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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 23, 2014 | 讗壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讛

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

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

Yevamot 50

Study Guide Yevamot 50


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

讗诇讜 砖谞讬 讚讜专讜转 讝讻讛 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 讝讻讛 驻讜讞转讬谉 诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讻讛 诪讜住讬驻讬诐 诇讜 诇讗 讝讻讛 驻讜讞转讬谉 诇讜

these are the years of the generations, i.e., the allotted lifespan that is preordained for each individual before birth. If he is deserving, God completes his allotted lifespan. If he is not deserving, God reduces his lifespan; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva assumes one cannot outlive one鈥檚 preordained allotted lifespan. The Rabbis say: If he is deserving, God adds years to his lifespan. If he is not deserving, God reduces his lifespan. According to the Rabbis, Isaiah鈥檚 prophecy is referring to one who deserved to have extra years added to his allotted lifespan, and the verse in the Torah is referring to one who deserved to merely complete his lifespan.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讜住驻转讬 注诇 讬诪讬讱 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪砖诇讜 讛讜住讬驻讜 诇讜 转讚注 砖讛专讬 谞讘讬讗 注讜诪讚 讜诪转谞讘讗 讛谞讛 讘谉 谞讜诇讚 诇讘讬转 讚讜讚 讬讗砖讬讛讜 砖诪讜 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 谞讜诇讚 诪谞砖讛

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: How can you claim that one cannot outlive one鈥檚 allotted lifespan when there is a verse that states that Isaiah prophesied to Hezekiah as Hezekiah lay on his deathbed: 鈥淎nd I will add unto your days fifteen years鈥? Rabbi Akiva said to them: Those additional years that God added to his lifespan are from his own allotted lifespan. When Hezekiah sinned God decreed that his lifespan be shortened, but when he repented God allowed him to live out those years. Know that this is so, as a prophet during the reign of King Jeroboam stood and prophesied: 鈥淏ehold, a son shall be born unto the House of David, Josiah is his name鈥 (I聽Kings 13:2). Josiah was the grandson of Manasseh, Hezekiah鈥檚 son, and at the time Hezekiah lay on his deathbed, Manasseh had not yet been born. Evidently, Hezekiah鈥檚 preordained allotted lifespan had still not been completed.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诪讞讝拽讬讛 诇讘讬转 讚讜讚 讻转讬讘 讗讬 诪讞讝拽讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讗讬 诪讗讬谞砖 讗讞专讬谞讗

And what would the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 proof? They could counter: Is it written that Josiah was to be born specifically from the descendants of Hezekiah? It is written only that he would be born 鈥渦nto the House of David,鈥 so he could be born either from the descendants of Hezekiah or from a different person of the House of David. Accordingly, no proof concerning Hezekiah鈥檚 allotted lifespan can be deduced from that verse.

讗砖转讜 砖诪转讛 讜讻讜壮 讬讘诪转讜 砖诪转讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 诪砖谞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛

搂 The mishna details the prohibition with regard to one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister in various cases: If a man鈥檚 wife died, he is permitted to her sister; if his yevama died, he is permitted to her sister. Rav Yosef said: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught an unnecessary mishna, since the prohibition with regard to one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister and the fact that the prohibition exists only in the lifetime of one鈥檚 wife is stated explicitly in the Torah, and there is no additional novelty in this mishna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讞讜诇抓

 

诪转谞讬壮 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讜诇讗 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讜诇讗 讘注讬诇讛 讗讞专 讘注讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讜讬砖 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗讞专 讘注讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel says: A bill of divorce [get] is not effective when given after a bill of divorce was previously given to a yevama. Once a yevama receives a bill of divorce from a yavam, no bill of divorce given by that yavam to her rival wife or a bill of divorce given to her by a different yavam is of any effect. And levirate betrothal is not effective after a previous levirate betrothal was performed, and intercourse with a second yevama is not effective after intercourse with the first one, and 岣litza is not effective after 岣litza was previously performed. But the Rabbis say: A bill of divorce is effective when given after a bill of divorce, and levirate betrothal is effective after levirate betrothal, but nothing is effective after intercourse or after 岣litza. If a yavam has relations with the yevama or performs 岣litza with her, no other action performed afterward is effective, whether performed by that yavam toward a different yevama or by any yavam with the original yevama.

