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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 19, 2022 | 讬状讞 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 43

Rabbi Avahu said that whenever there is a Mishna with an unattributed opinion and the same topic has a debate in a braita, we hold by the Mishna. A difficulty is raised against this from an unattributed opinion in a Mishna in Kelim 13:8 and it is a source of debate in a braita and yet, we do not hold like the Mishna. Rabbi Avahu answered that this Mishna was an exception to the rule as Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both held that the Mishna itself was inaccurate. What about the Mishna was inaccurate? The Gemara suggests a number of possibilities until it found an answer that worked 鈥 that the Mishna actually ended with the words 鈥渢his is Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion鈥 and therefore was not an unattributed Mishna. There are varying opinions regarding exactly how long the waiting period is for a woman to get betrothed? Does one need three full months or can it be two and a half? If three full months are needed, is the day of death/day of the bethrothal included in the count? Rabbi Yosi said in the Mishna that a widow cannot get engaged immediately because she needs to mourn. A difficulty is raised from laws of Tisha B鈥檃v and the days leading up to it as laws of mourning are in effect and yet one can get betrothed. A number of solutions are suggested, some of which emend the text of the Mishna. However, questions are raised against the second emendation of the text. And ultimately all the answers brought are rejected and the difficulty from Tisha B鈥檃v is answered by saying there is a tannaitic debate and each source holds by a different opinion. Rav Ashi raises a question on this answer as well and responds by distinguishing between mourning on Tisha B鈥檃v and mourning for a dead relative as they are not the same type of mourning.

讜讻讬 专讘讬 诇讗 砖谞讗讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讜

If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had not taught that ruling in the Mishna, from where would Rabbi 岣yya, his disciple and redactor of the baraitot, have known it? Since the source of the unattributed ruling in the baraita is certainly the dispute recorded in the mishna, its lack of attribution in the baraita only reflects the fact that Rabbi 岣yya ruled in accordance with that opinion, but that cannot be used to indicate that it is the accepted halakha.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 转谞谉 诪住专拽 砖诇 驻砖转谉 砖谞讬讟诇讜 砖讬谞讬讜 讜谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 砖转讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讜讗讞转 讟讛讜专讛 讜讻讜诇谉 砖谞讬讟诇讜 讗讞转 讗讞转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讟诪讗讜转

Rabbi Na岣m questioned the principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed ruling in a mishna and said to Rabbi 岣yya: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Kelim 13:8): A comb made for combing beaten flax in preparation for spinning, from which its teeth were removed and only two of its teeth remained in it, is still suitable for combing. It is therefore considered a utensil and will become ritually impure if it comes in contact with ritual impurity. However, if only one tooth remained, so that the comb was no longer suitable for combing, it is no longer considered a utensil and so will remain ritually pure even if it comes in contact with ritual impurity. And with regard to any of the teeth that were individually removed on their own, since they do serve a purpose, e.g., they may be embedded and used as hooks, they are considered utensils and can become ritually impure.

砖诇 爪诪专 砖谞讬讟诇讜 砖讬谞讬讜 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讟讛讜专 谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 砖诇砖 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讛讬转讛 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讟讛讜专 谞讬讟诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 诇诪诇拽讟 讟诪讗讜转 讗讞转 讜讛转拽讬谞讛 诇谞专 讗讜 诇诪讬转讜讞 讟诪讗讛

A comb made for combing wool from which every other one of its teeth were removed, so that no two consecutive teeth remained in place, is no longer suitable for combing and so will remain ritually pure. If three teeth remained in it in a single place so that it could still be used for combing, then it could become ritually impure. However, if one of those teeth was the external frame of the comb itself, then it could not function as a comb, and so it will remain ritually pure. If two of the teeth were removed and made into small pincers, then they could become ritually impure. Alternatively, if one of the teeth was removed, and it was prepared in a manner that made it suitable for use in cleaning an oil lamp or for stretching ropes, then it would be considered a utensil and could become ritually impure.

讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讛 诪砖谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

Rabbi Na岣m posed his question: But we maintain that the halakha is not in accordance with that mishna. This would seem to contradict the principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed opinion. Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Na岣m that the principle applies to all cases apart from this mishna, as with regard to this particular mishna there are Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish who both say: This is not an authoritative mishna, and so it cannot be relied upon for a halakhic ruling.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 诇住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖诇 爪诪专 砖谞讬讟诇讜 砖讬谞讬讜 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讟讛讜专 讛讗 谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 砖转讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 砖诇砖 讟诪讗 砖诇砖 讗讬谉 砖转讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara asks: What is the reason to say that the mishna is not authoritative? Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 said in the name of Rav Idi, son of Rav Ika: It is because the first clause of that mishna contradicts the latter clause, as it teaches: A comb used for wool from which every other one of its teeth were removed is no longer considered a utensil, and so it will remain ritually pure. This implies that were two teeth to remain in it in one place, it could become ritually impure. And then the mishna continues and teaches: If three teeth remained in it in a single place it is still considered a utensil and so it could become ritually impure. This indicates that if there are three, yes, it could become ritually impure, but if there are two, no, it would not become ritually impure.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讘讙讜讜讬讬转讗 讛讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: But what is the difficulty? Perhaps this ruling that if two teeth remain it is considered a utensil is referring to the internal teeth, found in the middle of the frame, while that ruling that it is not considered a utensil is referring to the outer teeth, which are adjacent to the frame of the comb, which makes them unsuitable for use.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讻讜诇谉 砖谞讬讟诇讜 讗讞转 讗讞转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讟诪讗讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛转拽讬谞讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讞转 讜讛转拽讬谞讛 诇谞专 讗讜 诇诪讬转讜讞 讟诪讗讛 讛转拽讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛转拽讬谞讛 诇讗

