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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 18, 2022 | 讬状讝 讘谞讬住谉 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 42

Presentation in PDF format

If chalitza was performed within the first three months after the husband鈥檚 death, the woman needs to wait three months before remarrying. Is it three months from the chalitza or from the death? What is the reason why all women need to wait three months before remarrying after death or divorce from their husband? The first explanation is that we want to be able to know who the son belongs to as God presents rests upon those who can trace their lineage. Rava says it is to prevent forbidden marriages 鈥 he brings four examples of issues that could arise, such as, marrying one鈥檚 half-sister without realizing it. Also a convert needs to wait 鈥 why? The Gemara tries to figure out why a shorter time period would not have been sufficient. Why can鈥檛 we use other methods to determine whether or not the woman was pregnant? If we know she is pregnant, she still cannot get married as there is a different issue – that a man cannot marry a pregnant or nursing woman. Why is that prohibited? There were three opinions in the Mishna regarding which women need to wait three months before remarrying. According to which opinion do we hold? Rabbi Yochanan held like Rabbi Yosi who permitted women who were engaged to remarry, but it seems he changed his mind and required all women to wait three months. In what cases does Rabbi Yochanan hold like an unattributed opinion in a Mishna? What are the rules?

诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

If they performed the 岣litza after three months, she does not need to wait three months and may marry immediately.

讛讜讬 讛砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪砖注转 诪讬转转 讛讘注诇 讜诇讗 诪砖注转 讞诇讬爪转 讛讬讘诐

The Gemara infers from the latter clause of the baraita: It must be that the three months that are stated throughout the baraita are counted from the time of the husband鈥檚 death and not from the time of the 岣litza of the yavam.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讙讟 讚专讘 讗诪专 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from the case of a bill of divorce, where Rav said that the three months are counted from the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and Shmuel said that the count is from the time of the writing of the bill. If a couple is secluded together after the bill of divorce is written, the bill of divorce is invalid. Therefore, there is no concern that they were secluded from that time. This is why Shmuel holds that the three months are counted from the writing. Rav apparently assumes that even so, the count always begins from the formal end of the marriage and not from the point from which there was no possibility of her becoming pregnant. Why, then, does the baraita not rule also in the case when a woman happens for levirate marriage, that the count should begin from the point of 岣litza, since the marriage is only fully severed at that point?

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗讬住讜专 讻专转 讛转专转 讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rava said: With regard to a yevama, all agree that the count begins from the time of her husband鈥檚 death. This can be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: If a prohibition that entails karet, i.e., the prohibition against engaging in relations with one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife in the event she is pregnant and not subject to levirate marriage, you have permitted after three months from the husband鈥檚 death, then in the case of a standard negative prohibition, such as the prohibition against engaging in relations with a woman within three months of the death of her previous husband, is it not all the more so clear that she should be permitted to remarry after three months from her husband鈥檚 death? Therefore, even Rav agrees that in this case, the count begins from the husband鈥檚 death.

讜讻谉 砖讗专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讬讘诪讛 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讗诪讗讬

搂 The mishna states: And similarly, all other women may not be betrothed or marry until they have waited three months. The Gemara asks: Granted, a yevama has to wait, in accordance with the reason that we said, that if she is pregnant with viable offspring, consummating the levirate marriage would violate the prohibition against engaging in relations with one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife. But with regard to all other women, why shouldn鈥檛 they remarry immediately even if they are pregnant?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讛讬讜转 诇讱 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讜诇讝专注讱 讗讞专讬讱 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讝专注讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 诇讝专注讜 砖诇 砖谞讬

Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: It is due to the fact that the verse states with regard to Abraham: 鈥淭o be a God to you and your seed after you鈥 (Genesis 17:7), which indicates that the Divine Presence rests with someone only when his seed can be identified as being descended from him, i.e., there are no uncertainties with regard to their lineage. Therefore, to prevent any uncertainties concerning the lineage of her child, the woman must wait so that it will be possible to distinguish between the seed of the first husband and the seed of the second husband. After three months, if she has conceived from her previous husband, the pregnancy will already be noticeable.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 诇驻讬讻讱 讙专 讜讙讬讜专转 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讗讬讻讗

Rava raised an objection from a baraita: Therefore, on account of the requirement to wait three months, a male convert and a female convert who were originally married to each other and converted need to wait three months before they may remarry following their conversion. Rava asks: Here, in this case, what reason is there to distinguish? Even if they do not wait and she is found to be pregnant, it is clear who the child鈥檚 parents are.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讝专注 砖谞讝专注 讘拽讚讜砖讛 诇讝专注 砖诇讗 谞讝专注 讘拽讚讜砖讛

The Gemara explains: Here, too, there is a need to distinguish between seed that was sown in sanctity, i.e., a child conceived by a Jewish parents, and seed that was not sown in sanctity, i.e., a child conceived by gentile parents.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讜讬讬讘诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜

Rava stated a different reason for the need to wait: It is a rabbinic decree lest a child be born and be incorrectly identified as the son of his mother鈥檚 second husband when he is fact the son of her first husband. This could result in him marrying his paternal sister, unaware of the true relationship between them, or consummating a levirate marriage with the wife of his maternal brother under the misconception that his maternal brother was also his paternal brother. This would be prohibited because the prohibition to engage in relations with one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife is waived only in the case where there is a mitzva of levirate marriage, which applies only to paternal brothers.

