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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 26, 2022 | ื›ืดื” ื‘ื ื™ืกืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • 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

Presentation in PDF format

Today’s daf is dedicated in honor of Jon and Yael Cohen on their 24th wedding anniversary. Mazel tov!

How is the last issue Menashe had with Isaiah resolved? If the Torah said that one has a set amount of years to live and Isaiah said that Chizkiyahu was given fifteen extra years to live, how can that be? The answer is that there is a tanaitic debate on how to answer the question. One opinion is that one has a set amount of years and if one is worthy, one will live to that age, but if one is not, the number of years is reduced. Another opinion is that if one is worthy, one can get more than what was allotted. Rav Yosef comments on the last part of the Mishna which had many different cases of when a sister dies, her husband or ex-husband can marry her sister – by saying that here is an example of where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi added something that was unnecessary. Is there meaning to a get given to one wife after a get was already given to her co-wife or maamar performed on one wife after maamar was already performed on the other or intercourse to fulfill the mitzva of yibum after it was already done to the other or chalitza after chalitza? The rabbis and Rabban Gamliel disagree. The Mishna brings every possible permutation of get, maamar, intercourse and chalitza that were performed either by two brothers on one yevama or one yabam on two wives waiting for yibum. The main ramifications are – are the woman’s relatives forbidden to the yabam? If a betrothal was performed, would it be valid? Does one still need to do chalitza or is the yibum obligation taken care of? How strong are each of these actions in removing the zika (connection) of the yevamot to the yabam? Chalitza or intercourse end the yibum requirement entirely – but is that only true if it was the first action done or it is even if it took place after another action such as maamar or get took place? This is also a subject of debate. Why is giving a get to a yevama effective to prohibit the brothers from performing yibum on her or any of the other wives, if they a get is not effective for someone who isn’t married? Why is maamar effective to forbid the yabam from marrying any of the other wives? Why according to the rabbis are intercourse after get or maamar not enough to end the yibum obligation but chalitza after get or maamar would be sufficient?

ย Why according to the rabbis is s

ืืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื–ื›ื” ืžืฉืœื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœื• ืœื ื–ื›ื” ืคื•ื—ืชื™ืŸ ืœื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื–ื›ื” ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ื ืœื• ืœื ื–ื›ื” ืคื•ื—ืชื™ืŸ ืœื•

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 oneโ€™s 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, Isaiahโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื•ืกืคืชื™ ืขืœ ื™ืžื™ืš ื—ืžืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืฉื ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืžืฉืœื• ื”ื•ืกื™ืคื• ืœื• ืชื“ืข ืฉื”ืจื™ ื ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ืžื“ ื•ืžืชื ื‘ื ื”ื ื” ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื•ื“ ื™ืืฉื™ื”ื• ืฉืžื• ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื ื ื•ืœื“ ืžื ืฉื”

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: How can you claim that one cannot outlive oneโ€™s allotted lifespan when there is a verse that states that Isaiah prophesied to Hezekiah as Hezekiah lay on his deathbed: โ€œAnd I will add unto your days fifteen yearsโ€? 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: โ€œBehold, a son shall be born unto the House of David, Josiah is his nameโ€ (Iย Kings 13:2). Josiah was the grandson of Manasseh, Hezekiahโ€™s son, and at the time Hezekiah lay on his deathbed, Manasseh had not yet been born. Evidently, Hezekiahโ€™s preordained allotted lifespan had still not been completed.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื•ื“ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื ื•ืœื“ ืื™ ืžืื™ื ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ื

And what would the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Akivaโ€™s 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 โ€œunto the House of David,โ€ 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 Hezekiahโ€™s allotted lifespan can be deduced from that verse.

