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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 25, 2022 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • 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 79

Presentation in PDF format

Today’s daf is sponsored by Caroline and Victor Ofstein in honor of their son Shalom’s wedding to Yocheved Davidowitz today. “May their home be filled with Torah, learning and mitzvot, and bracha and simcha always.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in loving memory of their mother Kadimah Michelson, Kadima bat HaRav Avraham Zvi Ben-Tzion v’Chaya, on her fourth yahrzeit.

Today’s daf is dedicated to the memory of all those young children murdered in the shooting yesterday in an elementary school in Texas.ย 

The end story of the Netinim is explained and why King David forbid them to marry Jews even though they had converted. As an act of revenge against King Saul, they insist on murdering seven of his descendants. How were those seven people chosen? After they were killed, their bodies were left to hang for half a year as a kiddush Hashem – to show everyone what is done even to sons of kings who don’t treat converts properly, even those who have converted for ulterior motives. Ritzpa bat Aya, the concubine of King Saul, two of whose kids were among those murdered, protected the bodies from the birds and animals. Only after the rains began did King David allow them to be buried. As a result of this incident, 150,000 people converted to Judaism. From where is this derived? Was it really David who forbade them? Wasn’t it already alluded to by Moshe in the Torah or by Joshua in the book of Joshua? In the time of Rebbe, they wanted to repeal this decree against the Netinim, but they were unsuccessful – why? Two different answers are given. There were two traditions regarding a man incapable of having children, a saris,ย  regarding chalitza – one that he does perform chalitza and that chalitza is performed on his wife, and one that says the opposite. There are different tannatic opinions about which one refers to a man who was born like this and which one refers to a man who became this way later in life. An aylonit does not do chalitza or yibum. Rabbi Akiva holds that a man who became a saris does chalitza – but if Rabbi Akiva also holds that all negative commandments (which would include marriage to a sarispatzua daka) are like ones liable for karet, how could one possibly be obligated in chalitza or yibum? Rabbi Ami limits it to a case where the yevama was a convert and according to those who hold that a convert can also marry those who are forbidden to marry. Two questions are raised against Rabbi Ami’s position. Raba brings a different answer – that he does chalitza only if he was not yet a saris when his brother died but became a saris before yibum was performed. A difficulty is raised against this position as well. A third answer is brought by Rav Yosef who rejects the question as he brings a different understanding of Rabbi Akiva’s position regarding negative commandments – only those that are ones forbidden due to a close relation are like those liable for karet. Why is he even part of the mitzva of chalitza and yibum if the whole point of the mitzva is to carry on the name and he is not capable of that?

 

ืชืจื™ืกืจ ื™ืจื—ื™ ืฉืชื ื•ืœื ื“ืจื›ื™ื” ืœืžืกืคื“ื™ื”

the twelve months of the year of mourning, i.e., several years have elapsed since the twelve-month mourning period for Saul, and it is not the proper way to eulogize after such a long time.

ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ื ื™ืงืจื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื ืคื™ื™ืกื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื™ืงืจื ื”ืžืœืš ืœื’ื‘ืขื•ื ื™ื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืœื™ื”ื ืžื” ืืขืฉื” ืœื›ื ื•ื‘ืžื” ืื›ืคืจ ื•ื‘ืจื›ื• ืืช ื ื—ืœืช ื”ืณ ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื”ื’ื‘ืขื•ื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื–ื”ื‘ ืขื ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ืขื ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ืื™ืฉ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื™ืชืŸ ืœื ื• ืฉื‘ืขื” ืื ืฉื™ื ืžื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ื”ื•ืงืขื ื•ื ืœื”ืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืžื™ืคื™ื™ืก ื•ืœื ืคื™ื™ืกื™ื ื”ื•

As for the Gibeonites, let us call them and appease them. Consequently, the verse states: โ€œAnd the king called the Gibeonites and said to themโ€ฆWhat shall I do for you, and with what shall I make atonement that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord? And the Gibeonites said to him: It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israelโ€ฆLet seven men of his sons be delivered to us, and we will hang them up to the Lordโ€ฆโ€ (IIย Samuel 21:1โ€“6). He tried to appease them in other ways, but they would not be appeased.

ืืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืื•ืžื” ื–ื• ื”ืจื—ืžื ื™ื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื™ืฉื ื™ืŸ ื•ื’ื•ืžืœื™ ื—ืกื“ื™ื ืจื—ืžื ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœืš ืจื—ืžื™ื ื•ืจื—ืžืš ื•ื”ืจื‘ืš ื‘ื™ื™ืฉื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ืจ ืชื”ื™ื” ื™ืจืืชื• ืขืœ ืคื ื™ื›ื ื’ื•ืžืœื™ ื—ืกื“ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืžืขืŸ ืืฉืจ ื™ืฆื•ื” ืืช ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืฉืœืฉื” ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื”ืœืœื• ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ื“ื‘ืง ื‘ืื•ืžื” ื–ื•

David said: There are three distinguishing marks of this nation, the Jewish people. They are merciful, they are shamefaced, and they perform acts of kindness.
They are merciful, as it is written: โ€œAnd He will give you mercy, and have mercy upon you and multiply youโ€ (Deuteronomy 13:18); not only will God have mercy upon you, but He will bestow the attribute of mercy upon you.
They are shamefaced, as it is written: โ€œAnd that His fear shall be upon your facesโ€ (Exodus 20:17), and the fear that is on oneโ€™s face is his shame.
They perform acts of kindness, as it is written: โ€œFor I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to practice righteousness and justiceโ€ (Genesis 18:19), i.e., to perform acts of kindness.
Whoever has these three distinguishing marks is fit to cleave to this nation. Those who lack these qualities, however, are unfit to be part of the Jewish people. When David saw the cruelty of the Gibeonites, he decreed that they may never enter into the congregation of Israel.