Rather, the difficulty with the mishna is from here, as it teaches: And any of the teeth that were individually removed on their own, since they can serve a useful purpose they are considered utensils and can become ritually impure. And the implication is that this is true even though the tooth was not prepared for that purpose. But say the latter clause as follows: If one of the teeth was removed, and it was prepared in a manner that rendered it suitable for use in cleaning an oil lamp or for stretching ropes, then it would be considered a utensil and could become ritually impure. The implication is that if it was prepared for use, then yes, it would be considered a utensil, but if it was not prepared for use, then no, it would not be considered a utensil.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讘拽转讬讬讛讜 讛讗 讘诇讗 拽转讬讬讛讜

Abaye said: But what is the difficulty? Perhaps this ruling, that further preparation is not required before it is considered a utensil, is referring to a case where the teeth were removed with their base, which allows them to be used immediately for various functions, whereas that ruling, that it is considered a utensil only once it is prepared for use, is referring to a case where the teeth were removed without their base and therefore require further preparation before they can be used.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讘拽讟讬谞转讗 讛讗 讘讗诇讬诪转讗

Rav Pappa stated an alternative resolution: But what is the difficulty? Perhaps this ruling that further preparation is not required is referring to a case where the teeth were narrow, whereas that ruling that it is considered a utensil only once it is prepared for use is referring to a case where the teeth were thick.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪住讬讬诪讬 讘讛 讚讜讜拽谞讬 讝讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rather, the reason that the mishna is not accepted as authoritative is not due to some difficulty in the formulation of the mishna, but because those who are exact in their rendition of the tradition conclude this mishna with: This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. In other words, this mishna is not unattributed but presents the minority opinion of a single Sage, and it is for this reason that it is not accepted as authoritative.

砖诇讞 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪讗专住讬谉 转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 讜讻谉 注讜砖讬诐 诪注砖讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin sent a message from Eretz Yisrael with regard to the halakha cited in the mishna: One may betroth a woman, but not marry her, within three months of her previous marriage; and so one acts in practice.

讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪诇诪讚谞讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讙讚讜诇 专讜讘讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜专讜讘讜 砖诇 砖诇讬砖讬 讜讗诪爪注讬 砖诇诐

And so Rabbi Elazar would teach us in the name of Rabbi 岣nina the Great that the three months are counted as follows: One counts the majority of the days of the first month, and the majority of the third month, and the entire middle month.

讗诪讬诪专 砖专讗 诇讬讗专住 讘讬讜诐 转砖注讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讜讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞转讗专住讛 讘讜 讛讛讜讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪讬谞拽转 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 讜讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞转讗专住讛 讘讜

Ameimar permitted one to betroth a woman on the ninetieth day itself. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Didn鈥檛 Rav and Shmuel both say that she needs to wait three full months, excluding the day on which the husband died and excluding the day on which she is betrothed? It is apparent that it is still prohibited to betroth a woman on the ninetieth day itself. Ameimar said to him: That which you heard, that the days of the husband鈥檚 death and of the betrothal are not included, was stated only with regard to a nursing woman, as it was Rav and Shmuel who both said: A nursing woman needs to wait twenty-four months before being betrothed, excluding the day on which the baby was born and excluding the day on which she is betrothed.

讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 住注讜讚转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬讜诐 转砖注讬诐 讜讗驻住讚讬讛 专讘讗 诇住注讜讚转讬讛 讛讛讬讗 住注讜讚转 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛讜讗讬

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 there an incident concerning a certain person who prepared a betrothal feast on the ninetieth day following the death of the woman鈥檚 first husband, and Rava caused him to forfeit his feast by prohibiting the betrothal on that day? The Gemara answers: That feast was actually a marriage feast, but had it been a betrothal feast it would have been permitted.

讜讛诇讻转讗 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讜讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 讜讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞转讗专住讛 讘讜 讜爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讜讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞转讗专住讛 讘讜

The Gemara summarizes: The halakha is that a nursing mother needs to wait twenty-four months, excluding the day on which the baby was born and excluding the day on which she is betrothed. And if she was widowed but was not nursing, then she needs to wait only three months, excluding the day on which her previous husband died and excluding the day on which she is betrothed.

