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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 25, 2014 | 讙壮 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 52

讛讗讬 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讙讟 讗讞专 讛讙讟 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讻讚讗诪专谉 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转 讻讬爪讚 讛转专转谉 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

The Gemara is puzzled: Is this case upon which the mishna elaborates the case of a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce that is mentioned first in the mishna? The mishna first is referring to a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, but when it comes to the specifics, it mentions a bill of divorce after levirate betrothal. Rav Yehuda said: This is what the tanna is saying: With regard to a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, and levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal, it is as we said and these cases were explained in the baraita, but with regard to one yavam and one yevama, how is their complex bond released? He then proceeds to delineate: If he performed levirate betrothal with his yevama and gave her a bill of divorce, she requires 岣litza from him.

注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讘注诇 讛专讬 讝讜 讻诪爪讜转讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讛 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讜注诇 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 讝讛 讻诪爪讜转讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If the yavam performed levirate betrothal and engaged in intercourse, this is done in accordance with its mitzva. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports the statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna said: The mitzva of a yevama is properly performed when the yavam betroths the yevama and only afterward engages in intercourse. This statement indicates that the levirate betrothal is a necessary component of the mitzva, and the mishna seems to imply the same. The Gemara refutes this claim: This is not necessarily the case, as you can read the mishna as stating that this also is in accordance with its mitzva. If he performed levirate betrothal and then engaged in intercourse, this too is a proper manner to proceed, but we do not have to interpret the mishna as indicating that this is the only way to fulfill the mitzva.

驻砖讬讟讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛注讜砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 驻专讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讝讬拽转 讬讘诪讬谉 讜讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讝讬拽转 讗专讜住讬谉 讜谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? If one can fulfill the mitzva without performing levirate betrothal, why would one think that levirate betrothal is detrimental? The Gemara answers: It was indeed necessary for the mishna to teach us this, for it might enter your mind to say that since the Master said above (29b): One who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama causes the levirate bond to dissipate from himself, and a standard bond of betrothal and marriage takes effect on him, you might say that he no longer performs a mitzva when he carries out levirate marriage, as the levirate bond is no longer in place. The tanna therefore teaches us that we consider the levirate betrothal and the subsequent intercourse as part of the same process, which constitutes a mitzva.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讜注诇 讜讗诐 讘注诇 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 拽谞讛 讗诐 讘注诇 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛讗 拽谞讬讛 讘讘讬讗讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讘注诇 讘诇讗 诪讗诪专 拽谞讛

The Gemara continues: With regard to the matter itself, Rav Huna said: The mitzva of levirate marriage is properly performed when the yavam betroths the yevama and afterward engages in intercourse, and if he engaged in intercourse and later performed levirate betrothal, he has acquired the yevama. The Gemara is puzzled: If he engaged in intercourse and then performed levirate betrothal it is obvious that he has acquired her, as he has already acquired her by intercourse. The levirate betrothal does not affect the issue one way or another. Rather, say as follows: If he engaged in intercourse without prior levirate betrothal, even in that case he has acquired her.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜拽讛 诪讻转 诪专讚讜转 诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara challenges this: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that a yavam who has intercourse without levirate betrothal is flogged? The Gemara answers: The lashes are not because he transgressed by not performing levirate betrothal, but rather they are lashes for rebelliousness given for transgressing a rabbinic law, namely for acting in an immodest manner.

讚专讘 诪谞讙讬讚 诪讗谉 讚诪拽讚砖 讘讘讬讗讛 讜诪讗谉 讚诪拽讚砖 讘砖讜拽讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪拽讚砖 讘诇讗 砖讚讜讻讬

The Gemara cites other instances where the Sages administered lashes for immodest behavior. As Rav would flog one who betroths a woman by intercourse, despite the fact that betrothal is effective by this method, because he acted in a promiscuous manner. And he would likewise flog one who betroths a woman in the marketplace, rather than at home, as this too is loose behavior, and he would also administer lashes to one who betroths a woman without a prior marriage agreement [shiddukhei], as this too is an act of permissiveness.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪住专 诪讜讚注讗 讗讙讬讟讗

And he would further lash one who nullifies a bill of divorce he had earlier sent by declaring in the presence of witnesses that the bill of divorce is nullified. This action is effective, but by doing so he transgresses the rabbinic ordinance of the Sages that bans such an action as it might lead his wife to unlawfully wed another. And he would also flog one who delivers a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce, by informing three people before giving a bill of divorce that he is not doing so of his own free will and he wants to cancel it ahead of time. Here too he will mislead his wife, who will assume it is a valid bill of divorce.

讜诪讗谉 讚驻拽讬专 砖诇讬讞讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜诪讗谉 讚砖讛讬 砖诪转讗 讚专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜转讘注 诇砖诪转讬讛

And he would lash one who behaves irreverently toward a messenger of the Sages, even if the messenger is not a scholar, as he thereby shows disrespect to the Sages themselves. And he would administer lashes to one who remained under an excommunication of the Sages for thirty days and did not go to the court and petition for the removal of his excommunication after correcting the sin that led to the excommunication in the first place. This behavior demonstrates that he does not care about the excommunication, and is therefore deserving of lashes.