ื•ื™ืงื— ื”ืžืœืš ืืช ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ืจืฆืคื” ื‘ืช ืื™ื” ืืฉืจ ื™ืœื“ื” ืœืฉืื•ืœ ืืช ืืจืžื ื™ ื•ืืช ืžืคื‘ืฉืช ื•ืืช ื—ืžืฉืช ื‘ื ื™ ืžื™ื›ืœ ื‘ืช ืฉืื•ืœ ืืฉืจ ื™ืœื“ื” ืœืขื“ืจื™ืืœ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื–ื™ืœื™ ื”ืžื—ืœืชื™ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื•ื ืœืคื ื™ ืืจื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉืืจื•ืŸ ืงื•ืœื˜ื• ืœืžื™ืชื” ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืืจื•ืŸ ืงื•ืœื˜ื• ืœื—ื™ื™ื

The Gemara continues with its understanding of the incident: โ€œAnd the king took the two sons of Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal, daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathiteโ€ (IIย Samuel 21:8). The Gemara asks: What is different about these sons that David chose them from among all the descendants of Saul? Rav Huna said: He passed all of Saulโ€™s descendants before the Ark of the Covenant. Whoever was held back by the Ark, so that he could not move on, was condemned to death; whoever was not held back by the Ark was set apart for life.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื ื‘ืจ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ื•ื™ื—ืžืœ ื”ืžืœืš ืขืœ ืžืคื‘ืฉืช ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืื•ืœ ืฉืœื ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื•

Rav แธคana bar Ketina raised an objection: The verse states: โ€œAnd the king had pity on Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of Saul, because of the Lordโ€™s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan, son of Saulโ€ (IIย Samuel 21:7). If the seven men were condemned by the Ark, how did the kingโ€™s pity affect their sentence? The Gemara answers: It means that he did not pass Mephibosheth before the Ark at all, so that he would not be in danger of being held back at all.

ื•ื›ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื ื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื ืฉื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืงืœื˜ื• ื•ื‘ืงืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืจื—ืžื™ื ื•ืคืœื˜ื• ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื ื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื ืฉื‘ืงืฉ ืจื—ืžื™ื ืฉืœื ื™ืงืœื˜ื ื• ื”ืืจื•ืŸ

The Gemara questions this behavior: May favoritism be shown in this matter? Once the decision was placed in the hand of Heaven, how could David have intervened in matters of life and death and not pass Mephibosheth before the Ark? Rather, what happened was that David passed Mephibosheth before the Ark and the Ark held him back, but David immediately asked for mercy on his behalf, and the Ark released him. The Gemara asks: But the difficulty still remains: May favoritism be shown in this matter? Once the Ark condemned Mephibosheth to death, how could David have intervened so that another would have to die in his place? Rather, David asked for mercy on his behalf, that the Ark should not hold him back and performed no other action.

ื•ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ื•ืžืชื• ืื‘ื•ืช ืขืœ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ืฉืชืขืงืจ ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืืœ ื™ืชื—ืœืœ ืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ืคืจื”ืกื™ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the story as related by the Bible: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œThe fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathersโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:16)? As Saulโ€™s sons had not sinned, why were they put to death? Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: It is better that one letter and one mitzva be uprooted from the Torah in this manner and thereby the name of Heaven not be desecrated in public [parhesya]. The killing of the Gibeonites by the Jewish people constituted a desecration of Godโ€™s name. In order to repair the damage, David acquiesced to the Gibeonitesโ€™ demands, even though they contradicted Torah law.

ื•ืชืงื— ืจืฆืคื” ื‘ืช ืื™ื” ืืช ื”ืฉืง ื•ืชื˜ื”ื• ืœื” ืืœ ื”ืฆื•ืจ ืžืชื—ืœืช ืงืฆื™ืจ ืขื“ ื ืชืš ืžื™ื ืขืœื™ื”ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืœื ื ืชื ื” ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืœื ื•ื— ืขืœื™ื”ื ื™ื•ืžื ื•ื—ื™ืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ืœื™ืœื” ื•ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ืชืœื™ืŸ ื ื‘ืœืชื• ืขืœ ื”ืขืฅ

The Gemara continues with its analysis of the incident. The verse states: โ€œAnd Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, took sackcloth and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water was poured upon them from heaven; and she allowed neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by nightโ€ (IIย Samuel 21:10). The Gemara raises a difficulty: How could they have left Saulโ€™s executed sons unburied all that time? Isnโ€™t it written: โ€œHis body shall not remain all night upon the tree; but you shall surely bury him the same dayโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:23)?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ืฆื“ืง ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ืฉืชืขืงืจ ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื™ืชืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ืคืจื”ืกื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžื” ื˜ื™ื‘ืŸ ืฉืœ ืืœื• ื”ืœืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ืžืœื›ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืžื” ืขืฉื• ืคืฉื˜ื• ื™ื“ื™ื”ื ื‘ื’ืจื™ื ื’ืจื•ืจื™ื ืืžืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ืื•ืžื” ืฉืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื“ื‘ืง ื‘ื” ื›ื–ื• ื•ืžื” ื‘ื ื™ ืžืœื›ื™ื ื›ืš ื‘ื ื™ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื” ื•ืžื” ื’ืจื™ื ื’ืจื•ืจื™ื ื›ืš ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื”

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: It is better that one letter be uprooted from the Torah and thereby the name of Heaven be sanctified in public. How so? As the gentile passersby would say: What is the nature of these people who have been left hanging here for so long? They were told that these are sons of kings. And what did they do to deserve such a fate? They had laid their hands upon and caused harm to calculating converts who had converted for personal gain and were never permitted to enter into the congregation. Those passersby said: There is no nation as worthy of cleaving to it as this one. If the sons of kings who harmed converts are treated in this manner, all the more so would the sons of ordinary people [hedyotot] be. And if calculating converts are related to in this way, all the more so would this apply to members of the Jewish people themselves.