ืืฉืชื• ืฉืžืชื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ืฉืžืชื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืฉื ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื”

ยง The mishna details the prohibition with regard to oneโ€™s wifeโ€™s sister in various cases: If a manโ€™s 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 oneโ€™s wifeโ€™s sister and the fact that the prohibition exists only in the lifetime of oneโ€™s wife is stated explicitly in the Torah, and there is no additional novelty in this mishnaโ€™s ruling.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ื—ื•ืœืฅ

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื’ื˜ ืื—ืจ ื’ื˜ ื•ืœื ืžืืžืจ ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ืœื” ืื—ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืœื” ื•ืœื ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื™ืฉ ื’ื˜ ืื—ืจ ื’ื˜ ื•ื™ืฉ ืžืืžืจ ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืื—ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืœื” ื•ืœื ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื

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 แธฅalitza is not effective after แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza. If a yavam has relations with the yevama or performs แธฅalitza 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.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื” ื’ื˜ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื’ื˜ ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ื›ืžืฆื•ืชื”

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 แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza, 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.

ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื

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 แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza, nothing is effective after แธฅalitza, as the levirate bond was completely nullified.

ื—ืœืฅ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืื• ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื

Similarly, if he performed แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza after they engaged in relations, nothing is effective after แธฅalitza or intercourse. Any action performed afterward is unrelated to the levirate bond.

ืื—ืช ื™ื‘ืžื” ืื—ืช ืœื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ืช ืฉืชื™ ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ืœื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ื•ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื•ืช ืฉื ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ื•ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืืช ื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื•ืช ืฉื ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืœื–ื• ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜

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 แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza. 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 แธฅalitza with one of them. If the yavam performed levirate betrothal with this one and performed แธฅalitza with that one, the first woman requires a bill of divorce.

ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ื•ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื•ืช ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืืช ื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ื•ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืœื–ื• ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื

If the yavam gave a bill of divorce to this yevama and a bill of divorce to that one, they require แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza. 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 แธฅalitza with one of them. If the yavam gave a bill of divorce to this woman and performed แธฅalitza with that one, nothing is effective after แธฅalitza, and he cannot betroth the rival wife.

ื—ืœืฅ ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืื• ื—ืœืฅ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืื• ื‘ืขืœ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืื• ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืœืฉืชื™ ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ืžื” ืื—ืช

If he performed แธฅalitza with one yevama and then performed แธฅalitza with a second yevama, or he performed แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza with the second, nothing is effective after แธฅalitza or intercourse. These halakhot apply both in cases of one yavam to two yevamot, as well as two yevamin to one yevama.

ื—ืœืฅ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืื• ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื•ืฃ

If he performed แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza with a second yevama, nothing is effective after แธฅalitza, whether the แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza.

ื•ื”ื‘ืขื™ืœื” ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื•ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ืช ื‘ืขื™ืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื

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 Neแธฅemya says: Both with regard to intercourse and แธฅalitza, 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.

ื’ืžืณ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืœื ื‘ื’ื˜ ืื—ืจ ื’ื˜ ื•ืžืืžืจ ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ืื‘ืœ ื’ื˜ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื” [ื•ืžืืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื”] ืžื”ื ื™

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 แธฅalitza.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื’ื˜ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื” ืžื”ื ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื”ื ื™ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื“ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ ืืžืจื™ ื’ื˜ ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ืื” ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ืื” ื•ืžื“ื’ื˜ ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ ื•ืืชื™ ืœืžื™ื‘ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื”

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 แธฅalitza likewise serves to remove her from the yavam; since a bill of divorce is ineffective for this yevama, แธฅalitza is also ineffective and does not sever their relationship completely. And perhaps the yavam will come to engage in intercourse after แธฅalitza, which is forbidden by the Torah prohibition derived from the verse: โ€œSo shall it be done to the man who does not build his brotherโ€™s houseโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:9).

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื” ืžื”ื ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื”ื ื™ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื“ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ ืืžืจื™ ืžืืžืจ ืœืงื ื•ืช ื•ื‘ื™ืื” ืœืงื ื•ืช ื•ืžื“ืžืืžืจ ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ื ื•ืืชื™ ืœืžื™ื‘ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืื”

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.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื

And what is the reason the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Neแธฅemya 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.