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗住讜专 诇讻讘住 诪讜转专 诇讬讗专住 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜转专 诇讻讘住 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜转专 诇讬讗专住

搂 The mishna states that Rabbi Yosei says: All women may be betrothed within three months except for a widow, due to the mourning period she must observe for her deceased husband. Rav 岣sda questioned the mishna鈥檚 ruling and said: Based on an a fortiori inference, it should be permitted for a woman to be betrothed during the thirty-day mourning period for her husband: If during another period of mourning, which the Gemara will specify, when it is prohibited to launder clothes, it is permitted to be betrothed, then during the thirty-day morning period for a husband, when it is permitted to launder clothes, isn鈥檛 it logical that it should also be permitted to be betrothed?

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖讘转 砖讞诇 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘转讜讻讛 讗住讜专 诇住驻专 讜诇讻讘住 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诪讜转专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转 讜转谞讬讗 拽讜讚诐 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讛注诐 诪诪注讟讬谉 讘注住拽讬讛诐 诪诇讬砖讗 讜诪诇讬转谉 诪诇讘谞讜转 讜诇谞讟讜注 讜诪讗专住讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讻讜谞住讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住注讜讚转 讗讬专讜住讬谉

The Gemara explains the cases involved: What is the period of mourning to which Rav 岣sda is referring? As we learned in a mishna (Ta鈥檃nit 26b): During the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs, it is prohibited to cut hair and to launder clothes, but on Thursday it is permitted in deference to Shabbat. And it is taught in a baraita: Prior to this time the public reduce their activities, refraining from business transactions, from building and planting, and they may betroth women but may not marry them, and they may not make a betrothal feast. The Gemara assumes that the baraita is referring to the days immediately preceding the Ninth of Av. Accordingly, during the days prior to the Ninth of Av it is prohibited to launder clothes, but it is permitted to be betrothed. It was upon this period of time that Rav 岣sda based his a fortiori inference.

讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 拽讜讚诐 讚拽讜讚诐 (转谞讬讗)

To defend Rav Yosei鈥檚 ruling in the mishna, the Gemara explains: When that baraita is taught, it is taught with regard to the period prior to the period that is prior to the Ninth of Av, i.e., the days prior to the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs. It is only then that it is permitted to be betrothed, but during the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs it is prohibited. Therefore, the basis of Rav 岣sda鈥檚 a fortiori inference is undermined.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜拽讜讚诐 讚拽讜讚诐 谞诪讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗住讜专 诇讬砖讗 讜诇讬转谉 诪讜转专 诇讬讗专住 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜转专 诇讬砖讗 讜诇讬转谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜转专 诇讬讗专住

Rava said: From the period prior to the period that is prior to the Ninth of Av, a challenge to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 ruling can also be advanced based on an a fortiori inference, as follows: If in a period of mourning when it is prohibited to conduct business transactions, it is permitted to be betrothed, then during the thirty-day morning period for a husband, when it is permitted to conduct business transactions, isn鈥檛 it logical that it should also be permitted to be betrothed?

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬转讗专住讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬谞砖讗讜

The Gemara accepts the conclusion of this a fortiori inference and therefore concludes: Do not say that Rabbi Yosei says: All women may be betrothed within three months; rather, emend his statement to say: All women may be married within three months except for a widow. However, even Rabbi Yosei agrees that it is permitted for a widow to be betrothed during this period.

讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讛讘讞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yosei not accept that there is a decree to wait three months in order to distinguish between the seed of the first and second husbands? According to the Gemara鈥檚 emendation of his statement, it would appear there is no case in which Rabbi Yosei applies the decree.

诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗专讜住讜转 讙专讜砖讜转 讬谞砖讗讜

The Gemara answers: Indeed, he does not accept the decree. And if you wish, say that actually, he does accept the decree and applies it in the case of a married woman who was divorced. And with regard to the challenge to his opinion from the a fortiori inference, emend the mishna and say: Rabbi Yosei says that all women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may be married within three months, since the reason to wait does not apply in this case.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞砖讜讗讛 诇讬讗专住 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 谞砖讜讗讛 诪讜转专转 诇讬讗专住 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 谞砖讜讗讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讗专住

The Gemara asks: If so, then this opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. What difference is there between them? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the case of a woman who was married to her previous husband and seeks to be betrothed. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is permitted to betroth a woman who was married to her previous husband without first waiting three months. And Rabbi Yosei holds that it is prohibited to betroth a woman who was married to her previous husband without first waiting three months.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞砖讜讗讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讗专住 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬转讗专住讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗诇诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讗讬讘讜诇 讜讻诪讛 讗讬讘讜诇 砖诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讬谞砖讗讜 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yosei really hold that it is prohibited to betroth a woman who was married to her previous husband without first waiting three months? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says that all women may be betrothed without waiting except for a widow, due to the mourning period she must observe for her deceased husband; and how long is her mourning period? It is thirty days. And none of them may be married until they have waited three months.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬转讗专住讜 诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘讗专讜住讜转 讙专讜砖讜转 讬谞砖讗讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇 讗专讜住讜转 讙专讜砖讜转 讬谞砖讗讜

The Gemara clarifies the question: What difficulty does this baraita pose? If we say that the baraita teaches: Rabbi Yosei says that all women may be betrothed without waiting, is the baraita stronger than the mishna that was established as teaching that women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may be married within three months? Here, too, the baraita could be established as teaching that all women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may be married within three months.

讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讬谞砖讗讜 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讗讬谞住讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讗讬转专讜住讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rather, the difficulty arises from the latter clause that teaches: And none of them may marry until they have waited three months. This implies that Rabbi Yosei holds that it is specifically marrying that is not permitted, but betrothing seems well and is permitted. This challenges the Gemara鈥檚 original claim that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda on this point.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转专讬抓 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗专讜住讜转 讙专讜砖讜转 讬谞砖讗讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗诇诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讗讬讘讜诇 讜讻诪讛 讗讬讘讜诇 砖诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讗 讬转讗专住讜 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

Rava said: Resolve the difficulty and emend Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement to say this: Rabbi Yosei says that all women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may marry within three months except for a widow, due to the mourning period she must observe for her deceased husband. And how long is her mourning period? It is thirty days. And women who were married to their previous husbands may not be betrothed until they have waited three months.

讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讗讬讘讜诇 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 诇讗 讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞谞转 讜诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗讛 诇讜 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 诪转 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

The Gemara asks: But does a woman who became a widow from betrothal have to observe a mourning period for her husband? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Ami teach in a baraita: If one鈥檚 wife to whom he was betrothed died, he does not observe a period of acute mourning for her, and if he is a priest he is not permitted to become ritually impure for her. And similarly, if he dies, she does not observe a period of acute mourning for him and she does not become ritually impure for him. If she dies, he does not inherit from her. If he dies, she collects payment of her marriage contract. The baraita demonstrates that a widow is required to mourn her husband only if she was married to him and not merely betrothed. If so, clearly Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 ruling in the mishna is referring to married women. Accordingly, all of the Gemara鈥檚 emendations of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement, in order to defend his statement from Rav 岣sda鈥檚 a fortiori inference, are refuted.

讗诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪专讗砖 讞讚砖 讜注讚 讛转注谞讬转 讛注诐 诪诪注讟讬谉 诪注住拽讬讛谉 诪诇讬砖讗 讜诪诇讬转谉 诪诇讘谞讜转 讜诇谞讟讜注 讜诪诇讬讗专住 讜诪诇讬砖讗 砖讘转 砖讞诇 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘转讜讻讛 讗住讜专 诇住驻专 讜诇讻讘住 (讜讗住讜专 诇讬讗专住) 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛讞讚砖 讗住讜专

Rather, it must be that the question of whether it is permitted to betroth a woman during the period prior to the week of the Ninth of Av is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: From the New Moon of Av and until the fast on the ninth, the public reduces its activities, refraining from business transactions, from building and planting, and from betrothing and marrying. During the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs, it is prohibited to cut hair and to launder clothes, and it is prohibited to be betrothed. And some say: It is prohibited for the entire month. The Gemara鈥檚 challenge to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion that it is prohibited for a widow to be betrothed during her mourning period was based on an a fortiori inference that assumes that it is permitted to be betrothed during the mourning period preceding the week of the Ninth of Av. However, since this ruling is subject to a dispute, Rabbi Yosei could reject the a fortiori inference by stating that he holds in accordance with the opinion that it is in fact prohibited to be betrothed during that period.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇讬讗专住 诇讬讗专住 诪诪砖 讚诇诪讗 诇诪讬注讘讚 住注讜讚转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 诇讬讗专住 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: From where is it known that when the baraita prohibits one to be betrothed, it is referring to actually betrothing? Perhaps it is only to make a betrothal feast that is prohibited, but merely to be betrothed seems well and is permitted.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诇讬砖讗 诇讬谞砖讗 谞诪讬 诇诪讬注讘讚 住注讜讚转 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讘诇讗 住注讜讚讛 讗讬讻讗 砖诪讞讛 讗诇讗 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘诇讗 住注讜讚讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 砖诪讞讛

The Gemara questions Rav Ashi鈥檚 objection: If so, then with regard to the prohibition against marrying as well one could make the same claim: With regard to the prohibition to marry, too, it is only to make a marriage feast that is prohibited, but merely to marry seems well and is permitted. The Gemara rejects its question: How can these cases be compared? Granted, from a marriage, even without a feast, there is joy, but from a betrothal without a feast, is there any joy? It is merely a legal ceremony.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖讗谞讬 讗讘讬诇讜转 讞讚砖讛 诪讗讘讬诇讜转 讬砖谞讛 讜砖讗谞讬 讗讘讬诇讜转 讚专讘讬诐 诪讗讘讬诇讜转 讚讬讞讬讚

Rather, Rav Ashi stated a different resolution of Rav Yosei鈥檚 opinion: New mourning, i.e., the mourning for a relative who has just passed away, is different from old mourning, i.e., the mourning over historic events such as the destruction of the Temple, and it is appropriate to be more lenient in the latter. And the mourning of the public is different from the private mourning of the individual, and it is appropriate to be more stringent in the latter. As such, it is not possible to form an a fortiori inference from the halakhot of mourning for the Temple to those of a wife mourning for her husband.