ืžื™ื“ ื ืชื•ืกืคื• ืขืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืืœืฃ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืœืฉืœืžื” ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ืืœืฃ ื ื•ืฉื ืกื‘ืœ ื•ืฉืžื ื™ื ืืœืฃ ื—ื•ืฆื‘ ื‘ื”ืจ ื•ื“ืœืžื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื•ื• ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืฉืœืžื” ืขื‘ื“

Immediately, one hundred and fifty thousand converts joined the Jewish people, as it is stated: โ€œAnd Solomon had seventy thousand that bore burdens and eighty thousand that were hewers in the mountainsโ€ (Iย Kings 5:29), all of whom were converts. The Gemara asks: But perhaps these carriers and hewers were Jews? The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written: โ€œBut of the children of Israel Solomon made no slavesโ€ (Iย Kings 9:22).

ื•ื“ืœืžื ื“ื•ื’ื–ืจ ื‘ืขืœืžื ืืœื ืžื”ื›ื ื•ื™ืกืคืจ ืฉืœืžื” ื›ืœ ื”ืื ืฉื™ื ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืืฉืจ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ [ื•ื’ื•ืณ] ื•ื™ืžืฆืื• ืžืื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืืœืฃ [ื•ื’ื•ืณ] ื•ื™ืขืฉ ืžื”ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ืืœืฃ (ื ื•ืฉื) ืกื‘ืœ ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื ืืœืฃ ื—ื•ืฆื‘ ื‘ื”ืจ

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But from where may it be inferred that these men were slaves? Perhaps they were merely workers employed [dogzar] in the ranks of public service, in which case they could have been born Jews and not converts. Rather, the matter is derived from here: โ€œAnd Solomon counted all the converted men that were in Eretz Yisraelโ€ฆand they were found to be one hundred and fifty thousandโ€ฆand he made seventy thousand of them to bear burdens, and eighty thousand to be hewers in the mountainsโ€ (IIย Chronicles 2:16โ€“17). It is apparent from here that these carriers and hewers were in fact converts. These large numbers of converts had been influenced by the sanctification of Godโ€™s name in the wake of the punishment meted out to the descendants of Saul.

ื•ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ื“ื•ื“ ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ื ืžืฉื” ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื—ื•ื˜ื‘ ืขืฆื™ืš ืขื“ ืฉื•ืื‘ ืžื™ืžื™ืš ืžืฉื” ื’ื–ืจ ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืจื ื“ื•ื“ ื’ื–ืจ ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ื“ืจื

The Gemara returns to the main issue under discussion. As for the Gibeonites, was it David who issued a decree against them that they may not enter the congregation? Wasnโ€™t it Moses who issued a decree against them, as it is written: โ€œFrom the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your waterโ€ (Deuteronomy 29:10), which indicates that there was a distinct class of wood hewers and water drawers already in the time of Moses. This class must have been composed of insincere converts who constituted a separate group unto themselves, apart from the rest of the Jewish people. The Gemara answers: Moses issued a decree only with regard to that generation that they must remain separate, whereas David decreed for all generations.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืชื ื ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื”ื•ื ื—ื•ื˜ื‘ื™ ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืฉื•ืื‘ื™ ืžื™ื ืœืขื“ื” ื•ืœืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ืณ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื’ื–ืจ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื ื“ื•ื“ ื’ื–ืจ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But still, it was Joshua who issued a decree against the Gibeonites, as it is written: โ€œAnd Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water, for the congregation and for the altar of the Lordโ€ (Joshua 9:27). The Gemara answers: Joshua issued a decree for the period when the Temple is standing, as indicated by the phrase โ€œfor the altar of the Lord,โ€ whereas David issued a decree even for the period when the Temple is not standing.

ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ืงืฉื• ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืœืงื ื• ื ืชื™ืจ ื—ืœืง ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžื™ ื™ืชื™ืจ

It is related that in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the Sages sought to permit the Gibeonites and treat them like Jews in all regards, thereby allowing them to enter into the congregation. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Even if we permit our share and say that the court nullifies the Jewish peopleโ€™s right to enslave the Gibeonites, and so they should be treated like emancipated slaves, who can permit the altarโ€™s share? Do they not belong to the Temple and the altar as well?

ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื—ืœืง ืขื“ื” ืœืขื•ืœื ืืกื•ืจ ื—ืœืง ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื ืฉืจื™

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the teaching of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba. As Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: The share in the enslavement of the Gibeonites that belongs to the congregation of Israel is forbidden forever and can never be permitted. However, with regard to the share belonging to the altar, when the Temple is standing it is forbidden, but when the Temple is not standing it is permitted.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืฉื”ืกืจื™ืก ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ื•ื”ืกืจื™ืก ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืœืคืจืฉ

MISHNA: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard two rulings from my teachers. One ruling is that a eunuch performs แธฅalitza with his yevama, and his brothers perform แธฅalitza with his wife, and the other ruling is that a eunuch does not perform แธฅalitza with his yevama, and his brothers do not perform แธฅalitza with his wife. And I cannot explain these two rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื ื™ ืืคืจืฉ ืกืจื™ืก ืื“ื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืœื• ืฉืขืช ื”ื›ื•ืฉืจ ืกืจื™ืก ื—ืžื” ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ืœื• ืฉืขืช ื”ื›ื•ืฉืจ

Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain. A eunuch caused by man, i.e., one who became emasculated after birth, performs แธฅalitza with his yevama and his brothers perform แธฅalitza with his wife, because he had an hour of fitness, a time when he was fertile. On the other hand, a eunuch by natural causes, i.e., who was entirely lacking in sexual capacity from birth, does not perform แธฅalitza with his yevama and his brothers do not perform แธฅalitza with his wife, because he did not have an hour of fitness, as he never had the potential to father children.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ื™ ืืœื ืกืจื™ืก ื—ืžื” ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืจืคื•ืื” ืกืจื™ืก ืื“ื ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืจืคื•ืื”

Rabbi Eliezer says: No; rather, the opposite is the case: A eunuch by natural causes performs แธฅalitza with his yevama and his brothers perform แธฅalitza with his wife because he can be cured, whereas a eunuch caused by man does not perform แธฅalitza with his yevama and his brothers do not perform แธฅalitza with his wife because he cannot be cured.

ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื ืขืœ ื‘ืŸ ืžื’ื•ืกืช ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืกืจื™ืก ืื“ื ื•ื™ื‘ืžื• ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืœืงื™ื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified about a man named ben Megusat, who lived in Jerusalem and was a eunuch caused by man, that his brothers nevertheless entered into levirate marriage with his wife, in order to fulfill and confirm the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

ื”ืกืจื™ืก ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืœื ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ื•ื›ืŸ ืื™ื™ืœื•ื ื™ืช ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช

A sexually underdeveloped man does not perform แธฅalitza or enter into levirate marriage with his yevama. And similarly, a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, does not perform แธฅalitza or enter into levirate marriage with her yavam.

ื”ืกืจื™ืก ืฉื—ืœืฅ ืœื™ื‘ืžืชื• ืœื ืคืกืœื” ื‘ืขืœื” ืคืกืœื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ืขื™ืœืช ื–ื ื•ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ืื™ื™ืœื•ื ื™ืช ืฉื—ืœืฆื• ืœื” ืื—ื™ืŸ ืœื ืคืกืœื•ื” ื‘ืขืœื•ื” ืคืกืœื•ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื‘ืขื™ืœืชื” ื‘ืขื™ืœืช ื–ื ื•ืช

If a sexually underdeveloped man performed แธฅalitza with his yevama, he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as his แธฅalitza is invalid. However, if he had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her. This is because it is considered licentious sexual intercourse, since such intercourse does not fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage and is therefore categorized as forbidden relations with oneโ€™s sister-in-law. And similarly, with regard to a sexually underdeveloped woman, if one of the brothers performed แธฅalitza with her he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. However, if he had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her because the intercourse is considered licentious sexual intercourse.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื›ื“ื™ ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ื›ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ื“ืžื• ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

GEMARA: Now, we learned that Rabbi Akiva said: Those liable for violating a prohibition are like those liable to receive karet with regard to the validity of their marriage and all its ramifications, and those liable to receive karet are not eligible to perform แธฅalitza or levirate marriage. A eunuch caused by man has the status of a man with crushed testicles, and is therefore prohibited by a standard negative mitzva from marrying a Jewish woman. If he violated the prohibition and married her, his marriage is invalid according to Rabbi Akiva, just as if he had married a woman who is forbidden to him by a prohibition punishable by karet. Why, then, should his แธฅalitza be valid?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืฉื ืื—ื™ื• ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื”ืœ ื’ืจื™ื ืœื ืืงืจื™ ืงื”ืœ

Rabbi Ami said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the eunuchโ€™s brother had married a convert, and Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation of the Lord. Consequently, it is permitted even for those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation, e.g., a eunuch, to marry converts.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืืžืจ ืื™ื”ื• ื ืžื™ ื—ื•ืœืฅ

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the eunuch should also be able to perform levirate marriage with the convert. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, but since Rabbi Yehoshua said that a eunuch performs แธฅalitza with his yevama, Rabbi Akiva as well said that he performs แธฅalitza with her, while in fact he may enter into levirate marriage with her if he so chooses.

ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื ืขืœ ื‘ืŸ ืžื’ื•ืกืช ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืกืจื™ืก ืื“ื ื•ื™ื‘ืžื• ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืœืงื™ื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise in this regard, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified about a man named ben Megusat, who lived in Jerusalem and was a eunuch caused by man, that his brothers entered into levirate marriage with his wife, to fulfill the statement of Rabbi Akiva. This indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, not only แธฅalitza but even levirate marriage is permitted. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ืคืฆื•ืข ื“ื›ื ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ืฉืคื›ื” ืกืจื™ืก ืื“ื ื•ื”ื–ืงืŸ ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืื• ืžื™ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืžืชื• ื•ืœื”ื ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืœื”ื ืื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืขืฉื• ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื ืฉื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื ืชื ื• ื’ื˜ ืื• ืฉื—ืœืฆื• ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื• ืขืฉื• ื•ืื ื‘ืขืœื• ืงื ื•

Rabba raised an objection from the following baraita: A man with crushed testicles, and one whose penis has been severed, and a eunuch caused by man, and an elderly man who is no longer capable of fathering children, may either perform แธฅalitza or enter into levirate marriage. The baraita clarifies the matter: How so? If these men died and they had wives and they also had brothers, and the brothers proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed แธฅalitza with them, what they did is done, i.e., it is a valid act. And if the brothers had intercourse with the wives, they acquired them in levirate marriage, like any other yevama.