讜注诇 讞转谞讗 讚讚讗讬专 讘讘讬 讞诪讜讛讬 讚讚讗讬专 讗讬谉 讚讞诇讬祝 诇讗 讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 讚讞诇讬祝 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬 讞诪讜讛讬 讜谞讙讚讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讚诐 讛讜讛 讚讬讬诐 诪讞诪转讬讛

And he would also lash a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law鈥檚 house, as this is likely to lead to temptation between the younger couple and older couple who share the same house. The Gemara asks: With regard to one who lives in his father-in-law鈥檚 house, yes, he would lash him, but with regard to one who only passed through his father-in-law鈥檚 house at regular intervals, no, he would not lash him? But an incident occurred involving a certain man who passed by the entrance to his father-in-law鈥檚 house and Rav Sheshet lashed him. The Gemara explains: There was a special set of circumstances in that case, as that man was suspected with regard to his mother-in-law, and therefore he was lashed merely for passing near her house, as he thereby gave credence to the rumors.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讘讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗 诪谞讙讬讚 专讘 讗诇讗 诇诪拽讚砖 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讘诇讗 砖讚讜讻讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讚讜讻讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 驻专讬爪讜转讗

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 would say: In all these cases Rav would not flog, apart from the case of one who betrothed by intercourse and without a prior marriage agreement. And there are those who say he would flog a man who betrothed by intercourse even if he did so with a prior marriage agreement, due to the immorality involved, as he must invite witnesses to observe the act.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 诇讛 讻住祝 讗讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讻讬爪讚 讘砖讟专 讻讬爪讚 讻讚讗诪专谉 讻转讘 诇讛 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讟专 讻转讜讘转 讬讘诪讬谉 讻讬爪讚

The Sages taught: How is levirate betrothal performed? He gives her money or the equivalent value of money and declares: You are hereby betrothed to me. The Gemara asks: And with a document, how does he betroth her? The Gemara is puzzled by this question: With a document, how does he betroth her? It is as we have said by the halakhot of a regular document of betrothal: If he wrote to her on paper or on earthenware, even though it is not worth a peruta, the words: You are hereby betrothed to me, it is effective. As a document is not effective as a means of betrothal due to its monetary value but rather due to the words it contains, there is no requirement that it be of a minimum value. However, because the halakhot of betrothal by a document were already taught, the Gemara is puzzled as to the nature of this question. Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: With regard to the document of a marriage contract for levirate marriage, how is it written? Abaye understands that the question did not refer to the document of betrothal but rather to the marriage contract of a levirate marriage.

讻转讘 诇讛 讗谞讗 驻诇讜谞讬 讘专 驻诇讜谞讬 拽讘讬诇讬转 讬转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讬讘诪转讬 注诇讬 诇讝讜谉 讜诇驻专谞住讛 讻专讗讜讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 诪砖谞讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽诇讛 讘注讬谞讬讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛

The Gemara explains that he writes to her: I, so-and-so, son of so-and-so, have accepted so-and-so, my yevama upon me, to feed and maintain her in a fitting manner, provided that her marriage contract will still be payable from the property of her first husband and not from the property of the yavam. The Gemara adds: But if the first husband does not have property, the Sages instituted for her that she should receive her marriage contract from the second husband, i.e., the yavam, for the same reason that they instituted the marriage contract in the first place: So that she will not be demeaned in his eyes such that he will easily divorce her. If he will suffer no financial penalty, he is likely to divorce over the smallest argument.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗转 诪讙讜专砖转 讛讬诪谞讬 讜讗讬 讗转 诪讜转专转 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 诪讛讜 讙讟 讬讘诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讙讟 讚诪讛谞讬 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪讛谞讬 讘讬讘诪讛 讙讟 讚诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讘讬讘诪讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讘讙讬讟讗

Abaye inquired of Rabba: If a yavam gave his yevama a bill of divorce, and said the following formula: You are hereby divorced from me but you are not permitted to any other man, what is the status of such a bill of divorce? Is the bill of divorce of a yevama a bill of divorce based on rabbinic law and therefore subject to the halakhot of a regular bill of divorce; and consequently, a bill of divorce that is effective for a married woman is also effective for a yevama, and a bill of divorce that is not effective for a married woman is not effective for a yevama? Since this type of a divorce is invalid in the case of a married woman, it is similarly ineffective in the case of a yevama. Or perhaps the Sages were concerned that perhaps people will come to confuse this bill of divorce with an unqualified bill of divorce given by a yavam and they therefore decreed that it should affect the levirate bond, preventing the yavam from marrying the yevama.

[讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讘讙讬讟讗] 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 谞讬讬专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻住诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 驻住讬诇 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讛讻讗 拽驻住讬诇 讘讻讛讜谞讛

Rabba said to him: We are concerned that perhaps they will come to confuse this bill of divorce with a regular bill of divorce, and it therefore disqualifies a yevama. Rabba bar 岣nan strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, that we are stringent with the bill of divorce of a yevama out of concern that people might confuse the two types of bills of divorce, if he gives her a mere piece of paper, which does not mention divorce, so too will it disqualify her? He said to him: There it is different, as a mere piece of paper has no effect on any other woman, for it does not disqualify her for marrying into the priesthood. If a husband gives his wife a piece of paper that contains nothing about divorce, even if he says: This is a bill of divorce, his action is of no consequence, not even to forbid her to a priest. Here, however, a bill of divorce of this kind at least disqualifies a woman from marrying into the priesthood.