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗专讘注 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛诐 诇讬讬讘诐 讗转 讻讜诇谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜

MISHNA: In a case of four brothers married to four women and some of the brothers died childless, their wives thereby become yevamot. If the eldest of the brothers who survived wished to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot, he has permission to do so.

诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 诇砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转 讘讬讗转讛 讗讜 讞诇讬爪转讛 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

In the case of one who was married to two women and died childless, the intercourse or 岣litza of either one of the wives with the yavam releases her rival wife from the levirate bond, and the rival wife need not enter into levirate marriage or perform 岣litza.

  • 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: 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 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 43

讜讻讬 专讘讬 诇讗 砖谞讗讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讜

If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had not taught that ruling in the Mishna, from where would Rabbi 岣yya, his disciple and redactor of the baraitot, have known it? Since the source of the unattributed ruling in the baraita is certainly the dispute recorded in the mishna, its lack of attribution in the baraita only reflects the fact that Rabbi 岣yya ruled in accordance with that opinion, but that cannot be used to indicate that it is the accepted halakha.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 转谞谉 诪住专拽 砖诇 驻砖转谉 砖谞讬讟诇讜 砖讬谞讬讜 讜谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 砖转讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讜讗讞转 讟讛讜专讛 讜讻讜诇谉 砖谞讬讟诇讜 讗讞转 讗讞转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讟诪讗讜转

Rabbi Na岣m questioned the principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed ruling in a mishna and said to Rabbi 岣yya: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Kelim 13:8): A comb made for combing beaten flax in preparation for spinning, from which its teeth were removed and only two of its teeth remained in it, is still suitable for combing. It is therefore considered a utensil and will become ritually impure if it comes in contact with ritual impurity. However, if only one tooth remained, so that the comb was no longer suitable for combing, it is no longer considered a utensil and so will remain ritually pure even if it comes in contact with ritual impurity. And with regard to any of the teeth that were individually removed on their own, since they do serve a purpose, e.g., they may be embedded and used as hooks, they are considered utensils and can become ritually impure.

砖诇 爪诪专 砖谞讬讟诇讜 砖讬谞讬讜 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讟讛讜专 谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 砖诇砖 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讛讬转讛 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讟讛讜专 谞讬讟诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讜注砖讗谉 诇诪诇拽讟 讟诪讗讜转 讗讞转 讜讛转拽讬谞讛 诇谞专 讗讜 诇诪讬转讜讞 讟诪讗讛

A comb made for combing wool from which every other one of its teeth were removed, so that no two consecutive teeth remained in place, is no longer suitable for combing and so will remain ritually pure. If three teeth remained in it in a single place so that it could still be used for combing, then it could become ritually impure. However, if one of those teeth was the external frame of the comb itself, then it could not function as a comb, and so it will remain ritually pure. If two of the teeth were removed and made into small pincers, then they could become ritually impure. Alternatively, if one of the teeth was removed, and it was prepared in a manner that made it suitable for use in cleaning an oil lamp or for stretching ropes, then it would be considered a utensil and could become ritually impure.

讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讛 诪砖谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

Rabbi Na岣m posed his question: But we maintain that the halakha is not in accordance with that mishna. This would seem to contradict the principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed opinion. Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Na岣m that the principle applies to all cases apart from this mishna, as with regard to this particular mishna there are Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish who both say: This is not an authoritative mishna, and so it cannot be relied upon for a halakhic ruling.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 诇住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖诇 爪诪专 砖谞讬讟诇讜 砖讬谞讬讜 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讟讛讜专 讛讗 谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 砖转讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 砖诇砖 讟诪讗 砖诇砖 讗讬谉 砖转讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara asks: What is the reason to say that the mishna is not authoritative? Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 said in the name of Rav Idi, son of Rav Ika: It is because the first clause of that mishna contradicts the latter clause, as it teaches: A comb used for wool from which every other one of its teeth were removed is no longer considered a utensil, and so it will remain ritually pure. This implies that were two teeth to remain in it in one place, it could become ritually impure. And then the mishna continues and teaches: If three teeth remained in it in a single place it is still considered a utensil and so it could become ritually impure. This indicates that if there are three, yes, it could become ritually impure, but if there are two, no, it would not become ritually impure.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讘讙讜讜讬讬转讗 讛讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: But what is the difficulty? Perhaps this ruling that if two teeth remain it is considered a utensil is referring to the internal teeth, found in the middle of the frame, while that ruling that it is not considered a utensil is referring to the outer teeth, which are adjacent to the frame of the comb, which makes them unsuitable for use.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讻讜诇谉 砖谞讬讟诇讜 讗讞转 讗讞转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讟诪讗讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛转拽讬谞讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讞转 讜讛转拽讬谞讛 诇谞专 讗讜 诇诪讬转讜讞 讟诪讗讛 讛转拽讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛转拽讬谞讛 诇讗