ืžืชื• ืื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืขืžื“ื• ื”ืŸ ื•ืขืฉื• ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื ืฉื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื ืชื ื• ื’ื˜ ืื• ื—ืœืฆื• ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื• ืขืฉื• ื•ืื ื‘ืขืœื• ืงื ื• ื•ืืกื•ืจ ืœืงื™ื™ืžืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ื™ื‘ื ืคืฆื•ืข ื“ื›ื ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ืฉืคื›ื” ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื”ืณ ืืœืžื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ

If the brothers of these sexually impaired men died, and the sexually impaired men proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their brothersโ€™ wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed แธฅalitza with them, what they did is done, i.e., it is a valid act. And if they had intercourse with their brothersโ€™ wives they acquired them in levirate marriage, but they are prohibited from maintaining them as their wives because it is stated: โ€œA man with crushed testicles or a severed penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lordโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:2). Apparently, we are dealing with a case where the eunuchโ€™s brother had married a woman who is in the congregation of the Lord, i.e., a Jew from birth who is governed by this prohibition, and not a convert.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื” ืœื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื ืคืฆืข

Rather, Rabba said that the case here is one where oneโ€™s brother died and his yevama happened before him for levirate marriage, and he was injured only afterward. Since the mitzva of levirate marriage had initially applied to him, he performs แธฅalitza with her.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื™ืชื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืคืฆื•ืข ื•ื ื™ื“ื—ื™ ืขืฉื” ื“ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืžื™ืื ื” ืžื™ืื ื”

Abaye said to him: If so, let the prohibition applying to a man with crushed testicles come and override the positive mitzva of levirate marriage. Didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (109a) as follows: With regard to a case of two brothers who were married to two sisters, one of whom was a minor married off by her brothers in a marriage valid only by rabbinic decree, and the brother who was married to the adult sister passed away, Rabban Gamliel says: If the minor sister refuses her husband, declaring that she does not desire the marriage, she has refused him. Since the marriage is valid only by rabbinic decree, the girl may terminate it before she reaches the age of twelve by declaring that she does not wish to remain in the marriage, and no bill of divorce is required. In such a case the marriage is nullified retroactively, and so her former husband, the yavam, may perform levirate marriage with her sister.

ื•ืื ืœืื• ืชืžืชื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืชื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืชืฆื ื”ืœื–ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื” ืืœืžื ืืชื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื” ื•ื“ื—ื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืชื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืคืฆื•ืข ื•ื ื™ื“ื—ื™

The mishna continues: But if she does not refuse him, the minor must wait and her husband must not have relations with her until she reaches adulthood and their marriage is valid by Torah law, since in the meantime she is forbidden to him as the sister of a woman awaiting levirate marriage with him. At that point, when the minor reaches adulthood, this one, the adult sister, goes out free from the yavam without levirate marriage or แธฅalitza as his wifeโ€™s sister. Apparently, the prohibition with regard to a wifeโ€™s sister comes and overrides the mitzva of levirate marriage that had previously been in effect. Here too, then, let the prohibition applying to a man with crushed testicles come and override the positive mitzva of levirate marriage.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื”ืš ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ื“ืฉืืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ื’ืจื™ื“ื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ

Rather, Rav Yosef said: This tanna of our mishna is the tanna of the school of Rabbi Akiva, who said that only the child born of a union between those who are liable for violating prohibitions involving incestuous relationships is a mamzer, but the child born of a union between people who are liable for violating ordinary prohibitions is not a mamzer. The prohibition applying to a man with crushed testicles falls into the latter category, and therefore his marriage is valid and he may perform แธฅalitza.

ืื™ืงืจื™ ื›ืืŸ ืœื”ืงื™ื ืœืื—ื™ื• ืฉื ื•ื”ื ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: Why does the mitzva of levirate marriage apply at all to a eunuch? Read here the verse with regard to levirate marriage: โ€œTo establish a name for his brother in Israelโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:7), and this one is no longer capable of this, even if previously he had an hour of fitness when he was fertile earlier in his life.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื ื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ืืฉื” ืฉื›ืฉืจื” ืœื™ื‘ื ืฉืœื ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœื” ืกืจื™ืก ื—ืžื” ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ืงื•ื“ื ืœืžื™ืชืชื•

Rava said: If it is so that anyone who cannot presently father children is exempt from levirate marriage even if he had previously been capable of doing so, there is no instance of a woman who is fit for the yavam, as even if her husband died of natural causes it is impossible that he did not become like a eunuch by natural causes an hour before his death. He had certainly lost his fertility before dying, and therefore he has the status of a eunuch, which means that the mitzva of levirate marriage should not apply in his case at all. Rather, it must be that a man who had previously been capable of fathering children is considered fit for the purposes of levirate marriage.

ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืงื ื“ืจื‘ื ืคื™ืจื›ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the mishna that a eunuch caused by man does not perform แธฅalitza and his marriage is invalid even though he had an hour of fitness when he was fertile, Ravaโ€™s answer, his proof from the fact that all men on their deathbeds lack sexual capacity, is undoubtedly a refutation.

ื”ืชื ื›ื—ื™ืฉื•ืชื ื“ืืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a man who is about to die cannot be compared to a eunuch, as there, he can no longer father children due to the general weakness that begins to take over his body as death approaches, which prevents him from engaging in relations with a woman, but his basic ability to father children remains unimpaired.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืกืจื™ืก ื—ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ

The Gemara raises a practical question: What are the circumstances of a eunuch by natural causes? Rav Yitzแธฅak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Anyone

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 79-85 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will discuss various types of eunuchs and if they have the ability to do Chalitza or Yibum....
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 79: The Sons of Saul

More on King David and the Givonim. Also, the disturbing story of the sons of King Saul and their maltreatment...
gibeon griffon vulture

Have You Ever Seen the Rain?

After mentioning the mysterious Netinim (translated as Givonim) a few times in Masechet Yevamot, on pages 78 and 79 we...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 8: 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 79

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 79

ืชืจื™ืกืจ ื™ืจื—ื™ ืฉืชื ื•ืœื ื“ืจื›ื™ื” ืœืžืกืคื“ื™ื”

the twelve months of the year of mourning, i.e., several years have elapsed since the twelve-month mourning period for Saul, and it is not the proper way to eulogize after such a long time.

ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ื ื™ืงืจื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื ืคื™ื™ืกื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื™ืงืจื ื”ืžืœืš ืœื’ื‘ืขื•ื ื™ื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืœื™ื”ื ืžื” ืืขืฉื” ืœื›ื ื•ื‘ืžื” ืื›ืคืจ ื•ื‘ืจื›ื• ืืช ื ื—ืœืช ื”ืณ ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื”ื’ื‘ืขื•ื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื–ื”ื‘ ืขื ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ืขื ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ืื™ืฉ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื™ืชืŸ ืœื ื• ืฉื‘ืขื” ืื ืฉื™ื ืžื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ื”ื•ืงืขื ื•ื ืœื”ืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืžื™ืคื™ื™ืก ื•ืœื ืคื™ื™ืกื™ื ื”ื•

As for the Gibeonites, let us call them and appease them. Consequently, the verse states: โ€œAnd the king called the Gibeonites and said to themโ€ฆWhat shall I do for you, and with what shall I make atonement that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord? And the Gibeonites said to him: It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israelโ€ฆLet seven men of his sons be delivered to us, and we will hang them up to the Lordโ€ฆโ€ (IIย Samuel 21:1โ€“6). He tried to appease them in other ways, but they would not be appeased.

ืืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืื•ืžื” ื–ื• ื”ืจื—ืžื ื™ื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื™ืฉื ื™ืŸ ื•ื’ื•ืžืœื™ ื—ืกื“ื™ื ืจื—ืžื ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœืš ืจื—ืžื™ื ื•ืจื—ืžืš ื•ื”ืจื‘ืš ื‘ื™ื™ืฉื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ืจ ืชื”ื™ื” ื™ืจืืชื• ืขืœ ืคื ื™ื›ื ื’ื•ืžืœื™ ื—ืกื“ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืžืขืŸ ืืฉืจ ื™ืฆื•ื” ืืช ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืฉืœืฉื” ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื”ืœืœื• ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ื“ื‘ืง ื‘ืื•ืžื” ื–ื•

David said: There are three distinguishing marks of this nation, the Jewish people. They are merciful, they are shamefaced, and they perform acts of kindness.
They are merciful, as it is written: โ€œAnd He will give you mercy, and have mercy upon you and multiply youโ€ (Deuteronomy 13:18); not only will God have mercy upon you, but He will bestow the attribute of mercy upon you.
They are shamefaced, as it is written: โ€œAnd that His fear shall be upon your facesโ€ (Exodus 20:17), and the fear that is on oneโ€™s face is his shame.
They perform acts of kindness, as it is written: โ€œFor I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to practice righteousness and justiceโ€ (Genesis 18:19), i.e., to perform acts of kindness.
Whoever has these three distinguishing marks is fit to cleave to this nation. Those who lack these qualities, however, are unfit to be part of the Jewish people. When David saw the cruelty of the Gibeonites, he decreed that they may never enter into the congregation of Israel.

ื•ื™ืงื— ื”ืžืœืš ืืช ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ืจืฆืคื” ื‘ืช ืื™ื” ืืฉืจ ื™ืœื“ื” ืœืฉืื•ืœ ืืช ืืจืžื ื™ ื•ืืช ืžืคื‘ืฉืช ื•ืืช ื—ืžืฉืช ื‘ื ื™ ืžื™ื›ืœ ื‘ืช ืฉืื•ืœ ืืฉืจ ื™ืœื“ื” ืœืขื“ืจื™ืืœ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื–ื™ืœื™ ื”ืžื—ืœืชื™ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื•ื ืœืคื ื™ ืืจื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉืืจื•ืŸ ืงื•ืœื˜ื• ืœืžื™ืชื” ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืืจื•ืŸ ืงื•ืœื˜ื• ืœื—ื™ื™ื

The Gemara continues with its understanding of the incident: โ€œAnd the king took the two sons of Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal, daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathiteโ€ (IIย Samuel 21:8). The Gemara asks: What is different about these sons that David chose them from among all the descendants of Saul? Rav Huna said: He passed all of Saulโ€™s descendants before the Ark of the Covenant. Whoever was held back by the Ark, so that he could not move on, was condemned to death; whoever was not held back by the Ark was set apart for life.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื ื‘ืจ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ื•ื™ื—ืžืœ ื”ืžืœืš ืขืœ ืžืคื‘ืฉืช ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืื•ืœ ืฉืœื ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื•

Rav แธคana bar Ketina raised an objection: The verse states: โ€œAnd the king had pity on Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of Saul, because of the Lordโ€™s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan, son of Saulโ€ (IIย Samuel 21:7). If the seven men were condemned by the Ark, how did the kingโ€™s pity affect their sentence? The Gemara answers: It means that he did not pass Mephibosheth before the Ark at all, so that he would not be in danger of being held back at all.

ื•ื›ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื ื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื ืฉื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืงืœื˜ื• ื•ื‘ืงืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืจื—ืžื™ื ื•ืคืœื˜ื• ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื ื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื ืฉื‘ืงืฉ ืจื—ืžื™ื ืฉืœื ื™ืงืœื˜ื ื• ื”ืืจื•ืŸ

The Gemara questions this behavior: May favoritism be shown in this matter? Once the decision was placed in the hand of Heaven, how could David have intervened in matters of life and death and not pass Mephibosheth before the Ark? Rather, what happened was that David passed Mephibosheth before the Ark and the Ark held him back, but David immediately asked for mercy on his behalf, and the Ark released him. The Gemara asks: But the difficulty still remains: May favoritism be shown in this matter? Once the Ark condemned Mephibosheth to death, how could David have intervened so that another would have to die in his place? Rather, David asked for mercy on his behalf, that the Ark should not hold him back and performed no other action.