讚转谞讬讗 讜讗砖讛 讙专讜砖讛 诪讗讬砖讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞转讙专砖讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬砖讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 讜讛讬讬谞讜 专讬讞 讛讙讟 砖驻讜住诇 讘讻讛讜谞讛

As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淭hey shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; and a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take, as he is holy to his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:7). This verse lists the women whom a priest is prohibited from marrying. From this verse it can be inferred: Even if she was only divorced from her husband who said when giving her a bill of divorce: You are divorced from me, but did not permit her to other men, even such a woman they may not take in marriage. Although a bill of divorce of this kind does not permit the woman to others, it does suffice to prohibit her from marrying a priest. And this is what is referred to as the trace of a bill of divorce, which disqualifies a woman from marrying into the priesthood. Since this bill of divorce is valid to a certain extent, it also disqualifies a yevama.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗诪专 讗讞讚 诇诇讘诇专 讻转讜讘 讙讟 诇讗专讜住转讬 诇讻砖讗讻谞住谞讛 讗讙专砖谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讬讚讜 诇讙专砖讛

Rami bar 岣ma said: They said that if one said to a scribe [lavlar]: Write a bill of divorce for my betrothed now, such that when I marry her I will divorce her with the bill of divorce, if he indeed gave her this bill of divorce after their marriage it is a valid bill of divorce. Why? Because it is already in his power to divorce her while she is betrothed to him, and therefore the bill of divorce written during their betrothal is valid.

讜诇讗砖讛 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讙讟 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇讙专砖讛 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讬讘诪转讜 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讙讬讚讗 讘讬讛 讻讗专讜住转讜 讚诪讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 诇讗 转讬拽讜

But if he wrote a bill of divorce for a regular woman who has no connection to him, even if he later married her, it is not a valid bill of divorce. This is because at the time of the writing of the bill of divorce, it is not in his power to divorce her, and therefore the bill of divorce is of no consequence. All this is evident, but in light of the above halakhot Rami bar 岣ma inquires: If he wrote a bill of divorce for his yevama and did not give it to her immediately, but only after they were married, what is the halakha? Is it a valid bill of divorce or not? The Gemara clarifies the options: On the one hand, since she is tied to him she is considered like his betrothed; or perhaps, since he has not yet performed levirate betrothal with her, she is not even considered the equivalent of his betrothed, and the bill of divorce is not effective? The Gemara does not have a resolution for this and states that the question shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讻转讘 讙讟 诇讝讬拽转讜 讜诇讗 诇诪讗诪专讜 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 诇讝讬拽转讜 诪讛讜 诪讗诪专 注讬诇讜讬 讝讬拽讛 拽讗 专诪讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讙专砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讜讛诪讙专砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬

Rav 岣nanya inquires: If he wrote a bill of divorce for his levirate bond, by specifying in the bill of divorce that he is thereby severing the levirate bond between them, but not for his levirate betrothal, or if he wrote a bill of divorce for his levirate betrothal and stated that it is not for his levirate bond, what is the halakha? Is the levirate betrothal superimposed upon the levirate bond, so that they are considered a single, continuous link, and he is like one who divorces half a woman, and one who divorces half a woman has done nothing; or perhaps this stands on its own and that stands on its own, and he can therefore cancel either the levirate bond or the levirate betrothal separately.

讜转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 谞转谉 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讛讜转专讛 爪专转讛 诇专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara asks: And why do you not resolve the dilemma from a teaching of Rava? For Rava said: If a yavam gave a bill of divorce for his levirate betrothal, her rival wife is permitted. The levirate betrothal he had previously performed is thereby canceled, which leaves the bond intact, and the rival wife of this yevama remains available for levirate marriage. This indicates that levirate betrothal and the levirate bond are not connected. The Gemara answers: To Rava it is obvious, but to Rav 岣nanya it is a dilemma. What, then, is the halakha? Since no other proof is forthcoming, and Rav 岣nanya does not accept the teaching of Rava, the question remains undecided. The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讞诇抓 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

搂 It was taught in the mishna: If the yavam performed 岣litza and then performed levirate betrothal, nothing is effective after 岣litza and this levirate betrothal is not valid. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who says that betrothal does not take effect on those who are forbidden as they are liable for violating a prohibition. Once he has performed 岣litza, the woman is forbidden to him due to the 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), and betrothal is ineffective. But the Rabbis say something is effective after 岣litza. Although the woman who performed 岣litza is forbidden to him, if he does betroth her, his betrothal is effective, as with any regular prohibition.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 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 讜讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 讙讟 诪讬 诪讛谞讬 讘讛 诪讗诪专

The Gemara asks: And can you establish that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? But doesn鈥檛 the first clause of the mishna teach: If he gave a bill of divorce and performed levirate betrothal, she requires a bill of divorce and 岣litza. Now if this is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion, once he gave her a bill of divorce, is levirate betrothal effective for her?