讻讬爪讚 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 讜谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讞诇讬爪讛 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讞诇讬爪讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讘注诇 讛专讬 讝讜 讻诪爪讜转讛

The mishna elaborates: How do these laws work in practice? If a yavam performed levirate betrothal with his yevama, and he later gave her a bill of divorce, she nevertheless requires 岣litza from him. The bill of divorce does not fully exempt her from levirate marriage, as the levirate bond remains intact. If he performed levirate betrothal and then 岣litza, she requires a bill of divorce from him in order to cancel the levirate betrothal. If the yavam performed levirate betrothal and then engaged in intercourse with the yevama, this is the way to perform levirate marriage in accordance with its mitzva, as the Sages instituted this as the proper procedure for a yavam to perform levirate marriage.

谞转谉 讙讟 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讘注诇 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讞诇抓 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

If the yavam gave the yevama a bill of divorce and afterward performed levirate betrothal with her, she requires another bill of divorce to cancel the levirate betrothal, as well as 岣litza to nullify the levirate bond. If he gave her a bill of divorce and then engaged in intercourse with her, she requires a bill of divorce to cancel the betrothal that took place via intercourse, and 岣litza to nullify the levirate bond; the intercourse did not affect the levirate bond because once he gave her a bill of divorce she was forbidden to him. If he gave her a bill of divorce and performed 岣litza, nothing is effective after 岣litza, as the levirate bond was completely nullified.

讞诇抓 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讘注诇 讗讜 讘注诇 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讞诇抓 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

Similarly, if he performed 岣litza with her and then either performed levirate betrothal, or gave a bill of divorce, or engaged in intercourse with her; alternatively, if he engaged in intercourse with her and then either performed levirate betrothal, or gave a bill of divorce, or performed 岣litza after they engaged in relations, nothing is effective after 岣litza or intercourse. Any action performed afterward is unrelated to the levirate bond.

讗讞转 讬讘诪讛 讗讞转 诇讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讞转 砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 诇讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讻讬爪讚 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 爪专讬讻讜转 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜讘注诇 讗转 讝讜 爪专讬讻讜转 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜讞诇抓 诇讝讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟

The above principles apply both in cases of one yevama to one yavam, as well as in cases of two yevamot to one yavam. How so? If he performed levirate betrothal with this yevama and levirate betrothal with that one, i.e., her rival wife, they require two bills of divorce, each for her own levirate betrothal, and 岣litza with one of them, to release them both from the levirate bond. If he performed levirate betrothal with this one and gave a bill of divorce to that one, the first woman requires a bill of divorce to cancel the levirate betrothal, and one of them must receive 岣litza. If he performed levirate betrothal with this one and engaged in intercourse with that one, they require two bills of divorce and he must perform 岣litza with one of them. If the yavam performed levirate betrothal with this one and performed 岣litza with that one, the first woman requires a bill of divorce.

讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 爪专讬讻讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 讞诇讬爪讛 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讘注诇 讗转 讝讜 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讞诇抓 诇讝讜 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

If the yavam gave a bill of divorce to this yevama and a bill of divorce to that one, they require 岣litza from him. If he gave a bill of divorce to this one and engaged in intercourse with that one, the latter requires a bill of divorce and 岣litza. If he gave a bill of divorce to this one and performed levirate betrothal with that one, the latter requires a bill of divorce and he must perform 岣litza with one of them. If the yavam gave a bill of divorce to this woman and performed 岣litza with that one, nothing is effective after 岣litza, and he cannot betroth the rival wife.

讞诇抓 讜讞诇抓 讗讜 讞诇抓 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讘注诇 讗讜 讘注诇 讜讘注诇 讗讜 讘注诇 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讞诇抓 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 诇砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 诇讬讘诪讛 讗讞转

If he performed 岣litza with one yevama and then performed 岣litza with a second yevama, or he performed 岣litza with one yevama and then proceeded to either perform levirate betrothal, give a bill of divorce, or engage in intercourse with a second; alternatively, he engaged in intercourse with one yevama and engaged in intercourse with the second yevama, or he engaged in intercourse with one yevama and proceeded to either perform levirate betrothal, give a bill of divorce, or perform 岣litza with the second, nothing is effective after 岣litza or intercourse. These halakhot apply both in cases of one yavam to two yevamot, as well as two yevamin to one yevama.

