but didn鈥檛 Shmuel say that she is not required to wait three months? And if it is referring to a woman who received a bill of divorce as a minor, didn鈥檛 Shmuel already state this halakha one time? Why would he repeat this ruling, as Shmuel said: A female minor who refused her husband need not wait three months before her second marriage, but if he gave her a bill of divorce, she must wait three months, so as not to make a distinction between an adult divorc茅e and a minor divorc茅e. Rather, it must be that this is referring to a female minor who was involved in licentious sexual intercourse.

  • 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: 30-36 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn various scenarios that begin with three brothers, two of which marry two sisters. We will...

Yevamot 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 34

讜诪讗谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讜讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讜讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi 岣yya, who teaches that this case incurs sixteen sin-offerings, who is this tanna who holds that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists for a more inclusive prohibition, an expanded prohibition, and a simultaneous prohibition? If these men are brothers, the moment that one betrothed a woman, that woman was immediately rendered forbidden to the second brother both as a married woman and as his brother鈥檚 wife. When the second brother betrothed her sister, this added the prohibition pertaining to his wife鈥檚 sister. This is a more inclusive prohibition because, as a result of this betrothal, the second brother is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse not only with his wife鈥檚 sister, who is his brother鈥檚 wife, but also with all of her other sisters. When this woman becomes a menstruating woman, she is forbidden to her husband as well, which is an expanded prohibition. Consequently, the mishna includes examples of all three types of prohibitions and asserts that they all take effect in this case. Therefore, the Gemara wonders which tanna holds that in each of these cases the prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition exists.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖 讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讗专讘注 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: There is one who performs a single act of eating an olive-bulk of food, and he is liable to bring four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering.

讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛讜讗 谞讜转专 诪谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

How so? This halakha applies to one who is ritually impure who ate forbidden fat that was notar from a consecrated offering, i.e., it remained after the time when it was permitted to eat it, and this occurred on Yom Kippur. One who did this is liable to bring one sin offering for eating consecrated food while impure, one for eating forbidden fat, one for eating notar, and one for eating on Yom Kippur. He is also liable to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items. In this case, it was prohibited to eat the fat from the moment the animal was born. When the animal was consecrated, the prohibition against deriving benefit from it took effect on the entire animal, rendering this an expanded prohibition. When the priest became ritually impure and thereby prohibited from partaking of all sanctified foods, a more inclusive prohibition took effect. The moment the fat was rendered notar, it became prohibited to offer it on the altar as well, so that that is another instance of an expanded prohibition. Lastly, on Yom Kippur, an additional, more inclusive prohibition took effect because on Yom Kippur it is prohibited to eat all food, even that which is not consecrated.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘驻讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛砖诐

Rabbi Meir says: There is one more sin-offering for which he may be liable. If it was Shabbat and he carried this olive-bulk of food from one domain to another in his mouth, he is liable for carrying out on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: Liability for the sin-offering that you added is not incurred from violation of the same type of prohibition. He is liable for carrying out the food, not for eating it. In this example, the prohibitions of Shabbat and Yom Kippur take effect at the same moment, and therefore this last case would be an instance of simultaneous prohibitions, and Rabbi Meir holds that they take effect as well. Therefore, this baraita demonstrates that Rabbi Meir holds that prohibitions take effect where other prohibitions already exist in all of these instances: More inclusive prohibitions, expanded prohibitions, and simultaneous prohibitions.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讗诪专 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara continues to clarify the opinion of Rabbi Meir: And in accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Meir? If you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, this is difficult. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua say that one who erred with regard to a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, i.e., one who unwittingly performed a transgression while intending to perform a mitzva is exempt from punishment? In the case in the mishna as well, the men intended to perform the mitzva of marriage but unwittingly violated a transgression because the wives were switched. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, they should be exempt from a sin-offering. Rather, this must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that even if one mistakenly transgressed while attempting to perform a mitzva, he is still obligated to bring a sin-offering.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讚讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇 诇讗

If you wish, resolve this differently and say: Actually, this can be explained even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. When Rabbi Yehoshua says that one who erred with regard to a mitzva is exempt, this applies only to the case of babies who were mixed up in such a way that on Shabbat the mohel mistakenly circumcised a baby whose time had not yet come for circumcision. Since the mohel did not fulfill the mitzva of circumcision, he should be liable for performing prohibited labor on Shabbat. However, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him from a sin-offering since he is pressed for time. Because circumcision must be performed only on the day specified, he was rushed and anxious to perform the circumcision, and due to this sense of urgency he erred and thought that the proper time was on Shabbat. In this case in the mishna, however, where the mistake involved marriage, since the brothers were not pressed for time Rabbi Yehoshua does not deem the brothers exempt.