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇讬讘诪转讜 砖谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗砖专 砖诇讞讛 讗讞专 砖讬诇讜讞

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived that if one gives a bill of divorce to his yevama, she is forbidden to him forever and he no longer has the option of marrying her? As it is stated with regard to a woman who was divorced and married another man who subsequently died or divorced her: 鈥淗er former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:4). Rabbi Akiva emphasizes the words 鈥渨ho sent her away,鈥 implying that he may not remarry her after sending her away. This indicates that there is an instance where a husband may not remarry his wife even if she has not married another, merely because he has given her a bill of divorce. This applies to the case of a yevama where the bill of divorce she receives renders her permanently prohibited to him. According to Rabbi Akiva, once she is rendered prohibited to him, no further action performed by the yavam is effective, so why does the levirate betrothal performed require a bill of divorce?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讟 讬讘诪讬谉 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

Rav Ashi said: This is not difficult because the bill of divorce for levirate marriage was established by the Sages and only has the force of rabbinic law, and the aforementioned verse is not a Torah prohibition, but rather a mere support. Therefore there is no Torah prohibition against marrying a yevama who received a bill of divorce, and the levirate betrothal performed afterward is effective according to Rabbi Akiva as well.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗诪讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讞诇讜爪讛 讻注专讜讛 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖拽讚砖讛 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讛 诇砖讜诐 讬讘诪讜转 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

With regard to the halakha of betrothal after 岣litza, the Gemara notes: This halakha is also taught in a baraita as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: These matters were only stated in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who considers a yevama who underwent 岣litza to be prohibited like a forbidden relation. Therefore, any further betrothal is not effective with her, as is the case with forbidden relations. But the Rabbis say something is effective after 岣litza. And I say: When is betrothal effective after 岣litza? It is effective when he betrothed for the purpose of marriage, like the regular betrothal of any ordinary woman. But if he betrothed her after 岣litza and specified that he is doing so for the purpose of levirate marriage, in that case nothing is effective after 岣litza.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讞讜诇抓 诇讬讘诪转讜 讜讞讝专 讜拽讚砖讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽讚砖讛 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 诇砖讜诐 讬讘诪讜转 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖拽讚砖讛 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 讘讬谉 砖拽讚砖讛 诇砖讜诐 讬讘诪讜转 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who performs 岣litza with his yevama and then betroths her, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If he betrothed her for the purpose of regular marriage she requires a bill of divorce from him; if he betrothed her for the purpose of levirate marriage she does not require a bill of divorce from him. And the Rabbis say: Whether he betrothed her for the purpose of regular marriage, or whether he betrothed her for the purpose of levirate marriage, she requires a bill of divorce from him, as this betrothal is effective.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注砖讗讜讛 讻注讜讚专 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讜讻住讘讜专 砖诇讜 讛谉 讚诇讗 拽谞讬

Rav Yosef said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 distinction between one who betroths his 岣lutza for the purpose of levirate marriage and one who does so for the purpose of regular marriage? It is because the Sages considered him like one who hoes the property of a convert who died without leaving heirs. The property of such a convert is ownerless, and whoever takes possession of it acquires its title. As one of the methods of taking possession of land is hoeing, if one hoed the property of this convert with the intention of acquiring it, it belongs to him. However, if he hoed the convert鈥檚 property while mistakenly thinking that the land was his own, even though he performed an act of acquisition, since he lacked the requisite intention he has not acquired the land. Here too, since the yavam intended to betroth her for the purpose of levirate marriage, and the levirate bond no longer exists, his action is not effective.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇诪讬拽谞讬 讛讻讗 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇诪讬拽谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇注讜讚专 讘谞讻住讬 讙专 讝讛 讜讻住讘讜专 砖诇 讙专 讗讞专 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬

Abaye said to him: Are the two situations comparable? There, in the case of hoeing, he does not intend to acquire the land as he works, as he thinks that it is already his, whereas here he does intend to acquire the woman. This case is similar only to the one who hoes the property of this deceased convert while thinking it is that of a different convert. The halakha in that case is that he acquires the land, despite his imprecise knowledge of what he is acquiring. Here too the betrothal should take effect regardless of his error.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪讗诪专 讬讘诪讬谉 专讘讬 住讘专 诪讗诪专 注讬诇讜讬 讝讬拽讛 拽讗 专诪讬 讜讗转讗讬 讞诇讬爪讛 讗驻拽注转讛 诇讝讬拽讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪讗诪专 讬讘诪讬谉 诪讬 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讛谞讬

Rather, Abaye said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis cannot be explained in the above manner. Instead, he suggests: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where he said to his 岣lutza: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that levirate betrothal is superimposed upon the levirate bond, and is therefore only possible when the bond exists, and since 岣litza comes and releases the levirate bond, levirate betrothal is not effective for her. And the Rabbis hold: This, the levirate bond, stands on its own, and that, levirate betrothal, stands on its own. Although the bond has been canceled, the formula of: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, is effective. At the outset, before 岣litza, if he had said to her: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, would this not be an effective betrothal despite the lack of connection between the levirate betrothal and the levirate bond? Now too it should be effective, even though she performed 岣litza.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讘诪讗诪专 讬讘诪讬谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讛谞讬讗 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讝讬拽转 讬讘诪讬谉 专讘讬 住讘专

Rava said: If he said to her: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, everyone agrees that it is effective, and she is acquired. And with what are we dealing here? It is a case where he said to her: Be betrothed to me with the levirate bond, and the dispute is as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds

  • 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: 51-57 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue our conversation about the power of Maamar and Get in relation to Yibum and Chalitza....
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 52: Rabbinic Muscle Lashes

What happens when the couple that has ma'amar between them sleep together before they formalize yibum? A discussion of lashes...
scribe palette

Take a Letter

鈥淩ami bar 岣ma said: They said that if one said to a scribe [lavlar]: Write a bill of divorce for...