ืืžืจื™ ืื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื’ื˜ ื”ื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื’ื˜ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ื”ื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืื”

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 แธฅalitza. 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 แธฅalitza, 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 brotherโ€™s wife who is not eligible for levirate marriage.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืื™ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื ืืžืจื™ ืžืื™ ืœื’ื–ื•ืจ ื ื’ื–ื•ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื’ื˜ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื™ ืชื—ืœื•ืฅ ื•ืชื™ื–ื™ืœ

And what is the reason the Sages said with regard to this invalid แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza performed after a bill of divorce due to a concern for แธฅalitza performed after แธฅalitza? In this case there is no concern, as there is no prohibition involved in repeating แธฅalitza. In any situation like these, let her continue performing แธฅalitza, for no harm is done if แธฅalitza is performed unnecessarily.

ืœื™ื’ื–ื•ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืื” ืื˜ื• ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ืžื™ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื’ื˜ ืœืžืืžืจื• ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื’ื˜ ืœื‘ื™ืืชื•

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

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื

ยง 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

ืืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื–ื›ื” ืžืฉืœื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœื• ืœื ื–ื›ื” ืคื•ื—ืชื™ืŸ ืœื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื–ื›ื” ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ื ืœื• ืœื ื–ื›ื” ืคื•ื—ืชื™ืŸ ืœื•

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 oneโ€™s 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, Isaiahโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื•ืกืคืชื™ ืขืœ ื™ืžื™ืš ื—ืžืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืฉื ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืžืฉืœื• ื”ื•ืกื™ืคื• ืœื• ืชื“ืข ืฉื”ืจื™ ื ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ืžื“ ื•ืžืชื ื‘ื ื”ื ื” ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื•ื“ ื™ืืฉื™ื”ื• ืฉืžื• ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื ื ื•ืœื“ ืžื ืฉื”

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: How can you claim that one cannot outlive oneโ€™s allotted lifespan when there is a verse that states that Isaiah prophesied to Hezekiah as Hezekiah lay on his deathbed: โ€œAnd I will add unto your days fifteen yearsโ€? 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: โ€œBehold, a son shall be born unto the House of David, Josiah is his nameโ€ (Iย Kings 13:2). Josiah was the grandson of Manasseh, Hezekiahโ€™s son, and at the time Hezekiah lay on his deathbed, Manasseh had not yet been born. Evidently, Hezekiahโ€™s preordained allotted lifespan had still not been completed.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื•ื“ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื ื•ืœื“ ืื™ ืžืื™ื ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ื

And what would the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Akivaโ€™s 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 โ€œunto the House of David,โ€ 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 Hezekiahโ€™s allotted lifespan can be deduced from that verse.

ืืฉืชื• ืฉืžืชื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ืฉืžืชื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืฉื ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื”

ยง The mishna details the prohibition with regard to oneโ€™s wifeโ€™s sister in various cases: If a manโ€™s 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 oneโ€™s wifeโ€™s sister and the fact that the prohibition exists only in the lifetime of oneโ€™s wife is stated explicitly in the Torah, and there is no additional novelty in this mishnaโ€™s ruling.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ื—ื•ืœืฅ

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื’ื˜ ืื—ืจ ื’ื˜ ื•ืœื ืžืืžืจ ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ืœื” ืื—ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืœื” ื•ืœื ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื™ืฉ ื’ื˜ ืื—ืจ ื’ื˜ ื•ื™ืฉ ืžืืžืจ ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืื—ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืœื” ื•ืœื ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื

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 แธฅalitza is not effective after แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza. If a yavam has relations with the yevama or performs แธฅalitza 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.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื” ื’ื˜ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื’ื˜ ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ื›ืžืฆื•ืชื”

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 แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza, 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.

ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื

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 แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza, nothing is effective after แธฅalitza, as the levirate bond was completely nullified.

ื—ืœืฅ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืื• ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื

Similarly, if he performed แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza after they engaged in relations, nothing is effective after แธฅalitza or intercourse. Any action performed afterward is unrelated to the levirate bond.