讜讬讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诪讜 诇砖讜拽 讜讬驻讟讜专 讗转 讬讘诪转讜 诇砖讜拽

Or in the event that his mother鈥檚 second husband died and he was assumed to be his only offspring, he would cause his mother to go out and be permitted to the general public because, under the misconception that he was the offspring of the deceased, he assumed that there was no mitzva of levirate marriage. Or, in the event that his maternal brother died childless and the brother鈥檚 widow became subject to levirate marriage, under the misconception that he was the paternal brother of the deceased he might perform 岣litza and permit his supposed yevama to marry a man from the general public. To avoid these problems, the Sages decreed that a woman must wait before remarrying.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讘讻讜诇谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 注专讜讛 讜讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 讜诇讚 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 注专讜讛

Rav 岣nanya raised an objection from a baraita: In all of those cases where the Sages prohibit a woman from marrying or consummating a levirate marriage, I identify that the prohibition is due to an ordinance instituted to prevent a violation of forbidden relations, and here, with regard to the prohibition against marrying within three months, it is due to an ordinance for the benefit of the offspring. Rav 岣nanya explains the challenge: And if it is so that Rava鈥檚 understanding of the prohibition against marrying within three months is correct, then all of the cases of forbidden marriages are due to an ordinance to prevent violation of forbidden relations. However, the baraita indicates otherwise.

讛讗讬 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 讜诇讚 讚诇讗 诇驻讙注 讘讛讜 注专讜讛

The Gemara defends Rava鈥檚 opinion and explains that the baraita can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with his understanding: When the baraita says that this prohibition is due to an ordinance for the benefit of the offspring, it means that due to the prohibition the offspring will not encounter a prohibition of forbidden relations.

讘砖诇诪讗 转诪转讬谉 砖谞讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讜转谞砖讗 诇讗 讚讛讬讬谞讜 住驻讬拽讗 讗讬 讘专 转砖注讛 诇拽诪讗 讗讬 讘专 砖讘注讛 诇讘转专讗

搂 The Gemara analyzes the prohibition against marrying before three months have passed: Granted, she should not wait for only two months and then marry, as this is still a case that could give rise to an uncertainty whether the child born to her seven months after remarrying is nine months old, i.e., counting from conception, and it is the offspring of the first husband, or whether the child is only seven months old and is the offspring of the latter husband.

讗诇讗 转诪转讬谉 讞讚砖 讗讞讚 讜转谞砖讗 讜讗讬 诇砖讘注讛 讬诇讚讛 讛讗讬 讘专 砖讘注讛 诇讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇转诪谞讬讗 讬诇讚讛 讛讗讬 讘专 转砖注讛 诇拽诪讗 讛讜讗

However, let her wait only one month and then marry, and then, since it is presumed that a baby born during its eighth month since conception is not viable but a baby born during its seventh or nine month is viable, if after seven months since remarrying she gives birth, then the child is clearly seven months old and is the offspring of the latter husband, and if after eight months since remarrying she gives birth, then this child is clearly nine months old and is the offspring of the first husband. Why, then, is there a need to wait three months?

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇转诪谞讬讗 讬诇讚讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇诪讗 讗讬砖转讛讜讬讬 讗讬砖转讛讗 讞讚砖 讗讞讚 讜讗讬注讘专

The Gemara explains: Even if she gave birth after eight months since remarrying one could say that the child is the offspring of the latter husband, as perhaps she waited one month after remarrying and conceived only then. As such, the baby would be only seven months old, and that would explain its viability.

讜转诪转讬谉 砖谞讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讜转谞砖讗 讚讗讬 诇砖讘注讛 讬诇讚讛 讛讗讬 讘专 砖讘注讛 诇讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇砖讬转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讬诇讚讛 讛讗讬 讘专 转砖注讛 诇拽诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讘专 讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讘专 砖讬转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讞讬讬

The Gemara asks further: But let her wait for two and a half months and then marry, as, if after seven months since remarrying she gives birth, then this child is clearly seven months old and is the offspring of the latter husband. And if after six and a half months since remarrying she gives birth, then this child is clearly nine months old and is the offspring of the first husband, because if one would suggest it is the offspring of the latter husband, in that case it would be six and a half months old, at which age it cannot survive.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇砖讬转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讬诇讚讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬讜诇讚转 诇转砖注讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转 诇诪拽讜讟注讬谉 讬诇讚讛 诇砖讘注讛 讬讜诇讚转 诇诪拽讜讟注讬谉

The Gemara objects: Even if after six and a half months since remarrying she gave birth, one could say that the child is the offspring of the latter husband, as Mar Zutra said: Even according to the one who says that a woman who gives birth after nine months does not give birth after an incomplete number of months, i.e., she carries for a full nine months, nevertheless, a woman who gives birth after seven months can give birth after an incomplete number of months, and therefore it is possible that the baby was actually born after six and a half months.

砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 诇转拽驻讜转 讛讬诪讬诐 诪注讜讟 转拽讜驻讜转 砖转讬诐 诪注讜讟 讬诪讬诐 砖谞讬诐

This fact is derived from the verse concerning the birth of Samuel the prophet, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, when the seasons of the days had come, that Hannah conceived, and bore a son鈥 (I聽Samuel 1:20). How much time is indicated by the phrase 鈥渢he seasons of the days鈥? The minimal sense of the word 鈥渟easons鈥 is two, and since each season of the year is three months, that indicates six months. The minimal sense of the word 鈥渄ays鈥 is two. Accordingly, one may conclude that Samuel the prophet was born after six months and two days.