Yevamot 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 52

讛讗讬 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讙讟 讗讞专 讛讙讟 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讻讚讗诪专谉 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转 讻讬爪讚 讛转专转谉 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

The Gemara is puzzled: Is this case upon which the mishna elaborates the case of a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce that is mentioned first in the mishna? The mishna first is referring to a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, but when it comes to the specifics, it mentions a bill of divorce after levirate betrothal. Rav Yehuda said: This is what the tanna is saying: With regard to a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, and levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal, it is as we said and these cases were explained in the baraita, but with regard to one yavam and one yevama, how is their complex bond released? He then proceeds to delineate: If he performed levirate betrothal with his yevama and gave her a bill of divorce, she requires 岣litza from him.

注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讘注诇 讛专讬 讝讜 讻诪爪讜转讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讛 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讜注诇 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 讝讛 讻诪爪讜转讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If the yavam performed levirate betrothal and engaged in intercourse, this is done in accordance with its mitzva. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports the statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna said: The mitzva of a yevama is properly performed when the yavam betroths the yevama and only afterward engages in intercourse. This statement indicates that the levirate betrothal is a necessary component of the mitzva, and the mishna seems to imply the same. The Gemara refutes this claim: This is not necessarily the case, as you can read the mishna as stating that this also is in accordance with its mitzva. If he performed levirate betrothal and then engaged in intercourse, this too is a proper manner to proceed, but we do not have to interpret the mishna as indicating that this is the only way to fulfill the mitzva.

驻砖讬讟讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛注讜砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 驻专讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讝讬拽转 讬讘诪讬谉 讜讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讝讬拽转 讗专讜住讬谉 讜谞砖讜讗讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? If one can fulfill the mitzva without performing levirate betrothal, why would one think that levirate betrothal is detrimental? The Gemara answers: It was indeed necessary for the mishna to teach us this, for it might enter your mind to say that since the Master said above (29b): One who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama causes the levirate bond to dissipate from himself, and a standard bond of betrothal and marriage takes effect on him, you might say that he no longer performs a mitzva when he carries out levirate marriage, as the levirate bond is no longer in place. The tanna therefore teaches us that we consider the levirate betrothal and the subsequent intercourse as part of the same process, which constitutes a mitzva.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讜注诇 讜讗诐 讘注诇 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 拽谞讛 讗诐 讘注诇 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛讗 拽谞讬讛 讘讘讬讗讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讘注诇 讘诇讗 诪讗诪专 拽谞讛

The Gemara continues: With regard to the matter itself, Rav Huna said: The mitzva of levirate marriage is properly performed when the yavam betroths the yevama and afterward engages in intercourse, and if he engaged in intercourse and later performed levirate betrothal, he has acquired the yevama. The Gemara is puzzled: If he engaged in intercourse and then performed levirate betrothal it is obvious that he has acquired her, as he has already acquired her by intercourse. The levirate betrothal does not affect the issue one way or another. Rather, say as follows: If he engaged in intercourse without prior levirate betrothal, even in that case he has acquired her.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜拽讛 诪讻转 诪专讚讜转 诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara challenges this: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that a yavam who has intercourse without levirate betrothal is flogged? The Gemara answers: The lashes are not because he transgressed by not performing levirate betrothal, but rather they are lashes for rebelliousness given for transgressing a rabbinic law, namely for acting in an immodest manner.

讚专讘 诪谞讙讬讚 诪讗谉 讚诪拽讚砖 讘讘讬讗讛 讜诪讗谉 讚诪拽讚砖 讘砖讜拽讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪拽讚砖 讘诇讗 砖讚讜讻讬

The Gemara cites other instances where the Sages administered lashes for immodest behavior. As Rav would flog one who betroths a woman by intercourse, despite the fact that betrothal is effective by this method, because he acted in a promiscuous manner. And he would likewise flog one who betroths a woman in the marketplace, rather than at home, as this too is loose behavior, and he would also administer lashes to one who betroths a woman without a prior marriage agreement [shiddukhei], as this too is an act of permissiveness.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪住专 诪讜讚注讗 讗讙讬讟讗

And he would further lash one who nullifies a bill of divorce he had earlier sent by declaring in the presence of witnesses that the bill of divorce is nullified. This action is effective, but by doing so he transgresses the rabbinic ordinance of the Sages that bans such an action as it might lead his wife to unlawfully wed another. And he would also flog one who delivers a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce, by informing three people before giving a bill of divorce that he is not doing so of his own free will and he wants to cancel it ahead of time. Here too he will mislead his wife, who will assume it is a valid bill of divorce.

讜诪讗谉 讚驻拽讬专 砖诇讬讞讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜诪讗谉 讚砖讛讬 砖诪转讗 讚专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜转讘注 诇砖诪转讬讛

And he would lash one who behaves irreverently toward a messenger of the Sages, even if the messenger is not a scholar, as he thereby shows disrespect to the Sages themselves. And he would administer lashes to one who remained under an excommunication of the Sages for thirty days and did not go to the court and petition for the removal of his excommunication after correcting the sin that led to the excommunication in the first place. This behavior demonstrates that he does not care about the excommunication, and is therefore deserving of lashes.