ื•ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ื•ืžืชื• ืื‘ื•ืช ืขืœ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ืฉืชืขืงืจ ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืืœ ื™ืชื—ืœืœ ืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ืคืจื”ืกื™ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the story as related by the Bible: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œThe fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathersโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:16)? As Saulโ€™s sons had not sinned, why were they put to death? Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: It is better that one letter and one mitzva be uprooted from the Torah in this manner and thereby the name of Heaven not be desecrated in public [parhesya]. The killing of the Gibeonites by the Jewish people constituted a desecration of Godโ€™s name. In order to repair the damage, David acquiesced to the Gibeonitesโ€™ demands, even though they contradicted Torah law.

ื•ืชืงื— ืจืฆืคื” ื‘ืช ืื™ื” ืืช ื”ืฉืง ื•ืชื˜ื”ื• ืœื” ืืœ ื”ืฆื•ืจ ืžืชื—ืœืช ืงืฆื™ืจ ืขื“ ื ืชืš ืžื™ื ืขืœื™ื”ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืœื ื ืชื ื” ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืœื ื•ื— ืขืœื™ื”ื ื™ื•ืžื ื•ื—ื™ืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ืœื™ืœื” ื•ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ืชืœื™ืŸ ื ื‘ืœืชื• ืขืœ ื”ืขืฅ

The Gemara continues with its analysis of the incident. The verse states: โ€œAnd Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, took sackcloth and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water was poured upon them from heaven; and she allowed neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by nightโ€ (IIย Samuel 21:10). The Gemara raises a difficulty: How could they have left Saulโ€™s executed sons unburied all that time? Isnโ€™t it written: โ€œHis body shall not remain all night upon the tree; but you shall surely bury him the same dayโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:23)?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ืฆื“ืง ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ืฉืชืขืงืจ ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื™ืชืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ืคืจื”ืกื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžื” ื˜ื™ื‘ืŸ ืฉืœ ืืœื• ื”ืœืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ืžืœื›ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืžื” ืขืฉื• ืคืฉื˜ื• ื™ื“ื™ื”ื ื‘ื’ืจื™ื ื’ืจื•ืจื™ื ืืžืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ืื•ืžื” ืฉืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื“ื‘ืง ื‘ื” ื›ื–ื• ื•ืžื” ื‘ื ื™ ืžืœื›ื™ื ื›ืš ื‘ื ื™ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื” ื•ืžื” ื’ืจื™ื ื’ืจื•ืจื™ื ื›ืš ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื”

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: It is better that one letter be uprooted from the Torah and thereby the name of Heaven be sanctified in public. How so? As the gentile passersby would say: What is the nature of these people who have been left hanging here for so long? They were told that these are sons of kings. And what did they do to deserve such a fate? They had laid their hands upon and caused harm to calculating converts who had converted for personal gain and were never permitted to enter into the congregation. Those passersby said: There is no nation as worthy of cleaving to it as this one. If the sons of kings who harmed converts are treated in this manner, all the more so would the sons of ordinary people [hedyotot] be. And if calculating converts are related to in this way, all the more so would this apply to members of the Jewish people themselves.

ืžื™ื“ ื ืชื•ืกืคื• ืขืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืืœืฃ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืœืฉืœืžื” ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ืืœืฃ ื ื•ืฉื ืกื‘ืœ ื•ืฉืžื ื™ื ืืœืฃ ื—ื•ืฆื‘ ื‘ื”ืจ ื•ื“ืœืžื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื•ื• ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืฉืœืžื” ืขื‘ื“

Immediately, one hundred and fifty thousand converts joined the Jewish people, as it is stated: โ€œAnd Solomon had seventy thousand that bore burdens and eighty thousand that were hewers in the mountainsโ€ (Iย Kings 5:29), all of whom were converts. The Gemara asks: But perhaps these carriers and hewers were Jews? The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written: โ€œBut of the children of Israel Solomon made no slavesโ€ (Iย Kings 9:22).

ื•ื“ืœืžื ื“ื•ื’ื–ืจ ื‘ืขืœืžื ืืœื ืžื”ื›ื ื•ื™ืกืคืจ ืฉืœืžื” ื›ืœ ื”ืื ืฉื™ื ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืืฉืจ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ [ื•ื’ื•ืณ] ื•ื™ืžืฆืื• ืžืื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืืœืฃ [ื•ื’ื•ืณ] ื•ื™ืขืฉ ืžื”ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ืืœืฃ (ื ื•ืฉื) ืกื‘ืœ ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื ืืœืฃ ื—ื•ืฆื‘ ื‘ื”ืจ

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But from where may it be inferred that these men were slaves? Perhaps they were merely workers employed [dogzar] in the ranks of public service, in which case they could have been born Jews and not converts. Rather, the matter is derived from here: โ€œAnd Solomon counted all the converted men that were in Eretz Yisraelโ€ฆand they were found to be one hundred and fifty thousandโ€ฆand he made seventy thousand of them to bear burdens, and eighty thousand to be hewers in the mountainsโ€ (IIย Chronicles 2:16โ€“17). It is apparent from here that these carriers and hewers were in fact converts. These large numbers of converts had been influenced by the sanctification of Godโ€™s name in the wake of the punishment meted out to the descendants of Saul.