讜转诪转讬谉 诪砖讛讜 讜转谞砖讗 讜讻讬 诪诇讜 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 诇讘讚拽讛

The Gemara suggests further: But let her wait any minimal amount of time, less than a month, and then marry, and then when three months after the end of her first marriage are complete, examine her body to see if she is noticeably pregnant. If she is, then perforce the baby is the offspring of her previous husband because a pregnancy is not noticeable until three months.

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讛谞砖讜讗讜转 砖诇讗 讬转讙谞讜 注诇 讘注诇讬讛谉 讜谞讘讚拽讛 讘讛诇讜讻讛

Rav Safra said: This solution is not possible because one does not examine the bodies of married women so as not to shame them before their husbands. The Gemara suggests: But let her be examined through the way she walks, since after three months a pregnant woman walks differently than a woman who is not pregnant.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗砖讛 诪讞驻讛 注爪诪讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讬专砖 讘谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛

Rami bar 岣ma said: A woman who conceived from her previous husband would mask herself by purposefully walking in a manner in which her pregnancy will not be discerned, so that her child will be identified as the son of her new husband in order that her child will ultimately inherit her new husband鈥檚 property. Therefore, it is impossible to rely upon a test of this kind. In summary, the Gemara has demonstrated that it would be ineffective to wait any less than three months.

讛讬讻讗 讚拽讬诐 诇谉 讚诪注讜讘专转 讛讬讗 转谞砖讗 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪注讜讘专转 讞讘专讜 讜诪讬谞拽转 讞讘专讜 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讜诇诪讬转

搂 The Gemara asks: In cases where we are convinced that she is pregnant, let her marry immediately, as the reason to wait three months does not apply. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: A man may not marry a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man, nor a woman who is nursing the child of another man; and if he transgressed and married her, he is penalized for violating the prohibition, and he must divorce her and may never take her back?

讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讜讘专讛 住谞讚诇 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬

The Gemara explains: This prohibition is a rabbinic decree lest she become pregnant a second time and her original fetus will be deformed into the shape of a sandal fish. The Gemara asks: If so, even if his wife is pregnant with his own child, the same concern applies.

讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讜讱 讘诪讜讱 讜讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜

The Gemara responds: She is permitted to engage in relations, both if one holds in accordance with the one who said that a young girl, for whom it is dangerous to become pregnant, is permitted to engage in relations using a contraceptive resorbent placed at the entrance to her womb, then also a woman pregnant with her husband鈥檚 child may engage in relations using a resorbent, and similarly if one holds in accordance with the one who said a young girl is permitted to engage in relations in her usual manner and Heaven will have mercy upon her and prevent any mishap, then in this case as well a pregnant woman should continue to engage in relations and Heaven will have mercy upon her.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讜讱 讘诪讜讱 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜

The Gemara objects: But here, too, in the case of a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man, these solutions could be employed: Both if one holds in accordance with the one who says that a young girl may engage in relations using a resorbent, in this case as well she may do so using a resorbent, and similarly if one holds in accordance with the one who says that Heaven will have mercy upon her, in this case as well Heaven will have mercy upon her.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞住讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讞讬讬住 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讬讬住 注讬诇讜讬讛

The Gemara suggests a different reason for the prohibition against marrying a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man: Rather, it is due to the damage that could be caused to the fetus by the pressure applied to it at the time of intercourse. The Gemara asks: If so, even if his wife his pregnant with his own child, the same concern applies. The Gemara explains: When it is his own child, he has mercy upon it and tries not to apply too much pressure. The Gemara asks: But here, too, when it is the child of another man, he will have mercy upon it, as certainly one is careful not to cause harm to any human life and will be careful not to press down too hard.

讗诇讗 住转诐 诪注讜讘专转 诇诪谞讬拽讛 拽讬讬诪讗

The Gemara suggests a different reason: Rather, the reason for the prohibition is that a typical pregnant woman is poised to nurse her child once it is born;

讚诇诪讗 讗讬注讘专讛 讜诪注讻专 讞诇讘讛 讜拽讟诇讛 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讚讬讚讬讛 诪诪住诪住讗 诇讬讛 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讜讞诇讘 讚讬讚讛 谞诪讬 诪诪住诪住讗 诇讬讛 讘讘爪讬诐 讜讞诇讘 诇讗 讬讛讘 诇讛 讘注诇 讜诇讬转讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讬讜专砖讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗砖讛 讘讜砖讛 诇讘讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛讜专讙转 讗转 讘谞讛

therefore, one should be concerned that perhaps she will become pregnant and her milk will dry up during pregnancy, and the lack of milk will kill her newborn child. The Gemara asks: If so, even if his wife is pregnant with his own child, the same concern applies. The Gemara explains: For his own child, she will feed [memasmesa] him with eggs and milk as a substitute for the mother鈥檚 milk. The Gemara asks: Even if the child is not his, it is still the mother鈥檚 child, and for her child she will also feed him with eggs and milk. The Gemara answers: The husband will not give her money to procure food for a child that is not his. The Gemara asks: But she could sue her first husband鈥檚 heirs to provide subsistence for the child. Abaye said: A woman is embarrassed to come to court, and therefore she will not obtain enough sustenance for him. Consequently, she effectively kills her son as a result.