Rather, the difficulty with the mishna is from here, as it teaches: And any of the teeth that were individually removed on their own, since they can serve a useful purpose they are considered utensils and can become ritually impure. And the implication is that this is true even though the tooth was not prepared for that purpose. But say the latter clause as follows: If one of the teeth was removed, and it was prepared in a manner that rendered it suitable for use in cleaning an oil lamp or for stretching ropes, then it would be considered a utensil and could become ritually impure. The implication is that if it was prepared for use, then yes, it would be considered a utensil, but if it was not prepared for use, then no, it would not be considered a utensil.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讘拽转讬讬讛讜 讛讗 讘诇讗 拽转讬讬讛讜

Abaye said: But what is the difficulty? Perhaps this ruling, that further preparation is not required before it is considered a utensil, is referring to a case where the teeth were removed with their base, which allows them to be used immediately for various functions, whereas that ruling, that it is considered a utensil only once it is prepared for use, is referring to a case where the teeth were removed without their base and therefore require further preparation before they can be used.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讘拽讟讬谞转讗 讛讗 讘讗诇讬诪转讗

Rav Pappa stated an alternative resolution: But what is the difficulty? Perhaps this ruling that further preparation is not required is referring to a case where the teeth were narrow, whereas that ruling that it is considered a utensil only once it is prepared for use is referring to a case where the teeth were thick.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪住讬讬诪讬 讘讛 讚讜讜拽谞讬 讝讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rather, the reason that the mishna is not accepted as authoritative is not due to some difficulty in the formulation of the mishna, but because those who are exact in their rendition of the tradition conclude this mishna with: This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. In other words, this mishna is not unattributed but presents the minority opinion of a single Sage, and it is for this reason that it is not accepted as authoritative.

砖诇讞 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪讗专住讬谉 转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 讜讻谉 注讜砖讬诐 诪注砖讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin sent a message from Eretz Yisrael with regard to the halakha cited in the mishna: One may betroth a woman, but not marry her, within three months of her previous marriage; and so one acts in practice.

讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪诇诪讚谞讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讙讚讜诇 专讜讘讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜专讜讘讜 砖诇 砖诇讬砖讬 讜讗诪爪注讬 砖诇诐

And so Rabbi Elazar would teach us in the name of Rabbi 岣nina the Great that the three months are counted as follows: One counts the majority of the days of the first month, and the majority of the third month, and the entire middle month.

讗诪讬诪专 砖专讗 诇讬讗专住 讘讬讜诐 转砖注讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讜讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞转讗专住讛 讘讜 讛讛讜讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪讬谞拽转 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 讜讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞转讗专住讛 讘讜

Ameimar permitted one to betroth a woman on the ninetieth day itself. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Didn鈥檛 Rav and Shmuel both say that she needs to wait three full months, excluding the day on which the husband died and excluding the day on which she is betrothed? It is apparent that it is still prohibited to betroth a woman on the ninetieth day itself. Ameimar said to him: That which you heard, that the days of the husband鈥檚 death and of the betrothal are not included, was stated only with regard to a nursing woman, as it was Rav and Shmuel who both said: A nursing woman needs to wait twenty-four months before being betrothed, excluding the day on which the baby was born and excluding the day on which she is betrothed.

讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 住注讜讚转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬讜诐 转砖注讬诐 讜讗驻住讚讬讛 专讘讗 诇住注讜讚转讬讛 讛讛讬讗 住注讜讚转 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛讜讗讬

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 there an incident concerning a certain person who prepared a betrothal feast on the ninetieth day following the death of the woman鈥檚 first husband, and Rava caused him to forfeit his feast by prohibiting the betrothal on that day? The Gemara answers: That feast was actually a marriage feast, but had it been a betrothal feast it would have been permitted.

讜讛诇讻转讗 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讜讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 讜讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞转讗专住讛 讘讜 讜爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讜讞讜抓 诪讬讜诐 砖谞转讗专住讛 讘讜

The Gemara summarizes: The halakha is that a nursing mother needs to wait twenty-four months, excluding the day on which the baby was born and excluding the day on which she is betrothed. And if she was widowed but was not nursing, then she needs to wait only three months, excluding the day on which her previous husband died and excluding the day on which she is betrothed.

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗住讜专 诇讻讘住 诪讜转专 诇讬讗专住 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜转专 诇讻讘住 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜转专 诇讬讗专住

搂 The mishna states that Rabbi Yosei says: All women may be betrothed within three months except for a widow, due to the mourning period she must observe for her deceased husband. Rav 岣sda questioned the mishna鈥檚 ruling and said: Based on an a fortiori inference, it should be permitted for a woman to be betrothed during the thirty-day mourning period for her husband: If during another period of mourning, which the Gemara will specify, when it is prohibited to launder clothes, it is permitted to be betrothed, then during the thirty-day morning period for a husband, when it is permitted to launder clothes, isn鈥檛 it logical that it should also be permitted to be betrothed?