讜注诇 讞转谞讗 讚讚讗讬专 讘讘讬 讞诪讜讛讬 讚讚讗讬专 讗讬谉 讚讞诇讬祝 诇讗 讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 讚讞诇讬祝 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬 讞诪讜讛讬 讜谞讙讚讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讚诐 讛讜讛 讚讬讬诐 诪讞诪转讬讛

And he would also lash a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law鈥檚 house, as this is likely to lead to temptation between the younger couple and older couple who share the same house. The Gemara asks: With regard to one who lives in his father-in-law鈥檚 house, yes, he would lash him, but with regard to one who only passed through his father-in-law鈥檚 house at regular intervals, no, he would not lash him? But an incident occurred involving a certain man who passed by the entrance to his father-in-law鈥檚 house and Rav Sheshet lashed him. The Gemara explains: There was a special set of circumstances in that case, as that man was suspected with regard to his mother-in-law, and therefore he was lashed merely for passing near her house, as he thereby gave credence to the rumors.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讘讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗 诪谞讙讬讚 专讘 讗诇讗 诇诪拽讚砖 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讘诇讗 砖讚讜讻讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讚讜讻讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 驻专讬爪讜转讗

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 would say: In all these cases Rav would not flog, apart from the case of one who betrothed by intercourse and without a prior marriage agreement. And there are those who say he would flog a man who betrothed by intercourse even if he did so with a prior marriage agreement, due to the immorality involved, as he must invite witnesses to observe the act.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 诪讗诪专 谞转谉 诇讛 讻住祝 讗讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讻讬爪讚 讘砖讟专 讻讬爪讚 讻讚讗诪专谉 讻转讘 诇讛 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讟专 讻转讜讘转 讬讘诪讬谉 讻讬爪讚

The Sages taught: How is levirate betrothal performed? He gives her money or the equivalent value of money and declares: You are hereby betrothed to me. The Gemara asks: And with a document, how does he betroth her? The Gemara is puzzled by this question: With a document, how does he betroth her? It is as we have said by the halakhot of a regular document of betrothal: If he wrote to her on paper or on earthenware, even though it is not worth a peruta, the words: You are hereby betrothed to me, it is effective. As a document is not effective as a means of betrothal due to its monetary value but rather due to the words it contains, there is no requirement that it be of a minimum value. However, because the halakhot of betrothal by a document were already taught, the Gemara is puzzled as to the nature of this question. Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: With regard to the document of a marriage contract for levirate marriage, how is it written? Abaye understands that the question did not refer to the document of betrothal but rather to the marriage contract of a levirate marriage.

讻转讘 诇讛 讗谞讗 驻诇讜谞讬 讘专 驻诇讜谞讬 拽讘讬诇讬转 讬转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讬讘诪转讬 注诇讬 诇讝讜谉 讜诇驻专谞住讛 讻专讗讜讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 诪砖谞讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽诇讛 讘注讬谞讬讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛

The Gemara explains that he writes to her: I, so-and-so, son of so-and-so, have accepted so-and-so, my yevama upon me, to feed and maintain her in a fitting manner, provided that her marriage contract will still be payable from the property of her first husband and not from the property of the yavam. The Gemara adds: But if the first husband does not have property, the Sages instituted for her that she should receive her marriage contract from the second husband, i.e., the yavam, for the same reason that they instituted the marriage contract in the first place: So that she will not be demeaned in his eyes such that he will easily divorce her. If he will suffer no financial penalty, he is likely to divorce over the smallest argument.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗转 诪讙讜专砖转 讛讬诪谞讬 讜讗讬 讗转 诪讜转专转 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 诪讛讜 讙讟 讬讘诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讙讟 讚诪讛谞讬 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪讛谞讬 讘讬讘诪讛 讙讟 讚诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讘讬讘诪讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讘讙讬讟讗

Abaye inquired of Rabba: If a yavam gave his yevama a bill of divorce, and said the following formula: You are hereby divorced from me but you are not permitted to any other man, what is the status of such a bill of divorce? Is the bill of divorce of a yevama a bill of divorce based on rabbinic law and therefore subject to the halakhot of a regular bill of divorce; and consequently, a bill of divorce that is effective for a married woman is also effective for a yevama, and a bill of divorce that is not effective for a married woman is not effective for a yevama? Since this type of a divorce is invalid in the case of a married woman, it is similarly ineffective in the case of a yevama. Or perhaps the Sages were concerned that perhaps people will come to confuse this bill of divorce with an unqualified bill of divorce given by a yavam and they therefore decreed that it should affect the levirate bond, preventing the yavam from marrying the yevama.

[讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讘讙讬讟讗] 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 谞讬讬专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻住诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 驻住讬诇 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讛讻讗 拽驻住讬诇 讘讻讛讜谞讛

Rabba said to him: We are concerned that perhaps they will come to confuse this bill of divorce with a regular bill of divorce, and it therefore disqualifies a yevama. Rabba bar 岣nan strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, that we are stringent with the bill of divorce of a yevama out of concern that people might confuse the two types of bills of divorce, if he gives her a mere piece of paper, which does not mention divorce, so too will it disqualify her? He said to him: There it is different, as a mere piece of paper has no effect on any other woman, for it does not disqualify her for marrying into the priesthood. If a husband gives his wife a piece of paper that contains nothing about divorce, even if he says: This is a bill of divorce, his action is of no consequence, not even to forbid her to a priest. Here, however, a bill of divorce of this kind at least disqualifies a woman from marrying into the priesthood.