讞诇抓 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讘注诇 讗讜 讘注诇 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜谞转谉 讙讟 讜讞诇抓 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝

If he performed 岣litza with one yevama and then proceeded to either perform levirate betrothal, give a bill of divorce, or engage in intercourse with a second yevama; alternatively, he engaged in intercourse with one yevama and then proceeded to perform levirate betrothal, or give a bill of divorce, or perform 岣litza with a second yevama, nothing is effective after 岣litza, whether the 岣litza took place at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. All of these halakhot accord with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains betrothal does not take effect on a woman who is forbidden due to the prohibition against betrothing a yevama after 岣litza.

讜讛讘注讬诇讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讘转讞诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讘讗诪爪注 讜讘住讜祝 讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘注讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讞诇讬爪讛 讘讬谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐

But with regard to intercourse, when it is at the beginning, i.e., the first act the yavam performed with his yevama, nothing is effective after it and any subsequent action is void. However, if it was performed in the middle, and similarly if it was performed at the end, i.e., after some other action that impairs the validity of his intercourse, something is effective after it. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: Both with regard to intercourse and 岣litza, whether performed at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, nothing is effective after it. If the yavam performed a valid action according to Torah law, any subsequent action is of no consequence according to halakha.

讙诪壮 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讗讘诇 讙讟 讗讞讚 讘讬讘诪讛 [讜诪讗诪专 讗讞讚 讘讬讘诪讛] 诪讛谞讬

GEMARA: Rabban Gamliel and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to the efficacy of a bill of divorce performed after a bill of divorce and levirate betrothal performed after levirate betrothal, but one bill of divorce given to a single yevama, or one levirate betrothal performed with a single yevama, is effective. The bill of divorce prevents him from performing levirate marriage, and the levirate betrothal requires a bill of divorce to cancel it, in addition to 岣litza.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讙讟 讘讬讘诪讛 诪讛谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讛谞讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讗诪专讬 讙讟 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讜诪讚讙讟 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讞诇讬爪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讘注诇 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛

The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason that the Sages said that a bill of divorce is effective for a yevama, despite the fact that she is not his wife? This is because it is effective in general in cases of married women. For if you say that it is not effective in the case of a yevama, there are some who might mistakenly say the following: A bill of divorce is given to a woman in order to remove her from her husband, and 岣litza likewise serves to remove her from the yavam; since a bill of divorce is ineffective for this yevama, 岣litza is also ineffective and does not sever their relationship completely. And perhaps the yavam will come to engage in intercourse after 岣litza, which is forbidden by the Torah prohibition derived from the verse: 鈥淪o shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother鈥檚 house鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:9).

讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪讛 诪讛谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讛谞讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讗诪专讬 诪讗诪专 诇拽谞讜转 讜讘讬讗讛 诇拽谞讜转 讜诪讚诪讗诪专 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讘讬讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讛谞讬讗 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讘注诇 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛

And what is the reason the Sages said that levirate betrothal is effective for a yevama? Because it is effective in general, as levirate betrothal is essentially an act of betrothal. For if you say that it is not effective, there are some who might mistakenly say: Levirate betrothal serves to acquire a woman and intercourse serves to acquire a woman in general, as women can be betrothed by intercourse; since levirate betrothal is ineffective in the case of a yevama, intercourse is also ineffective, i.e., it does not acquire a yevama completely. And he will therefore come to engage in intercourse with a rival wife after intercourse with the first yevama.

讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐

And what is the reason the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Ne岣mya said that invalid intercourse, i.e., intercourse that follows any disqualifying action with the rival wife of a yevama, does not fully acquire the yevama, such that something is effective after it? In this case the invalid intercourse does not cancel the levirate bond, and therefore further action with the yevama is effective.

讗诪专讬 讗讬 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 讛讙讟 讛讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 讛讙讟 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讗讬 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讛讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛

The Sages say: If this is intercourse performed after a bill of divorce, then it is considered invalid due to a rabbinic decree with regard to intercourse after a bill of divorce because of its potential confusion with a case of intercourse after 岣litza. The Sages established that invalid intercourse of this kind should not cancel the levirate bond completely, for if it did, then people might come to engage in intercourse after 岣litza, which would violate a Torah prohibition. And if this is intercourse performed after levirate betrothal, then it is considered invalid due to a rabbinic decree with regard to intercourse after levirate betrothal because of its potential confusion with a case of intercourse with the second yevama after intercourse with the first. If intercourse after levirate betrothal is effective, people might come to engage in intercourse with a second yevama after intercourse with a first, and this is forbidden as the woman is considered his brother鈥檚 wife who is not eligible for levirate marriage.

讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讞诇讬爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 诇讙讝讜专 谞讙讝讜专 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 讛讙讟 诪砖讜诐 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇 讻讬 讛谞讬 转讞诇讜抓 讜转讬讝讬诇

And what is the reason the Sages said with regard to this invalid 岣litza that nothing is effective after it? For they say: What is the reason that we should we issue a decree in that case? Should we issue a decree with regard to 岣litza performed after a bill of divorce due to a concern for 岣litza performed after 岣litza? In this case there is no concern, as there is no prohibition involved in repeating 岣litza. In any situation like these, let her continue performing 岣litza, for no harm is done if 岣litza is performed unnecessarily.

诇讬讙讝讜专 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛 讗讟讜 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬讗 讙讟 诇讘讬讗转讜

Alternatively, should we issue a decree stating that other actions are effective after 岣litza is performed after levirate betrothal due to the concern for confusion with the case of 岣litza performed after intercourse? In this case there is a concern that people will assume that no bill of divorce is required after intercourse so long as the yavam performed 岣litza. The Gemara challenges this concern: Is that to say that in the case of 岣litza after levirate betrothal she does not require a bill of divorce for his levirate betrothal, such that one would conclude the same for 岣litza after intercourse? In the case of 岣litza after levirate betrothal, the woman requires a bill of divorce, and similarly in the case of 岣litza after intercourse she likewise requires a bill of divorce for his intercourse. Thus, the same action performed following 岣litza after levirate betrothal is also performed following 岣litza after intercourse, and therefore there is no need to issue a further decree.

讗诪专 专讘讗

Rava said:

  • 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

Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

The Multiple Ways of Fulfilling Maamar – Gefet 33

https://youtu.be/56bqiDaos34 On our daf, the gemara quotes a braita which describes the way that a yevama is betrothed, and asks...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 44-50 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week the Gemara describes different prohibited relationships that the resulting child is considered a Mamzer. This has ramifications on...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 50: How Final Are the Yibum Options

The fifth chapter! Plus, the options of ma'amar, get, chalitzah... and, of course, yibum. And how the may follow one...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 5: Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...

Yevamot 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 50

讗诇讜 砖谞讬 讚讜专讜转 讝讻讛 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 讝讻讛 驻讜讞转讬谉 诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讻讛 诪讜住讬驻讬诐 诇讜 诇讗 讝讻讛 驻讜讞转讬谉 诇讜

these are the years of the generations, i.e., the allotted lifespan that is preordained for each individual before birth. If he is deserving, God completes his allotted lifespan. If he is not deserving, God reduces his lifespan; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva assumes one cannot outlive one鈥檚 preordained allotted lifespan. The Rabbis say: If he is deserving, God adds years to his lifespan. If he is not deserving, God reduces his lifespan. According to the Rabbis, Isaiah鈥檚 prophecy is referring to one who deserved to have extra years added to his allotted lifespan, and the verse in the Torah is referring to one who deserved to merely complete his lifespan.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讜住驻转讬 注诇 讬诪讬讱 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪砖诇讜 讛讜住讬驻讜 诇讜 转讚注 砖讛专讬 谞讘讬讗 注讜诪讚 讜诪转谞讘讗 讛谞讛 讘谉 谞讜诇讚 诇讘讬转 讚讜讚 讬讗砖讬讛讜 砖诪讜 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 谞讜诇讚 诪谞砖讛

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: How can you claim that one cannot outlive one鈥檚 allotted lifespan when there is a verse that states that Isaiah prophesied to Hezekiah as Hezekiah lay on his deathbed: 鈥淎nd I will add unto your days fifteen years鈥? Rabbi Akiva said to them: Those additional years that God added to his lifespan are from his own allotted lifespan. When Hezekiah sinned God decreed that his lifespan be shortened, but when he repented God allowed him to live out those years. Know that this is so, as a prophet during the reign of King Jeroboam stood and prophesied: 鈥淏ehold, a son shall be born unto the House of David, Josiah is his name鈥 (I聽Kings 13:2). Josiah was the grandson of Manasseh, Hezekiah鈥檚 son, and at the time Hezekiah lay on his deathbed, Manasseh had not yet been born. Evidently, Hezekiah鈥檚 preordained allotted lifespan had still not been completed.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诪讞讝拽讬讛 诇讘讬转 讚讜讚 讻转讬讘 讗讬 诪讞讝拽讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讗讬 诪讗讬谞砖 讗讞专讬谞讗