讜讛专讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讬谉 讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇 讜拽驻讟专 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜谞讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专

The Gemara objects: And yet in the case of eating teruma, where one is not pressed for time and nevertheless Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him if the act involved a mitzva, as we learned in a mishna (Pesa岣m 72b): If a priest was partaking of teruma and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza and thereby disqualified from the priesthood and prohibited from eating teruma, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to pay the value of the principal and an additional fifth, like any non-priest who unwittingly ate teruma. However, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because at the time of consumption he intended to perform a mitzva, for he thought that he was a priest eating of the teruma.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讘注专讘 讛驻住讞 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讝诪谞讛 讘讛讜诇

The Gemara responds: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna: Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: Here we are dealing with leavened teruma that was being eaten by the priest on the eve of Passover, for he is pressed for time. In this case, he would rush to eat it so that it would not have to be burned.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara offers a different attribution of the mishna: And if you wish, say a different explanation: The mishna is not according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who deems one liable in cases of more inclusive prohibitions and expanded prohibitions. Rather, the mishna is referring only to cases of simultaneous prohibitions, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛讜 讚砖讜讬谞讛讜 砖诇讬讞 讜砖讜讜 讗讬谞讛讜 砖诇讬讞 讜驻讙注 砖诇讬讞 讘砖诇讬讞 讗诇讗 谞讚讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to all of the prohibitions in the mishna, you can find that they take effect simultaneously in the case where the men appointed a single agent to betroth the women for them, and the women appointed an agent to accept the betrothals for them, and one agent encounters the other agent. In this scenario, all the men become betrothed to all the women the moment that the agents meet, and the prohibitions all take effect simultaneously. However, with regard to the prohibition pertaining to menstruating women, how can you find the case where both women become menstruating women at the exact time of betrothal?

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖讜驻注讜转 诪转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 诇讗讞讬讜讘讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诪转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讞讬讜讘讬 讗讬谞讛讬

Rav Amram said that Rav said: This is referring to a situation where the women continuously discharge menstrual blood from within the thirteenth year of the brothers until after they reached the age of thirteen, in order to deem the men liable for the prohibition pertaining to a menstruating woman. At the moment that the boys reached maturity and the betrothals went into effect, the sisters were forbidden as menstruating women. And the women were continuously discharging blood from within the twelfth year of the women until after the age of twelve, in order to deem the women liable for engaging in relations as a menstruating woman. Therefore, if this took place in such a way that on the exact day when the men reached maturity, i.e., their thirteenth birthday, the women reached maturity, i.e., their twelfth birthday, and at that moment they were menstruating, then all of the prohibitions would take effect simultaneously and they would be liable on all counts, according to Rabbi Shimon as well.

诪驻专讬砖讬诐 讗讜转谉 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转注讘专转 讘讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 砖讘注诇讜 讜砖谞讜 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖砖 注砖专讛 讞讟讗讜转 转诇转讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 讛讜讬讬谉

搂 The mishna taught that we separate these women from their husbands for three months, as perhaps they became pregnant. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it known that a virgin woman does not become pregnant from her first sexual act? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This is referring to a situation where they engaged in intercourse and then repeated the act, so that it is possible that the women were impregnated during the second act of intercourse. The Gemara asks: But if this is so, how can one explain that which Rabbi 岣yya teaches: Here, then, are sixteen sin-offerings? If there were indeed two acts of intercourse, then there should be thirty-two sin-offerings, since each prohibition was violated twice.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讻讞 讜讻讞 讟讜讘讗 讛讜讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讚讘讻讞 专讗砖讜谉 拽讞砖讬讘 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讞砖讬讘