讗讞转 讘转讜诇讜转 讜讗讞转 讘注讜诇讜转 讛讬 谞讬讛讜 讘转讜诇讜转 讜讛讬 谞讬讛讜 讗专讜住讜转 讛讬 谞讬讛讜 讘注讜诇讜转 讜讛讬 谞讬讛讜 谞砖讜讗讜转

搂 The mishna states: The requirement to wait three months before remarrying applies both to virgins and non-virgins, both to divorc茅es and to widows, and both to women who were married to their previous husbands and to women who were only betrothed. The Gemara asks: Which women are referred to as virgins and which are referred to as those who were betrothed? Although the two terms appear to be synonymous, since a virgin will be subject to levirate marriage only if she was betrothed, they must certainly refer to two different categories of women. Similarly, which women are referred to as non-virgins and which are referred to as married, as a married woman is always considered to be a non-virgin?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞转 讘转讜诇讜转 讜讗讞转 讘注讜诇讜转 砖谞转讗专诪诇讜 讗讜 砖谞转讙专砖讜 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda said this is what the mishna is saying: The requirement to wait applies to both virgins and non-virgins who were widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or from marriage, i.e., the mishna does not list different categories of women but instead establishes a general principle.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 注诇 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar did not enter the study hall one day. He found Rabbi Asi and said to him: What was said by the Sages in the study hall today? He said to him: This is what Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a woman is permitted to be betrothed even before three months have passed, since the reason for waiting does not apply in that case.

诪讻诇诇 讚讬讞讬讚讗讛 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬转讛 专讚讜驻讛 诇讬诇讱 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 诇讛 讻注住 讘讘讬转 讘注诇讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讛讬讗 讞讜诇讛

Rabbi Elazar said: From the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan needed to state this, it would seem that there is an individual opinion that disagrees with him, even though no such opinion is mentioned in the mishna. Rabbi Asi answered: Yes, that is correct, and so it is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (Yevamot 6:6): With regard to a woman who is certainly not pregnant, for example, a woman who, at the time of her husband鈥檚 death, had not lived with her husband for some time because she always eagerly hurried, like one pursued, to go to her father鈥檚 house, or because she had been subject to anger in her husband鈥檚 house, or because her husband had been incarcerated in prison, or because her husband was elderly or infirm, or because she was infirm.

讗讜 砖讛驻讬诇讛 讗讞专 诪讬转转 讘注诇讛 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 注拽专讛 讗讜 讝拽谞讛 讗讜 拽讟谞讛 讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讬诇讚 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 诇讬讗专住 讜诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚

Or a woman who could not be pregnant because she miscarried after her husband鈥檚 death, or because she was barren, or elderly, or a minor, or a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], or if for some other reason she was unsuited to give birth; even though the reason for the decree to wait three months does not apply to such a woman, nevertheless, she must wait three months. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda permits such women to be betrothed or to marry immediately. It is apparent from the baraita that the question of whether a woman is required to wait the three months when the reason to do so does not apply is subject to a dispute.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讻专诪讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 砖诪注转讬 诪驻讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻专诐 讘讬讘谞讛 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

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yo岣nan retracted his statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Yosef said: Even if he wanted to retract his statement, would he retract from the baraita that records the opinions of the Sages of the vineyard of Yavne? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, said: I heard from the mouth of the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne that all those women enumerated in the baraita above need to wait three months. If the great Sages of Yavne held in accordance with the opinion Rabbi Yosei, then the halakha is certainly in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讻讬 注讬讬诇转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 专诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诇讗 讬谞砖讗讜 讜诇讗 讬转讗专住讜 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讛诐 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讗讞转 讘转讜诇讜转 讜讗讞转 讘注讜诇讜转

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zerika: When you come before Rabbi Abbahu, raise the following contradiction: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the halakha is always established in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna? And we learned in the mishna an unattributed ruling: All women may not marry and may not be betrothed until they have waited three months since their previous marriage ended; this applies to both virgins and non-virgins.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚专诪讗 诇讱 讛讗 诇讗 讞砖 诇拽诪讞讬讛 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 住转诐 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐

When Rabbi Zerika went and asked, Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The one who raised this contradiction to you is clearly not concerned for his flour; this is a case of an unattributed ruling followed by a dispute on that ruling, and in such cases the halakha is not necessarily in accordance with the unattributed opinion. As Rav Pappa said, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who said the following principle: When the Mishna first records a dispute, and afterward it records only one side of that dispute as an unattributed opinion, then the halakha is in accordance with the unattributed opinion. However, when the Mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward records that the ruling is subject to a dispute, the halakha is not necessarily in accordance with the unattributed opinion. In each case, the later reference is considered to be a summary of the matter.

诪住转诪讬讱 讜讗讝讬诇 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讻转驻讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞讞讜诐 砖诪注讬讛 诪谞拽讬讟 讜讗讝讬诇 讛诇讻转讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 住转诐 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu would walk while leaning upon the shoulder of Rabbi Na岣m, his attendant, and along the way Rabbi Na岣m would walk and gather halakhic rulings from him. Once, Rabbi Na岣m asked him: When the Mishna first records a dispute, and afterward it records only one side of that dispute as an unattributed opinion, what is the halakha? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The halakha is in accordance with the unattributed opinion. Rabbi Na岣m then asked: When the Mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward records that the ruling is subject to a dispute, what is the halakha? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The halakha is not necessarily in accordance with the unattributed opinion.