And what would the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 proof? They could counter: Is it written that Josiah was to be born specifically from the descendants of Hezekiah? It is written only that he would be born 鈥渦nto the House of David,鈥 so he could be born either from the descendants of Hezekiah or from a different person of the House of David. Accordingly, no proof concerning Hezekiah鈥檚 allotted lifespan can be deduced from that verse.

讗砖转讜 砖诪转讛 讜讻讜壮 讬讘诪转讜 砖诪转讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 诪砖谞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛

搂 The mishna details the prohibition with regard to one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister in various cases: If a man鈥檚 wife died, he is permitted to her sister; if his yevama died, he is permitted to her sister. Rav Yosef said: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught an unnecessary mishna, since the prohibition with regard to one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister and the fact that the prohibition exists only in the lifetime of one鈥檚 wife is stated explicitly in the Torah, and there is no additional novelty in this mishna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讞讜诇抓

 

诪转谞讬壮 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讜诇讗 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讜诇讗 讘注讬诇讛 讗讞专 讘注讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讜讬砖 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗讞专 讘注讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel says: A bill of divorce [get] is not effective when given after a bill of divorce was previously given to a yevama. Once a yevama receives a bill of divorce from a yavam, no bill of divorce given by that yavam to her rival wife or a bill of divorce given to her by a different yavam is of any effect. And levirate betrothal is not effective after a previous levirate betrothal was performed, and intercourse with a second yevama is not effective after intercourse with the first one, and 岣litza is not effective after 岣litza was previously performed. But the Rabbis say: A bill of divorce is effective when given after a bill of divorce, and levirate betrothal is effective after levirate betrothal, but nothing is effective after intercourse or after 岣litza. If a yavam has relations with the yevama or performs 岣litza with her, no other action performed afterward is effective, whether performed by that yavam toward a different yevama or by any yavam with the original yevama.

讻讬爪讚 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 讜谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讞诇讬爪讛 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讞诇讬爪讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讘注诇 讛专讬 讝讜 讻诪爪讜转讛

The mishna elaborates: How do these laws work in practice? If a yavam performed levirate betrothal with his yevama, and he later gave her a bill of divorce, she nevertheless requires 岣litza from him. The bill of divorce does not fully exempt her from levirate marriage, as the levirate bond remains intact. If he performed levirate betrothal and then 岣litza, she requires a bill of divorce from him in order to cancel the levirate betrothal. If the yavam performed levirate betrothal and then engaged in intercourse with the yevama, this is the way to perform levirate marriage in accordance with its mitzva, as the Sages instituted this as the proper procedure for a yavam to perform levirate marriage.

谞转谉 讙讟 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讘注诇 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讞诇抓 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

If the yavam gave the yevama a bill of divorce and afterward performed levirate betrothal with her, she requires another bill of divorce to cancel the levirate betrothal, as well as 岣litza to nullify the levirate bond. If he gave her a bill of divorce and then engaged in intercourse with her, she requires a bill of divorce to cancel the betrothal that took place via intercourse, and 岣litza to nullify the levirate bond; the intercourse did not affect the levirate bond because once he gave her a bill of divorce she was forbidden to him. If he gave her a bill of divorce and performed 岣litza, nothing is effective after 岣litza, as the levirate bond was completely nullified.

讞诇抓 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讘注诇 讗讜 讘注诇 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讞诇抓 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

Similarly, if he performed 岣litza with her and then either performed levirate betrothal, or gave a bill of divorce, or engaged in intercourse with her; alternatively, if he engaged in intercourse with her and then either performed levirate betrothal, or gave a bill of divorce, or performed 岣litza after they engaged in relations, nothing is effective after 岣litza or intercourse. Any action performed afterward is unrelated to the levirate bond.