The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning, that Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 enumeration of sin-offerings applies to all acts of intercourse, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems one liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every thrusting movement during a single act of intercourse, there would be many prohibitions that were violated. This would greatly multiply the number of sin-offerings required. Rather, it must be that Rabbi 岣yya, with regard to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion, is enumerating only the first thrusting movement in the intercourse. And so too, with regard to the Rabbis鈥 opinion, he is enumerating only the first act of intercourse. If there were two acts of intercourse, however, the number of sin-offerings would be doubled.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉

Rava said to Rav Na岣an:

讜讛讗 转诪专 讘讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讬注讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转诪专 讘讗爪讘注 诪注讻讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻诇 诪讜注讻讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 转诪专 砖诪谉 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪谉 转诪专 注诇 砖诐 转诪专 砖诪注讻讛 讘讗爪讘注讛 讜讛讗 讛讜讜 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 砖诪砖讜 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻谉

But didn鈥檛 Tamar become pregnant from the first act of intercourse, despite the fact that she was a virgin at the time of her sexual act with Judah? Rav Na岣an said: Tamar broke her hymen with her finger prior to intercourse, and it is due to this that she became pregnant from the first act of intercourse, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said: All of those women from the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who break their hymens are named Tamar by nickname. And why are they named Tamar? They are called this on account of Tamar, who broke her hymen with her finger. The Gemara wonders about the proof from Tamar itself: But weren鈥檛 there Er and Onan, her previous husbands, who presumably engaged in sexual intercourse with her? The Gemara responds: Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and therefore she was still a virgin.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讚砖 讚砖 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讝讜专讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛诇诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻诪注砖讛 注专 讜讗讜谞谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: After a woman gives birth, her husband penetrates inside and spills his semen outside for the entire twenty-four months during which the baby is breastfeeding, so that his wife not become pregnant, as that would terminate her milk production and the child might die. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. They said to him: These acts are nothing other than acts similar to those of Er and Onan, which are prohibited. Regardless, it can be deduced from here that Er and Onan engaged in normative sexual intercourse with Tamar, only they did not fully complete the sexual act.

讻诪注砖讛 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 讻诪注砖讛 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 讻诪注砖讛 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘讗 讗诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜砖讞转 讗专爪讛 讜诇讗 讻诪注砖讛 注专 讜讗讜谞谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讻讗 讻讚专讻讛

The Gemara answers: The Tosefta actually means that what they did was similar to the act of Er and Onan in some ways, but not similar to the act of Er and Onan in other ways. The Gemara elaborates: It was similar to the act of Er and Onan in that there was a spilling of semen, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it came to pass when he had intercourse with his brother鈥檚 wife, that he spilled it on the ground鈥 (Genesis 38:9). Yet it was not similar to the act of Er and Onan, as there Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, while here the Tosefta is referring to sexual intercourse in a typical manner.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗讜谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜砖讞转 讗专爪讛 讗诇讗 注专 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诪转 讙诐 讗讜转讜 讗祝 讛讜讗 讘讗讜转讜 诪讬转讛 诪转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讜谞谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 诇讜 讬讛讬讛 讛讝专注 讗诇讗 注专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 讛讻讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转注讘专 讜讬讻讞讬砖 讬驻讬讛