住转诪讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讘专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜住转诪讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rabbi Na岣m asked: When a ruling is recorded in the Mishna as unattributed and it is subject to a dispute in a baraita, what is the halakha? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The halakha is in accordance with the unattributed opinion in the Mishna. Rabbi Na岣m then asked: When the Mishna records that a matter is subject to a dispute, and only one side is recorded as an unattributed opinion in a baraita, what is the halakha? Rabbi Abbahu said to him:

  • 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: 37-43 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about Inheritance in Jewish Law and how it relates to Yibum. The Gemara will discuss...

Yevamot 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 42

诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

If they performed the 岣litza after three months, she does not need to wait three months and may marry immediately.

讛讜讬 讛砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪砖注转 诪讬转转 讛讘注诇 讜诇讗 诪砖注转 讞诇讬爪转 讛讬讘诐

The Gemara infers from the latter clause of the baraita: It must be that the three months that are stated throughout the baraita are counted from the time of the husband鈥檚 death and not from the time of the 岣litza of the yavam.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讙讟 讚专讘 讗诪专 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from the case of a bill of divorce, where Rav said that the three months are counted from the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and Shmuel said that the count is from the time of the writing of the bill. If a couple is secluded together after the bill of divorce is written, the bill of divorce is invalid. Therefore, there is no concern that they were secluded from that time. This is why Shmuel holds that the three months are counted from the writing. Rav apparently assumes that even so, the count always begins from the formal end of the marriage and not from the point from which there was no possibility of her becoming pregnant. Why, then, does the baraita not rule also in the case when a woman happens for levirate marriage, that the count should begin from the point of 岣litza, since the marriage is only fully severed at that point?

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗讬住讜专 讻专转 讛转专转 讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rava said: With regard to a yevama, all agree that the count begins from the time of her husband鈥檚 death. This can be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: If a prohibition that entails karet, i.e., the prohibition against engaging in relations with one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife in the event she is pregnant and not subject to levirate marriage, you have permitted after three months from the husband鈥檚 death, then in the case of a standard negative prohibition, such as the prohibition against engaging in relations with a woman within three months of the death of her previous husband, is it not all the more so clear that she should be permitted to remarry after three months from her husband鈥檚 death? Therefore, even Rav agrees that in this case, the count begins from the husband鈥檚 death.

讜讻谉 砖讗专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讬讘诪讛 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讗诪讗讬

搂 The mishna states: And similarly, all other women may not be betrothed or marry until they have waited three months. The Gemara asks: Granted, a yevama has to wait, in accordance with the reason that we said, that if she is pregnant with viable offspring, consummating the levirate marriage would violate the prohibition against engaging in relations with one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife. But with regard to all other women, why shouldn鈥檛 they remarry immediately even if they are pregnant?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讛讬讜转 诇讱 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讜诇讝专注讱 讗讞专讬讱 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讝专注讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 诇讝专注讜 砖诇 砖谞讬

Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: It is due to the fact that the verse states with regard to Abraham: 鈥淭o be a God to you and your seed after you鈥 (Genesis 17:7), which indicates that the Divine Presence rests with someone only when his seed can be identified as being descended from him, i.e., there are no uncertainties with regard to their lineage. Therefore, to prevent any uncertainties concerning the lineage of her child, the woman must wait so that it will be possible to distinguish between the seed of the first husband and the seed of the second husband. After three months, if she has conceived from her previous husband, the pregnancy will already be noticeable.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 诇驻讬讻讱 讙专 讜讙讬讜专转 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讗讬讻讗

Rava raised an objection from a baraita: Therefore, on account of the requirement to wait three months, a male convert and a female convert who were originally married to each other and converted need to wait three months before they may remarry following their conversion. Rava asks: Here, in this case, what reason is there to distinguish? Even if they do not wait and she is found to be pregnant, it is clear who the child鈥檚 parents are.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讝专注 砖谞讝专注 讘拽讚讜砖讛 诇讝专注 砖诇讗 谞讝专注 讘拽讚讜砖讛

The Gemara explains: Here, too, there is a need to distinguish between seed that was sown in sanctity, i.e., a child conceived by a Jewish parents, and seed that was not sown in sanctity, i.e., a child conceived by gentile parents.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗讞讜转讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讜讬讬讘诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜

Rava stated a different reason for the need to wait: It is a rabbinic decree lest a child be born and be incorrectly identified as the son of his mother鈥檚 second husband when he is fact the son of her first husband. This could result in him marrying his paternal sister, unaware of the true relationship between them, or consummating a levirate marriage with the wife of his maternal brother under the misconception that his maternal brother was also his paternal brother. This would be prohibited because the prohibition to engage in relations with one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife is waived only in the case where there is a mitzva of levirate marriage, which applies only to paternal brothers.