讗讞转 讬讘诪讛 讗讞转 诇讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讞转 砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 诇讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讻讬爪讚 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 爪专讬讻讜转 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜讘注诇 讗转 讝讜 爪专讬讻讜转 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜讞诇抓 诇讝讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟

The above principles apply both in cases of one yevama to one yavam, as well as in cases of two yevamot to one yavam. How so? If he performed levirate betrothal with this yevama and levirate betrothal with that one, i.e., her rival wife, they require two bills of divorce, each for her own levirate betrothal, and 岣litza with one of them, to release them both from the levirate bond. If he performed levirate betrothal with this one and gave a bill of divorce to that one, the first woman requires a bill of divorce to cancel the levirate betrothal, and one of them must receive 岣litza. If he performed levirate betrothal with this one and engaged in intercourse with that one, they require two bills of divorce and he must perform 岣litza with one of them. If the yavam performed levirate betrothal with this one and performed 岣litza with that one, the first woman requires a bill of divorce.

讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 爪专讬讻讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 讞诇讬爪讛 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讘注诇 讗转 讝讜 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讞诇抓 诇讝讜 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

If the yavam gave a bill of divorce to this yevama and a bill of divorce to that one, they require 岣litza from him. If he gave a bill of divorce to this one and engaged in intercourse with that one, the latter requires a bill of divorce and 岣litza. If he gave a bill of divorce to this one and performed levirate betrothal with that one, the latter requires a bill of divorce and he must perform 岣litza with one of them. If the yavam gave a bill of divorce to this woman and performed 岣litza with that one, nothing is effective after 岣litza, and he cannot betroth the rival wife.

讞诇抓 讜讞诇抓 讗讜 讞诇抓 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讘注诇 讗讜 讘注诇 讜讘注诇 讗讜 讘注诇 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讞诇抓 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 诇砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 诇讬讘诪讛 讗讞转

If he performed 岣litza with one yevama and then performed 岣litza with a second yevama, or he performed 岣litza with one yevama and then proceeded to either perform levirate betrothal, give a bill of divorce, or engage in intercourse with a second; alternatively, he engaged in intercourse with one yevama and engaged in intercourse with the second yevama, or he engaged in intercourse with one yevama and proceeded to either perform levirate betrothal, give a bill of divorce, or perform 岣litza with the second, nothing is effective after 岣litza or intercourse. These halakhot apply both in cases of one yavam to two yevamot, as well as two yevamin to one yevama.

讞诇抓 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 讙讟 讜讘注诇 讗讜 讘注诇 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜谞转谉 讙讟 讜讞诇抓 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝

If he performed 岣litza with one yevama and then proceeded to either perform levirate betrothal, give a bill of divorce, or engage in intercourse with a second yevama; alternatively, he engaged in intercourse with one yevama and then proceeded to perform levirate betrothal, or give a bill of divorce, or perform 岣litza with a second yevama, nothing is effective after 岣litza, whether the 岣litza took place at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. All of these halakhot accord with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains betrothal does not take effect on a woman who is forbidden due to the prohibition against betrothing a yevama after 岣litza.

讜讛讘注讬诇讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讘转讞诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讘讗诪爪注 讜讘住讜祝 讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘注讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讞诇讬爪讛 讘讬谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐

But with regard to intercourse, when it is at the beginning, i.e., the first act the yavam performed with his yevama, nothing is effective after it and any subsequent action is void. However, if it was performed in the middle, and similarly if it was performed at the end, i.e., after some other action that impairs the validity of his intercourse, something is effective after it. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: Both with regard to intercourse and 岣litza, whether performed at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, nothing is effective after it. If the yavam performed a valid action according to Torah law, any subsequent action is of no consequence according to halakha.

讙诪壮 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讗讘诇 讙讟 讗讞讚 讘讬讘诪讛 [讜诪讗诪专 讗讞讚 讘讬讘诪讛] 诪讛谞讬

GEMARA: Rabban Gamliel and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to the efficacy of a bill of divorce performed after a bill of divorce and levirate betrothal performed after levirate betrothal, but one bill of divorce given to a single yevama, or one levirate betrothal performed with a single yevama, is effective. The bill of divorce prevents him from performing levirate marriage, and the levirate betrothal requires a bill of divorce to cancel it, in addition to 岣litza.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讙讟 讘讬讘诪讛 诪讛谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讛谞讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讗诪专讬 讙讟 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讜诪讚讙讟 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讞诇讬爪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讘注诇 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛

The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason that the Sages said that a bill of divorce is effective for a yevama, despite the fact that she is not his wife? This is because it is effective in general in cases of married women. For if you say that it is not effective in the case of a yevama, there are some who might mistakenly say the following: A bill of divorce is given to a woman in order to remove her from her husband, and 岣litza likewise serves to remove her from the yavam; since a bill of divorce is ineffective for this yevama, 岣litza is also ineffective and does not sever their relationship completely. And perhaps the yavam will come to engage in intercourse after 岣litza, which is forbidden by the Torah prohibition derived from the verse: 鈥淪o shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother鈥檚 house鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:9).

讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪讛 诪讛谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讛谞讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讗诪专讬 诪讗诪专 诇拽谞讜转 讜讘讬讗讛 诇拽谞讜转 讜诪讚诪讗诪专 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讘讬讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讛谞讬讗 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讘注诇 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛

And what is the reason the Sages said that levirate betrothal is effective for a yevama? Because it is effective in general, as levirate betrothal is essentially an act of betrothal. For if you say that it is not effective, there are some who might mistakenly say: Levirate betrothal serves to acquire a woman and intercourse serves to acquire a woman in general, as women can be betrothed by intercourse; since levirate betrothal is ineffective in the case of a yevama, intercourse is also ineffective, i.e., it does not acquire a yevama completely. And he will therefore come to engage in intercourse with a rival wife after intercourse with the first yevama.

讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐

And what is the reason the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Ne岣mya said that invalid intercourse, i.e., intercourse that follows any disqualifying action with the rival wife of a yevama, does not fully acquire the yevama, such that something is effective after it? In this case the invalid intercourse does not cancel the levirate bond, and therefore further action with the yevama is effective.

讗诪专讬 讗讬 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 讛讙讟 讛讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 讛讙讟 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讗讬 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讛讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛

The Sages say: If this is intercourse performed after a bill of divorce, then it is considered invalid due to a rabbinic decree with regard to intercourse after a bill of divorce because of its potential confusion with a case of intercourse after 岣litza. The Sages established that invalid intercourse of this kind should not cancel the levirate bond completely, for if it did, then people might come to engage in intercourse after 岣litza, which would violate a Torah prohibition. And if this is intercourse performed after levirate betrothal, then it is considered invalid due to a rabbinic decree with regard to intercourse after levirate betrothal because of its potential confusion with a case of intercourse with the second yevama after intercourse with the first. If intercourse after levirate betrothal is effective, people might come to engage in intercourse with a second yevama after intercourse with a first, and this is forbidden as the woman is considered his brother鈥檚 wife who is not eligible for levirate marriage.

讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讞诇讬爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 诇讙讝讜专 谞讙讝讜专 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 讛讙讟 诪砖讜诐 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇 讻讬 讛谞讬 转讞诇讜抓 讜转讬讝讬诇

And what is the reason the Sages said with regard to this invalid 岣litza that nothing is effective after it? For they say: What is the reason that we should we issue a decree in that case? Should we issue a decree with regard to 岣litza performed after a bill of divorce due to a concern for 岣litza performed after 岣litza? In this case there is no concern, as there is no prohibition involved in repeating 岣litza. In any situation like these, let her continue performing 岣litza, for no harm is done if 岣litza is performed unnecessarily.

诇讬讙讝讜专 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛 讗讟讜 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬讗 讙讟 诇讘讬讗转讜

Alternatively, should we issue a decree stating that other actions are effective after 岣litza is performed after levirate betrothal due to the concern for confusion with the case of 岣litza performed after intercourse? In this case there is a concern that people will assume that no bill of divorce is required after intercourse so long as the yavam performed 岣litza. The Gemara challenges this concern: Is that to say that in the case of 岣litza after levirate betrothal she does not require a bill of divorce for his levirate betrothal, such that one would conclude the same for 岣litza after intercourse? In the case of 岣litza after levirate betrothal, the woman requires a bill of divorce, and similarly in the case of 岣litza after intercourse she likewise requires a bill of divorce for his intercourse. Thus, the same action performed following 岣litza after levirate betrothal is also performed following 岣litza after intercourse, and therefore there is no need to issue a further decree.

讗诪专 专讘讗

Rava said:

Scroll To Top