讚转谞讬讗 讜讗砖讛 讙专讜砖讛 诪讗讬砖讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞转讙专砖讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬砖讛 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 讜讛讬讬谞讜 专讬讞 讛讙讟 砖驻讜住诇 讘讻讛讜谞讛

As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淭hey shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; and a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take, as he is holy to his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:7). This verse lists the women whom a priest is prohibited from marrying. From this verse it can be inferred: Even if she was only divorced from her husband who said when giving her a bill of divorce: You are divorced from me, but did not permit her to other men, even such a woman they may not take in marriage. Although a bill of divorce of this kind does not permit the woman to others, it does suffice to prohibit her from marrying a priest. And this is what is referred to as the trace of a bill of divorce, which disqualifies a woman from marrying into the priesthood. Since this bill of divorce is valid to a certain extent, it also disqualifies a yevama.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗诪专 讗讞讚 诇诇讘诇专 讻转讜讘 讙讟 诇讗专讜住转讬 诇讻砖讗讻谞住谞讛 讗讙专砖谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讬讚讜 诇讙专砖讛

Rami bar 岣ma said: They said that if one said to a scribe [lavlar]: Write a bill of divorce for my betrothed now, such that when I marry her I will divorce her with the bill of divorce, if he indeed gave her this bill of divorce after their marriage it is a valid bill of divorce. Why? Because it is already in his power to divorce her while she is betrothed to him, and therefore the bill of divorce written during their betrothal is valid.

讜诇讗砖讛 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讙讟 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇讙专砖讛 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讬讘诪转讜 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讙讬讚讗 讘讬讛 讻讗专讜住转讜 讚诪讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 诇讗 转讬拽讜

But if he wrote a bill of divorce for a regular woman who has no connection to him, even if he later married her, it is not a valid bill of divorce. This is because at the time of the writing of the bill of divorce, it is not in his power to divorce her, and therefore the bill of divorce is of no consequence. All this is evident, but in light of the above halakhot Rami bar 岣ma inquires: If he wrote a bill of divorce for his yevama and did not give it to her immediately, but only after they were married, what is the halakha? Is it a valid bill of divorce or not? The Gemara clarifies the options: On the one hand, since she is tied to him she is considered like his betrothed; or perhaps, since he has not yet performed levirate betrothal with her, she is not even considered the equivalent of his betrothed, and the bill of divorce is not effective? The Gemara does not have a resolution for this and states that the question shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讻转讘 讙讟 诇讝讬拽转讜 讜诇讗 诇诪讗诪专讜 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 诇讝讬拽转讜 诪讛讜 诪讗诪专 注讬诇讜讬 讝讬拽讛 拽讗 专诪讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讙专砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讜讛诪讙专砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬

Rav 岣nanya inquires: If he wrote a bill of divorce for his levirate bond, by specifying in the bill of divorce that he is thereby severing the levirate bond between them, but not for his levirate betrothal, or if he wrote a bill of divorce for his levirate betrothal and stated that it is not for his levirate bond, what is the halakha? Is the levirate betrothal superimposed upon the levirate bond, so that they are considered a single, continuous link, and he is like one who divorces half a woman, and one who divorces half a woman has done nothing; or perhaps this stands on its own and that stands on its own, and he can therefore cancel either the levirate bond or the levirate betrothal separately.

讜转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 谞转谉 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讛讜转专讛 爪专转讛 诇专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara asks: And why do you not resolve the dilemma from a teaching of Rava? For Rava said: If a yavam gave a bill of divorce for his levirate betrothal, her rival wife is permitted. The levirate betrothal he had previously performed is thereby canceled, which leaves the bond intact, and the rival wife of this yevama remains available for levirate marriage. This indicates that levirate betrothal and the levirate bond are not connected. The Gemara answers: To Rava it is obvious, but to Rav 岣nanya it is a dilemma. What, then, is the halakha? Since no other proof is forthcoming, and Rav 岣nanya does not accept the teaching of Rava, the question remains undecided. The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讞诇抓 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

搂 It was taught in the mishna: If the yavam performed 岣litza and then performed levirate betrothal, nothing is effective after 岣litza and this levirate betrothal is not valid. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who says that betrothal does not take effect on those who are forbidden as they are liable for violating a prohibition. Once he has performed 岣litza, the woman is forbidden to him due to the 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), and betrothal is ineffective. But the Rabbis say something is effective after 岣litza. Although the woman who performed 岣litza is forbidden to him, if he does betroth her, his betrothal is effective, as with any regular prohibition.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 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 讜讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讘 诇讛 讙讟 诪讬 诪讛谞讬 讘讛 诪讗诪专

The Gemara asks: And can you establish that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? But doesn鈥檛 the first clause of the mishna teach: If he gave a bill of divorce and performed levirate betrothal, she requires a bill of divorce and 岣litza. Now if this is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion, once he gave her a bill of divorce, is levirate betrothal effective for her?