讜讬讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诪讜 诇砖讜拽 讜讬驻讟讜专 讗转 讬讘诪转讜 诇砖讜拽

Or in the event that his mother鈥檚 second husband died and he was assumed to be his only offspring, he would cause his mother to go out and be permitted to the general public because, under the misconception that he was the offspring of the deceased, he assumed that there was no mitzva of levirate marriage. Or, in the event that his maternal brother died childless and the brother鈥檚 widow became subject to levirate marriage, under the misconception that he was the paternal brother of the deceased he might perform 岣litza and permit his supposed yevama to marry a man from the general public. To avoid these problems, the Sages decreed that a woman must wait before remarrying.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讘讻讜诇谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 注专讜讛 讜讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 讜诇讚 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 注专讜讛

Rav 岣nanya raised an objection from a baraita: In all of those cases where the Sages prohibit a woman from marrying or consummating a levirate marriage, I identify that the prohibition is due to an ordinance instituted to prevent a violation of forbidden relations, and here, with regard to the prohibition against marrying within three months, it is due to an ordinance for the benefit of the offspring. Rav 岣nanya explains the challenge: And if it is so that Rava鈥檚 understanding of the prohibition against marrying within three months is correct, then all of the cases of forbidden marriages are due to an ordinance to prevent violation of forbidden relations. However, the baraita indicates otherwise.

讛讗讬 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 讜诇讚 讚诇讗 诇驻讙注 讘讛讜 注专讜讛

The Gemara defends Rava鈥檚 opinion and explains that the baraita can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with his understanding: When the baraita says that this prohibition is due to an ordinance for the benefit of the offspring, it means that due to the prohibition the offspring will not encounter a prohibition of forbidden relations.

讘砖诇诪讗 转诪转讬谉 砖谞讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讜转谞砖讗 诇讗 讚讛讬讬谞讜 住驻讬拽讗 讗讬 讘专 转砖注讛 诇拽诪讗 讗讬 讘专 砖讘注讛 诇讘转专讗

搂 The Gemara analyzes the prohibition against marrying before three months have passed: Granted, she should not wait for only two months and then marry, as this is still a case that could give rise to an uncertainty whether the child born to her seven months after remarrying is nine months old, i.e., counting from conception, and it is the offspring of the first husband, or whether the child is only seven months old and is the offspring of the latter husband.

讗诇讗 转诪转讬谉 讞讚砖 讗讞讚 讜转谞砖讗 讜讗讬 诇砖讘注讛 讬诇讚讛 讛讗讬 讘专 砖讘注讛 诇讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇转诪谞讬讗 讬诇讚讛 讛讗讬 讘专 转砖注讛 诇拽诪讗 讛讜讗

However, let her wait only one month and then marry, and then, since it is presumed that a baby born during its eighth month since conception is not viable but a baby born during its seventh or nine month is viable, if after seven months since remarrying she gives birth, then the child is clearly seven months old and is the offspring of the latter husband, and if after eight months since remarrying she gives birth, then this child is clearly nine months old and is the offspring of the first husband. Why, then, is there a need to wait three months?

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇转诪谞讬讗 讬诇讚讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇诪讗 讗讬砖转讛讜讬讬 讗讬砖转讛讗 讞讚砖 讗讞讚 讜讗讬注讘专

The Gemara explains: Even if she gave birth after eight months since remarrying one could say that the child is the offspring of the latter husband, as perhaps she waited one month after remarrying and conceived only then. As such, the baby would be only seven months old, and that would explain its viability.

讜转诪转讬谉 砖谞讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讜转谞砖讗 讚讗讬 诇砖讘注讛 讬诇讚讛 讛讗讬 讘专 砖讘注讛 诇讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇砖讬转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讬诇讚讛 讛讗讬 讘专 转砖注讛 诇拽诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讘专 讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讘专 砖讬转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讞讬讬

The Gemara asks further: But let her wait for two and a half months and then marry, as, if after seven months since remarrying she gives birth, then this child is clearly seven months old and is the offspring of the latter husband. And if after six and a half months since remarrying she gives birth, then this child is clearly nine months old and is the offspring of the first husband, because if one would suggest it is the offspring of the latter husband, in that case it would be six and a half months old, at which age it cannot survive.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇砖讬转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讬诇讚讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬讜诇讚转 诇转砖注讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转 诇诪拽讜讟注讬谉 讬诇讚讛 诇砖讘注讛 讬讜诇讚转 诇诪拽讜讟注讬谉

The Gemara objects: Even if after six and a half months since remarrying she gave birth, one could say that the child is the offspring of the latter husband, as Mar Zutra said: Even according to the one who says that a woman who gives birth after nine months does not give birth after an incomplete number of months, i.e., she carries for a full nine months, nevertheless, a woman who gives birth after seven months can give birth after an incomplete number of months, and therefore it is possible that the baby was actually born after six and a half months.

砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 诇转拽驻讜转 讛讬诪讬诐 诪注讜讟 转拽讜驻讜转 砖转讬诐 诪注讜讟 讬诪讬诐 砖谞讬诐

This fact is derived from the verse concerning the birth of Samuel the prophet, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, when the seasons of the days had come, that Hannah conceived, and bore a son鈥 (I聽Samuel 1:20). How much time is indicated by the phrase 鈥渢he seasons of the days鈥? The minimal sense of the word 鈥渟easons鈥 is two, and since each season of the year is three months, that indicates six months. The minimal sense of the word 鈥渄ays鈥 is two. Accordingly, one may conclude that Samuel the prophet was born after six months and two days.

讜转诪转讬谉 诪砖讛讜 讜转谞砖讗 讜讻讬 诪诇讜 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 诇讘讚拽讛

The Gemara suggests further: But let her wait any minimal amount of time, less than a month, and then marry, and then when three months after the end of her first marriage are complete, examine her body to see if she is noticeably pregnant. If she is, then perforce the baby is the offspring of her previous husband because a pregnancy is not noticeable until three months.