The Gemara continues to clarify what took place: Granted, Onan engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse with her, as it is written with regard to his act: 鈥淭hat he spilled it on the ground鈥 (Genesis 38:9). However, from where do we derive that Er engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse with her? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: As it is written with regard to Onan: 鈥淎nd He slew him also鈥 (Genesis 38:10). This indicates that he, too, died the same death for performing the same transgression as his brother. The Gemara asks: Granted, Onan engaged in anal intercourse because he did not want Tamar to give birth as 鈥渉e knew that the seed would not be his鈥 (Genesis 38:9). However, with regard to Er, what is the reason he acted in this way? The Gemara responds: He did so in order that she not become pregnant and become less beautiful as a result of her pregnancy.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜转讛 驻专讟 诇讻诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻专讟 诇砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讬诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 转讻砖讬讟讬 讻诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转注讘专转 诪讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the woman, with whom a man shall lie giving seed, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:18). The extra term 鈥渨ith whom鈥 comes to exclude a bride who does not become ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: It excludes the case of sexual intercourse performed in an atypical manner. Hon, son of Rav Na岣an, said to Rav Na岣an: Shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda holds: The Torah spared a bride鈥檚 adornments, including her make-up, and therefore exempted her from submersion in water, as that might cause them ruin? Rav Na岣an said to him: That is not the reason. Rather, it is because a woman does not become pregnant from the first act of intercourse. Therefore, that act of intercourse would not cause ritual impurity, as it is not considered intercourse that can result in the implanting of seed.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 砖讻讘转 讝专注 驻专讟 诇讛注专讗讛 讗讜转讛 驻专讟 诇砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛注专讗讛 诪砖讻讘转 讝专注 谞驻拽讗 讗讜转讛 驻专讟 诇讻诇讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree? The Rabbis hold that the phrase 鈥済iving seed鈥 excludes the initial stage of intercourse, during which there is no emission of semen. And the extra phrase 鈥渨ith whom鈥 excludes intercourse that is performed in an atypical way. Rabbi Yehuda, on the other hand, holds that the exclusion of both atypical sexual intercourse and the initial stage of intercourse were derived from the phrase 鈥済iving seed,鈥 as neither of these are sexual acts that might bring about the birth of a seed, i.e., a child. The phrase 鈥渨ith whom鈥 then excludes a bride.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖砖讛转讛 讗讞专 讘注诇讛 注砖专 砖谞讬诐 讜谞砖讗转 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讚注转讛 诇讛谞砖讗 讗讘诇 讚注转讛 诇讛谞砖讗 诪转注讘专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讗 诪专谞谞讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘转专讬讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讚注转讗讬 注诇讱 讛讜讗讬

On the topic of intercourse that cannot result in conception, the Gemara relates the following: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Any woman who waits after her husband has died or divorced her for ten years without intercourse and is then married can no longer bear children. Rav Na岣an said: They taught this principle only with regard to cases where she did not intend to get married at a later time, but if she intended to get married at some point, she can become pregnant later on. Rava said to his wife, the daughter of Rav 岣sda: The Sages are gossiping about you. From the time she was widowed from her first husband until the time that she was married to Rava, more than ten years passed, yet she bore him children. It seemed as though she had engaged in intercourse in the meantime. She said to him: My mind was on you. Indeed, it is told that already as a young girl she prophesized that she would marry Rava.

讛讛讬讗 讚讗转讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讗谞讗 砖讛讬转讬 讗讞专 讘注诇讬 注砖专 砖谞讬诐 讜讬诇讚转讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讘转讬 讗诇 转讜爪讬讗讬 诇注讝 注诇 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讙讜讬 谞讘注诇转讬

The Gemara relates: A certain woman who came before Rav Yosef said to him: My teacher, I waited after my husband鈥檚 death for ten years, and nevertheless I gave birth. He said to her: My daughter, do not cast aspersions on the statement of the Sages. She said to him in confession: I had sexual intercourse with a gentile during those ten years.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻讜诇谉 爪专讬讻讜转 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讜专转 讜诪砖讜讞专专转 拽讟谞讛 讗讘诇 拽讟谞讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

Shmuel said: And all of those women who had sexual intercourse, and there is therefore a concern that they might be pregnant, must wait three months before marrying so as to differentiate between a child born from the previous intercourse and a child born from this marriage, except for a female convert who is a minor and a female released slave who is a minor. Although it is possible that they had sexual intercourse, they cannot become pregnant in any case. However, a female Israelite who was a minor and had intercourse must wait three months like all other women.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘诪讬讗讜谉 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 讜讗讬 讘讙讟 讛讗诪专讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讝谞讜转

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what situation is this statement referring? If it is referring to a minor who was released from her marriage by refusal, as a minor girl who was married to a man by her mother or brothers may refuse to remain married to her husband until reaching majority, but didn鈥檛 Shmuel say that she is not required to wait three months? And if it is referring to a woman who received a bill of divorce as a minor, didn鈥檛 Shmuel already state this halakha one time? Why would he repeat this ruling, as Shmuel said: A female minor who refused her husband need not wait three months before her second marriage, but if he gave her a bill of divorce, she must wait three months, so as not to make a distinction between an adult divorc茅e and a minor divorc茅e. Rather, it must be that this is referring to a female minor who was involved in licentious sexual intercourse.

Scroll To Top