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇讬讘诪转讜 砖谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗砖专 砖诇讞讛 讗讞专 砖讬诇讜讞

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived that if one gives a bill of divorce to his yevama, she is forbidden to him forever and he no longer has the option of marrying her? As it is stated with regard to a woman who was divorced and married another man who subsequently died or divorced her: 鈥淗er former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:4). Rabbi Akiva emphasizes the words 鈥渨ho sent her away,鈥 implying that he may not remarry her after sending her away. This indicates that there is an instance where a husband may not remarry his wife even if she has not married another, merely because he has given her a bill of divorce. This applies to the case of a yevama where the bill of divorce she receives renders her permanently prohibited to him. According to Rabbi Akiva, once she is rendered prohibited to him, no further action performed by the yavam is effective, so why does the levirate betrothal performed require a bill of divorce?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讟 讬讘诪讬谉 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

Rav Ashi said: This is not difficult because the bill of divorce for levirate marriage was established by the Sages and only has the force of rabbinic law, and the aforementioned verse is not a Torah prohibition, but rather a mere support. Therefore there is no Torah prohibition against marrying a yevama who received a bill of divorce, and the levirate betrothal performed afterward is effective according to Rabbi Akiva as well.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗诪讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讞诇讜爪讛 讻注专讜讛 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖拽讚砖讛 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讛 诇砖讜诐 讬讘诪讜转 讗讬谉 讗讞专 讞诇讬爪讛 讻诇讜诐

With regard to the halakha of betrothal after 岣litza, the Gemara notes: This halakha is also taught in a baraita as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: These matters were only stated in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who considers a yevama who underwent 岣litza to be prohibited like a forbidden relation. Therefore, any further betrothal is not effective with her, as is the case with forbidden relations. But the Rabbis say something is effective after 岣litza. And I say: When is betrothal effective after 岣litza? It is effective when he betrothed for the purpose of marriage, like the regular betrothal of any ordinary woman. But if he betrothed her after 岣litza and specified that he is doing so for the purpose of levirate marriage, in that case nothing is effective after 岣litza.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讞讜诇抓 诇讬讘诪转讜 讜讞讝专 讜拽讚砖讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽讚砖讛 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 诇砖讜诐 讬讘诪讜转 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖拽讚砖讛 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 讘讬谉 砖拽讚砖讛 诇砖讜诐 讬讘诪讜转 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who performs 岣litza with his yevama and then betroths her, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If he betrothed her for the purpose of regular marriage she requires a bill of divorce from him; if he betrothed her for the purpose of levirate marriage she does not require a bill of divorce from him. And the Rabbis say: Whether he betrothed her for the purpose of regular marriage, or whether he betrothed her for the purpose of levirate marriage, she requires a bill of divorce from him, as this betrothal is effective.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注砖讗讜讛 讻注讜讚专 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讜讻住讘讜专 砖诇讜 讛谉 讚诇讗 拽谞讬

Rav Yosef said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 distinction between one who betroths his 岣lutza for the purpose of levirate marriage and one who does so for the purpose of regular marriage? It is because the Sages considered him like one who hoes the property of a convert who died without leaving heirs. The property of such a convert is ownerless, and whoever takes possession of it acquires its title. As one of the methods of taking possession of land is hoeing, if one hoed the property of this convert with the intention of acquiring it, it belongs to him. However, if he hoed the convert鈥檚 property while mistakenly thinking that the land was his own, even though he performed an act of acquisition, since he lacked the requisite intention he has not acquired the land. Here too, since the yavam intended to betroth her for the purpose of levirate marriage, and the levirate bond no longer exists, his action is not effective.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇诪讬拽谞讬 讛讻讗 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇诪讬拽谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇注讜讚专 讘谞讻住讬 讙专 讝讛 讜讻住讘讜专 砖诇 讙专 讗讞专 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬

Abaye said to him: Are the two situations comparable? There, in the case of hoeing, he does not intend to acquire the land as he works, as he thinks that it is already his, whereas here he does intend to acquire the woman. This case is similar only to the one who hoes the property of this deceased convert while thinking it is that of a different convert. The halakha in that case is that he acquires the land, despite his imprecise knowledge of what he is acquiring. Here too the betrothal should take effect regardless of his error.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪讗诪专 讬讘诪讬谉 专讘讬 住讘专 诪讗诪专 注讬诇讜讬 讝讬拽讛 拽讗 专诪讬 讜讗转讗讬 讞诇讬爪讛 讗驻拽注转讛 诇讝讬拽讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘诪讗诪专 讬讘诪讬谉 诪讬 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讛谞讬

Rather, Abaye said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis cannot be explained in the above manner. Instead, he suggests: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where he said to his 岣lutza: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that levirate betrothal is superimposed upon the levirate bond, and is therefore only possible when the bond exists, and since 岣litza comes and releases the levirate bond, levirate betrothal is not effective for her. And the Rabbis hold: This, the levirate bond, stands on its own, and that, levirate betrothal, stands on its own. Although the bond has been canceled, the formula of: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, is effective. At the outset, before 岣litza, if he had said to her: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, would this not be an effective betrothal despite the lack of connection between the levirate betrothal and the levirate bond? Now too it should be effective, even though she performed 岣litza.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讘诪讗诪专 讬讘诪讬谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讛谞讬讗 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讘讝讬拽转 讬讘诪讬谉 专讘讬 住讘专

Rava said: If he said to her: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, everyone agrees that it is effective, and she is acquired. And with what are we dealing here? It is a case where he said to her: Be betrothed to me with the levirate bond, and the dispute is as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds

Scroll To Top