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讛谞砖讜讗讜转 砖诇讗 讬转讙谞讜 注诇 讘注诇讬讛谉 讜谞讘讚拽讛 讘讛诇讜讻讛

Rav Safra said: This solution is not possible because one does not examine the bodies of married women so as not to shame them before their husbands. The Gemara suggests: But let her be examined through the way she walks, since after three months a pregnant woman walks differently than a woman who is not pregnant.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗砖讛 诪讞驻讛 注爪诪讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讬专砖 讘谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛

Rami bar 岣ma said: A woman who conceived from her previous husband would mask herself by purposefully walking in a manner in which her pregnancy will not be discerned, so that her child will be identified as the son of her new husband in order that her child will ultimately inherit her new husband鈥檚 property. Therefore, it is impossible to rely upon a test of this kind. In summary, the Gemara has demonstrated that it would be ineffective to wait any less than three months.

讛讬讻讗 讚拽讬诐 诇谉 讚诪注讜讘专转 讛讬讗 转谞砖讗 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪注讜讘专转 讞讘专讜 讜诪讬谞拽转 讞讘专讜 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讜诇诪讬转

搂 The Gemara asks: In cases where we are convinced that she is pregnant, let her marry immediately, as the reason to wait three months does not apply. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: A man may not marry a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man, nor a woman who is nursing the child of another man; and if he transgressed and married her, he is penalized for violating the prohibition, and he must divorce her and may never take her back?

讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讜讘专讛 住谞讚诇 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬

The Gemara explains: This prohibition is a rabbinic decree lest she become pregnant a second time and her original fetus will be deformed into the shape of a sandal fish. The Gemara asks: If so, even if his wife is pregnant with his own child, the same concern applies.

讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讜讱 讘诪讜讱 讜讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜

The Gemara responds: She is permitted to engage in relations, both if one holds in accordance with the one who said that a young girl, for whom it is dangerous to become pregnant, is permitted to engage in relations using a contraceptive resorbent placed at the entrance to her womb, then also a woman pregnant with her husband鈥檚 child may engage in relations using a resorbent, and similarly if one holds in accordance with the one who said a young girl is permitted to engage in relations in her usual manner and Heaven will have mercy upon her and prevent any mishap, then in this case as well a pregnant woman should continue to engage in relations and Heaven will have mercy upon her.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讜讱 讘诪讜讱 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜

The Gemara objects: But here, too, in the case of a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man, these solutions could be employed: Both if one holds in accordance with the one who says that a young girl may engage in relations using a resorbent, in this case as well she may do so using a resorbent, and similarly if one holds in accordance with the one who says that Heaven will have mercy upon her, in this case as well Heaven will have mercy upon her.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞住讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讞讬讬住 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讬讬住 注讬诇讜讬讛

The Gemara suggests a different reason for the prohibition against marrying a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man: Rather, it is due to the damage that could be caused to the fetus by the pressure applied to it at the time of intercourse. The Gemara asks: If so, even if his wife his pregnant with his own child, the same concern applies. The Gemara explains: When it is his own child, he has mercy upon it and tries not to apply too much pressure. The Gemara asks: But here, too, when it is the child of another man, he will have mercy upon it, as certainly one is careful not to cause harm to any human life and will be careful not to press down too hard.

讗诇讗 住转诐 诪注讜讘专转 诇诪谞讬拽讛 拽讬讬诪讗

The Gemara suggests a different reason: Rather, the reason for the prohibition is that a typical pregnant woman is poised to nurse her child once it is born;

讚诇诪讗 讗讬注讘专讛 讜诪注讻专 讞诇讘讛 讜拽讟诇讛 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讚讬讚讬讛 诪诪住诪住讗 诇讬讛 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讜讞诇讘 讚讬讚讛 谞诪讬 诪诪住诪住讗 诇讬讛 讘讘爪讬诐 讜讞诇讘 诇讗 讬讛讘 诇讛 讘注诇 讜诇讬转讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讬讜专砖讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗砖讛 讘讜砖讛 诇讘讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛讜专讙转 讗转 讘谞讛

therefore, one should be concerned that perhaps she will become pregnant and her milk will dry up during pregnancy, and the lack of milk will kill her newborn child. The Gemara asks: If so, even if his wife is pregnant with his own child, the same concern applies. The Gemara explains: For his own child, she will feed [memasmesa] him with eggs and milk as a substitute for the mother鈥檚 milk. The Gemara asks: Even if the child is not his, it is still the mother鈥檚 child, and for her child she will also feed him with eggs and milk. The Gemara answers: The husband will not give her money to procure food for a child that is not his. The Gemara asks: But she could sue her first husband鈥檚 heirs to provide subsistence for the child. Abaye said: A woman is embarrassed to come to court, and therefore she will not obtain enough sustenance for him. Consequently, she effectively kills her son as a result.