ืื—ืช ื™ื‘ืžื” ืื—ืช ืœื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ืช ืฉืชื™ ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ืœื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ื•ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื•ืช ืฉื ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ื•ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืืช ื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื•ืช ืฉื ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืœื–ื• ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜

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 แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza. 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 แธฅalitza with one of them. If the yavam performed levirate betrothal with this one and performed แธฅalitza with that one, the first woman requires a bill of divorce.

ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ื•ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื•ืช ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืืช ื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ื•ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื–ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื• ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืœื–ื• ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื

If the yavam gave a bill of divorce to this yevama and a bill of divorce to that one, they require แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza. 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 แธฅalitza with one of them. If the yavam gave a bill of divorce to this woman and performed แธฅalitza with that one, nothing is effective after แธฅalitza, and he cannot betroth the rival wife.

ื—ืœืฅ ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืื• ื—ืœืฅ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืื• ื‘ืขืœ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืื• ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืœืฉืชื™ ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ืžื” ืื—ืช

If he performed แธฅalitza with one yevama and then performed แธฅalitza with a second yevama, or he performed แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza with the second, nothing is effective after แธฅalitza or intercourse. These halakhot apply both in cases of one yavam to two yevamot, as well as two yevamin to one yevama.

ื—ืœืฅ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืื• ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืŸ ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื•ืฃ

If he performed แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza with a second yevama, nothing is effective after แธฅalitza, whether the แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza.

ื•ื”ื‘ืขื™ืœื” ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื•ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ืช ื‘ืขื™ืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื

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 Neแธฅemya says: Both with regard to intercourse and แธฅalitza, 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.

ื’ืžืณ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืœื ื‘ื’ื˜ ืื—ืจ ื’ื˜ ื•ืžืืžืจ ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ืื‘ืœ ื’ื˜ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื” [ื•ืžืืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื”] ืžื”ื ื™

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 แธฅalitza.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื’ื˜ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื” ืžื”ื ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื”ื ื™ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื“ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ ืืžืจื™ ื’ื˜ ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ืื” ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ืื” ื•ืžื“ื’ื˜ ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ ื•ืืชื™ ืœืžื™ื‘ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื”

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 แธฅalitza likewise serves to remove her from the yavam; since a bill of divorce is ineffective for this yevama, แธฅalitza is also ineffective and does not sever their relationship completely. And perhaps the yavam will come to engage in intercourse after แธฅalitza, which is forbidden by the Torah prohibition derived from the verse: โ€œSo shall it be done to the man who does not build his brotherโ€™s houseโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:9).

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžื” ืžื”ื ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื”ื ื™ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื“ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ ืืžืจื™ ืžืืžืจ ืœืงื ื•ืช ื•ื‘ื™ืื” ืœืงื ื•ืช ื•ืžื“ืžืืžืจ ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ื ื•ืืชื™ ืœืžื™ื‘ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืื”

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.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื

And what is the reason the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Neแธฅemya 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.

ืืžืจื™ ืื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื’ื˜ ื”ื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื’ื˜ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ื”ื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ื™ืื” ืื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืื”

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 แธฅalitza. 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 แธฅalitza, 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 brotherโ€™s wife who is not eligible for levirate marriage.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžื•ืจ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืื™ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื ืืžืจื™ ืžืื™ ืœื’ื–ื•ืจ ื ื’ื–ื•ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื’ื˜ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื›ืœ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื™ ืชื—ืœื•ืฅ ื•ืชื™ื–ื™ืœ

And what is the reason the Sages said with regard to this invalid แธฅalitza 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 แธฅalitza performed after a bill of divorce due to a concern for แธฅalitza performed after แธฅalitza? In this case there is no concern, as there is no prohibition involved in repeating แธฅalitza. In any situation like these, let her continue performing แธฅalitza, for no harm is done if แธฅalitza is performed unnecessarily.

ืœื™ื’ื–ื•ืจ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืื” ืื˜ื• ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ืžืืžืจ ืžื™ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื’ื˜ ืœืžืืžืจื• ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื’ื˜ ืœื‘ื™ืืชื•

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

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื

ยง Rava said:

Scroll To Top