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖讘转 砖讞诇 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘转讜讻讛 讗住讜专 诇住驻专 讜诇讻讘住 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诪讜转专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转 讜转谞讬讗 拽讜讚诐 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讛注诐 诪诪注讟讬谉 讘注住拽讬讛诐 诪诇讬砖讗 讜诪诇讬转谉 诪诇讘谞讜转 讜诇谞讟讜注 讜诪讗专住讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讻讜谞住讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住注讜讚转 讗讬专讜住讬谉

The Gemara explains the cases involved: What is the period of mourning to which Rav 岣sda is referring? As we learned in a mishna (Ta鈥檃nit 26b): During the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs, it is prohibited to cut hair and to launder clothes, but on Thursday it is permitted in deference to Shabbat. And it is taught in a baraita: Prior to this time the public reduce their activities, refraining from business transactions, from building and planting, and they may betroth women but may not marry them, and they may not make a betrothal feast. The Gemara assumes that the baraita is referring to the days immediately preceding the Ninth of Av. Accordingly, during the days prior to the Ninth of Av it is prohibited to launder clothes, but it is permitted to be betrothed. It was upon this period of time that Rav 岣sda based his a fortiori inference.

讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 拽讜讚诐 讚拽讜讚诐 (转谞讬讗)

To defend Rav Yosei鈥檚 ruling in the mishna, the Gemara explains: When that baraita is taught, it is taught with regard to the period prior to the period that is prior to the Ninth of Av, i.e., the days prior to the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs. It is only then that it is permitted to be betrothed, but during the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs it is prohibited. Therefore, the basis of Rav 岣sda鈥檚 a fortiori inference is undermined.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜拽讜讚诐 讚拽讜讚诐 谞诪讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗住讜专 诇讬砖讗 讜诇讬转谉 诪讜转专 诇讬讗专住 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜转专 诇讬砖讗 讜诇讬转谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜转专 诇讬讗专住

Rava said: From the period prior to the period that is prior to the Ninth of Av, a challenge to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 ruling can also be advanced based on an a fortiori inference, as follows: If in a period of mourning when it is prohibited to conduct business transactions, it is permitted to be betrothed, then during the thirty-day morning period for a husband, when it is permitted to conduct business transactions, isn鈥檛 it logical that it should also be permitted to be betrothed?

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬转讗专住讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬谞砖讗讜

The Gemara accepts the conclusion of this a fortiori inference and therefore concludes: Do not say that Rabbi Yosei says: All women may be betrothed within three months; rather, emend his statement to say: All women may be married within three months except for a widow. However, even Rabbi Yosei agrees that it is permitted for a widow to be betrothed during this period.

讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讛讘讞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yosei not accept that there is a decree to wait three months in order to distinguish between the seed of the first and second husbands? According to the Gemara鈥檚 emendation of his statement, it would appear there is no case in which Rabbi Yosei applies the decree.

诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗专讜住讜转 讙专讜砖讜转 讬谞砖讗讜

The Gemara answers: Indeed, he does not accept the decree. And if you wish, say that actually, he does accept the decree and applies it in the case of a married woman who was divorced. And with regard to the challenge to his opinion from the a fortiori inference, emend the mishna and say: Rabbi Yosei says that all women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may be married within three months, since the reason to wait does not apply in this case.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞砖讜讗讛 诇讬讗专住 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 谞砖讜讗讛 诪讜转专转 诇讬讗专住 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 谞砖讜讗讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讗专住

The Gemara asks: If so, then this opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. What difference is there between them? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the case of a woman who was married to her previous husband and seeks to be betrothed. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is permitted to betroth a woman who was married to her previous husband without first waiting three months. And Rabbi Yosei holds that it is prohibited to betroth a woman who was married to her previous husband without first waiting three months.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞砖讜讗讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讗专住 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬转讗专住讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗诇诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讗讬讘讜诇 讜讻诪讛 讗讬讘讜诇 砖诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讬谞砖讗讜 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yosei really hold that it is prohibited to betroth a woman who was married to her previous husband without first waiting three months? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says that all women may be betrothed without waiting except for a widow, due to the mourning period she must observe for her deceased husband; and how long is her mourning period? It is thirty days. And none of them may be married until they have waited three months.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬转讗专住讜 诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘讗专讜住讜转 讙专讜砖讜转 讬谞砖讗讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇 讗专讜住讜转 讙专讜砖讜转 讬谞砖讗讜

The Gemara clarifies the question: What difficulty does this baraita pose? If we say that the baraita teaches: Rabbi Yosei says that all women may be betrothed without waiting, is the baraita stronger than the mishna that was established as teaching that women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may be married within three months? Here, too, the baraita could be established as teaching that all women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may be married within three months.

讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讬谞砖讗讜 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讗讬谞住讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讗讬转专讜住讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rather, the difficulty arises from the latter clause that teaches: And none of them may marry until they have waited three months. This implies that Rabbi Yosei holds that it is specifically marrying that is not permitted, but betrothing seems well and is permitted. This challenges the Gemara鈥檚 original claim that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda on this point.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转专讬抓 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗专讜住讜转 讙专讜砖讜转 讬谞砖讗讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗诇诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讗讬讘讜诇 讜讻诪讛 讗讬讘讜诇 砖诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讗 讬转讗专住讜 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

Rava said: Resolve the difficulty and emend Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement to say this: Rabbi Yosei says that all women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may marry within three months except for a widow, due to the mourning period she must observe for her deceased husband. And how long is her mourning period? It is thirty days. And women who were married to their previous husbands may not be betrothed until they have waited three months.

讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讗讬讘讜诇 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 诇讗 讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞谞转 讜诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗讛 诇讜 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 诪转 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

The Gemara asks: But does a woman who became a widow from betrothal have to observe a mourning period for her husband? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Ami teach in a baraita: If one鈥檚 wife to whom he was betrothed died, he does not observe a period of acute mourning for her, and if he is a priest he is not permitted to become ritually impure for her. And similarly, if he dies, she does not observe a period of acute mourning for him and she does not become ritually impure for him. If she dies, he does not inherit from her. If he dies, she collects payment of her marriage contract. The baraita demonstrates that a widow is required to mourn her husband only if she was married to him and not merely betrothed. If so, clearly Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 ruling in the mishna is referring to married women. Accordingly, all of the Gemara鈥檚 emendations of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement, in order to defend his statement from Rav 岣sda鈥檚 a fortiori inference, are refuted.

讗诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪专讗砖 讞讚砖 讜注讚 讛转注谞讬转 讛注诐 诪诪注讟讬谉 诪注住拽讬讛谉 诪诇讬砖讗 讜诪诇讬转谉 诪诇讘谞讜转 讜诇谞讟讜注 讜诪诇讬讗专住 讜诪诇讬砖讗 砖讘转 砖讞诇 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘转讜讻讛 讗住讜专 诇住驻专 讜诇讻讘住 (讜讗住讜专 诇讬讗专住) 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛讞讚砖 讗住讜专

Rather, it must be that the question of whether it is permitted to betroth a woman during the period prior to the week of the Ninth of Av is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: From the New Moon of Av and until the fast on the ninth, the public reduces its activities, refraining from business transactions, from building and planting, and from betrothing and marrying. During the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs, it is prohibited to cut hair and to launder clothes, and it is prohibited to be betrothed. And some say: It is prohibited for the entire month. The Gemara鈥檚 challenge to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion that it is prohibited for a widow to be betrothed during her mourning period was based on an a fortiori inference that assumes that it is permitted to be betrothed during the mourning period preceding the week of the Ninth of Av. However, since this ruling is subject to a dispute, Rabbi Yosei could reject the a fortiori inference by stating that he holds in accordance with the opinion that it is in fact prohibited to be betrothed during that period.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇讬讗专住 诇讬讗专住 诪诪砖 讚诇诪讗 诇诪讬注讘讚 住注讜讚转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 诇讬讗专住 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: From where is it known that when the baraita prohibits one to be betrothed, it is referring to actually betrothing? Perhaps it is only to make a betrothal feast that is prohibited, but merely to be betrothed seems well and is permitted.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诇讬砖讗 诇讬谞砖讗 谞诪讬 诇诪讬注讘讚 住注讜讚转 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讘诇讗 住注讜讚讛 讗讬讻讗 砖诪讞讛 讗诇讗 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘诇讗 住注讜讚讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 砖诪讞讛

The Gemara questions Rav Ashi鈥檚 objection: If so, then with regard to the prohibition against marrying as well one could make the same claim: With regard to the prohibition to marry, too, it is only to make a marriage feast that is prohibited, but merely to marry seems well and is permitted. The Gemara rejects its question: How can these cases be compared? Granted, from a marriage, even without a feast, there is joy, but from a betrothal without a feast, is there any joy? It is merely a legal ceremony.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖讗谞讬 讗讘讬诇讜转 讞讚砖讛 诪讗讘讬诇讜转 讬砖谞讛 讜砖讗谞讬 讗讘讬诇讜转 讚专讘讬诐 诪讗讘讬诇讜转 讚讬讞讬讚

Rather, Rav Ashi stated a different resolution of Rav Yosei鈥檚 opinion: New mourning, i.e., the mourning for a relative who has just passed away, is different from old mourning, i.e., the mourning over historic events such as the destruction of the Temple, and it is appropriate to be more lenient in the latter. And the mourning of the public is different from the private mourning of the individual, and it is appropriate to be more stringent in the latter. As such, it is not possible to form an a fortiori inference from the halakhot of mourning for the Temple to those of a wife mourning for her husband.

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗专讘注 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛诐 诇讬讬讘诐 讗转 讻讜诇谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜

MISHNA: In a case of four brothers married to four women and some of the brothers died childless, their wives thereby become yevamot. If the eldest of the brothers who survived wished to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot, he has permission to do so.

诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 诇砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转 讘讬讗转讛 讗讜 讞诇讬爪转讛 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

In the case of one who was married to two women and died childless, the intercourse or 岣litza of either one of the wives with the yavam releases her rival wife from the levirate bond, and the rival wife need not enter into levirate marriage or perform 岣litza.

Scroll To Top