讗讞转 讘转讜诇讜转 讜讗讞转 讘注讜诇讜转 讛讬 谞讬讛讜 讘转讜诇讜转 讜讛讬 谞讬讛讜 讗专讜住讜转 讛讬 谞讬讛讜 讘注讜诇讜转 讜讛讬 谞讬讛讜 谞砖讜讗讜转

搂 The mishna states: The requirement to wait three months before remarrying applies both to virgins and non-virgins, both to divorc茅es and to widows, and both to women who were married to their previous husbands and to women who were only betrothed. The Gemara asks: Which women are referred to as virgins and which are referred to as those who were betrothed? Although the two terms appear to be synonymous, since a virgin will be subject to levirate marriage only if she was betrothed, they must certainly refer to two different categories of women. Similarly, which women are referred to as non-virgins and which are referred to as married, as a married woman is always considered to be a non-virgin?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞转 讘转讜诇讜转 讜讗讞转 讘注讜诇讜转 砖谞转讗专诪诇讜 讗讜 砖谞转讙专砖讜 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda said this is what the mishna is saying: The requirement to wait applies to both virgins and non-virgins who were widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or from marriage, i.e., the mishna does not list different categories of women but instead establishes a general principle.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 注诇 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar did not enter the study hall one day. He found Rabbi Asi and said to him: What was said by the Sages in the study hall today? He said to him: This is what Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a woman is permitted to be betrothed even before three months have passed, since the reason for waiting does not apply in that case.

诪讻诇诇 讚讬讞讬讚讗讛 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬转讛 专讚讜驻讛 诇讬诇讱 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 诇讛 讻注住 讘讘讬转 讘注诇讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讛讬讗 讞讜诇讛

Rabbi Elazar said: From the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan needed to state this, it would seem that there is an individual opinion that disagrees with him, even though no such opinion is mentioned in the mishna. Rabbi Asi answered: Yes, that is correct, and so it is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (Yevamot 6:6): With regard to a woman who is certainly not pregnant, for example, a woman who, at the time of her husband鈥檚 death, had not lived with her husband for some time because she always eagerly hurried, like one pursued, to go to her father鈥檚 house, or because she had been subject to anger in her husband鈥檚 house, or because her husband had been incarcerated in prison, or because her husband was elderly or infirm, or because she was infirm.

讗讜 砖讛驻讬诇讛 讗讞专 诪讬转转 讘注诇讛 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 注拽专讛 讗讜 讝拽谞讛 讗讜 拽讟谞讛 讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讬诇讚 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 诇讬讗专住 讜诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚

Or a woman who could not be pregnant because she miscarried after her husband鈥檚 death, or because she was barren, or elderly, or a minor, or a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], or if for some other reason she was unsuited to give birth; even though the reason for the decree to wait three months does not apply to such a woman, nevertheless, she must wait three months. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda permits such women to be betrothed or to marry immediately. It is apparent from the baraita that the question of whether a woman is required to wait the three months when the reason to do so does not apply is subject to a dispute.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讻专诪讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 砖诪注转讬 诪驻讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻专诐 讘讬讘谞讛 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

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yo岣nan retracted his statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Yosef said: Even if he wanted to retract his statement, would he retract from the baraita that records the opinions of the Sages of the vineyard of Yavne? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, said: I heard from the mouth of the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne that all those women enumerated in the baraita above need to wait three months. If the great Sages of Yavne held in accordance with the opinion Rabbi Yosei, then the halakha is certainly in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讻讬 注讬讬诇转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 专诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诇讗 讬谞砖讗讜 讜诇讗 讬转讗专住讜 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讛诐 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讗讞转 讘转讜诇讜转 讜讗讞转 讘注讜诇讜转

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zerika: When you come before Rabbi Abbahu, raise the following contradiction: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the halakha is always established in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna? And we learned in the mishna an unattributed ruling: All women may not marry and may not be betrothed until they have waited three months since their previous marriage ended; this applies to both virgins and non-virgins.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚专诪讗 诇讱 讛讗 诇讗 讞砖 诇拽诪讞讬讛 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 住转诐 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐

When Rabbi Zerika went and asked, Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The one who raised this contradiction to you is clearly not concerned for his flour; this is a case of an unattributed ruling followed by a dispute on that ruling, and in such cases the halakha is not necessarily in accordance with the unattributed opinion. As Rav Pappa said, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who said the following principle: When the Mishna first records a dispute, and afterward it records only one side of that dispute as an unattributed opinion, then the halakha is in accordance with the unattributed opinion. However, when the Mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward records that the ruling is subject to a dispute, the halakha is not necessarily in accordance with the unattributed opinion. In each case, the later reference is considered to be a summary of the matter.

诪住转诪讬讱 讜讗讝讬诇 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讻转驻讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞讞讜诐 砖诪注讬讛 诪谞拽讬讟 讜讗讝讬诇 讛诇讻转讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 住转诐 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu would walk while leaning upon the shoulder of Rabbi Na岣m, his attendant, and along the way Rabbi Na岣m would walk and gather halakhic rulings from him. Once, Rabbi Na岣m asked him: When the Mishna first records a dispute, and afterward it records only one side of that dispute as an unattributed opinion, what is the halakha? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The halakha is in accordance with the unattributed opinion. Rabbi Na岣m then asked: When the Mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward records that the ruling is subject to a dispute, what is the halakha? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The halakha is not necessarily in accordance with the unattributed opinion.

住转诪讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讘专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜住转诪讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rabbi Na岣m asked: When a ruling is recorded in the Mishna as unattributed and it is subject to a dispute in a baraita, what is the halakha? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The halakha is in accordance with the unattributed opinion in the Mishna. Rabbi Na岣m then asked: When the Mishna records that a matter is subject to a dispute, and only one side is recorded as an unattributed opinion in a baraita, what is the halakha? Rabbi Abbahu said to him:

Scroll To Top