ื•ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ื“ื•ื“ ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ื ืžืฉื” ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื—ื•ื˜ื‘ ืขืฆื™ืš ืขื“ ืฉื•ืื‘ ืžื™ืžื™ืš ืžืฉื” ื’ื–ืจ ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืจื ื“ื•ื“ ื’ื–ืจ ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ื“ืจื

The Gemara returns to the main issue under discussion. As for the Gibeonites, was it David who issued a decree against them that they may not enter the congregation? Wasnโ€™t it Moses who issued a decree against them, as it is written: โ€œFrom the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your waterโ€ (Deuteronomy 29:10), which indicates that there was a distinct class of wood hewers and water drawers already in the time of Moses. This class must have been composed of insincere converts who constituted a separate group unto themselves, apart from the rest of the Jewish people. The Gemara answers: Moses issued a decree only with regard to that generation that they must remain separate, whereas David decreed for all generations.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืชื ื ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื”ื•ื ื—ื•ื˜ื‘ื™ ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืฉื•ืื‘ื™ ืžื™ื ืœืขื“ื” ื•ืœืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ืณ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื’ื–ืจ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื ื“ื•ื“ ื’ื–ืจ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But still, it was Joshua who issued a decree against the Gibeonites, as it is written: โ€œAnd Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water, for the congregation and for the altar of the Lordโ€ (Joshua 9:27). The Gemara answers: Joshua issued a decree for the period when the Temple is standing, as indicated by the phrase โ€œfor the altar of the Lord,โ€ whereas David issued a decree even for the period when the Temple is not standing.

ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ืงืฉื• ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืœืงื ื• ื ืชื™ืจ ื—ืœืง ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžื™ ื™ืชื™ืจ

It is related that in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the Sages sought to permit the Gibeonites and treat them like Jews in all regards, thereby allowing them to enter into the congregation. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Even if we permit our share and say that the court nullifies the Jewish peopleโ€™s right to enslave the Gibeonites, and so they should be treated like emancipated slaves, who can permit the altarโ€™s share? Do they not belong to the Temple and the altar as well?

ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื—ืœืง ืขื“ื” ืœืขื•ืœื ืืกื•ืจ ื—ืœืง ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื ืฉืจื™

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the teaching of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba. As Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: The share in the enslavement of the Gibeonites that belongs to the congregation of Israel is forbidden forever and can never be permitted. However, with regard to the share belonging to the altar, when the Temple is standing it is forbidden, but when the Temple is not standing it is permitted.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืฉื”ืกืจื™ืก ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ื•ื”ืกืจื™ืก ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืœืคืจืฉ

MISHNA: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard two rulings from my teachers. One ruling is that a eunuch performs แธฅalitza with his yevama, and his brothers perform แธฅalitza with his wife, and the other ruling is that a eunuch does not perform แธฅalitza with his yevama, and his brothers do not perform แธฅalitza with his wife. And I cannot explain these two rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื ื™ ืืคืจืฉ ืกืจื™ืก ืื“ื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืœื• ืฉืขืช ื”ื›ื•ืฉืจ ืกืจื™ืก ื—ืžื” ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ืœื• ืฉืขืช ื”ื›ื•ืฉืจ

Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain. A eunuch caused by man, i.e., one who became emasculated after birth, performs แธฅalitza with his yevama and his brothers perform แธฅalitza with his wife, because he had an hour of fitness, a time when he was fertile. On the other hand, a eunuch by natural causes, i.e., who was entirely lacking in sexual capacity from birth, does not perform แธฅalitza with his yevama and his brothers do not perform แธฅalitza with his wife, because he did not have an hour of fitness, as he never had the potential to father children.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ื™ ืืœื ืกืจื™ืก ื—ืžื” ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืจืคื•ืื” ืกืจื™ืก ืื“ื ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืœืืฉืชื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืจืคื•ืื”

Rabbi Eliezer says: No; rather, the opposite is the case: A eunuch by natural causes performs แธฅalitza with his yevama and his brothers perform แธฅalitza with his wife because he can be cured, whereas a eunuch caused by man does not perform แธฅalitza with his yevama and his brothers do not perform แธฅalitza with his wife because he cannot be cured.

ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื ืขืœ ื‘ืŸ ืžื’ื•ืกืช ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืกืจื™ืก ืื“ื ื•ื™ื‘ืžื• ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืœืงื™ื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified about a man named ben Megusat, who lived in Jerusalem and was a eunuch caused by man, that his brothers nevertheless entered into levirate marriage with his wife, in order to fulfill and confirm the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

ื”ืกืจื™ืก ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื•ืœื ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ื•ื›ืŸ ืื™ื™ืœื•ื ื™ืช ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช

A sexually underdeveloped man does not perform แธฅalitza or enter into levirate marriage with his yevama. And similarly, a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, does not perform แธฅalitza or enter into levirate marriage with her yavam.

ื”ืกืจื™ืก ืฉื—ืœืฅ ืœื™ื‘ืžืชื• ืœื ืคืกืœื” ื‘ืขืœื” ืคืกืœื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ืขื™ืœืช ื–ื ื•ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ืื™ื™ืœื•ื ื™ืช ืฉื—ืœืฆื• ืœื” ืื—ื™ืŸ ืœื ืคืกืœื•ื” ื‘ืขืœื•ื” ืคืกืœื•ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื‘ืขื™ืœืชื” ื‘ืขื™ืœืช ื–ื ื•ืช

If a sexually underdeveloped man performed แธฅalitza with his yevama, he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as his แธฅalitza is invalid. However, if he had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her. This is because it is considered licentious sexual intercourse, since such intercourse does not fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage and is therefore categorized as forbidden relations with oneโ€™s sister-in-law. And similarly, with regard to a sexually underdeveloped woman, if one of the brothers performed แธฅalitza with her he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. However, if he had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her because the intercourse is considered licentious sexual intercourse.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื›ื“ื™ ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ื›ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ื“ืžื• ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

GEMARA: Now, we learned that Rabbi Akiva said: Those liable for violating a prohibition are like those liable to receive karet with regard to the validity of their marriage and all its ramifications, and those liable to receive karet are not eligible to perform แธฅalitza or levirate marriage. A eunuch caused by man has the status of a man with crushed testicles, and is therefore prohibited by a standard negative mitzva from marrying a Jewish woman. If he violated the prohibition and married her, his marriage is invalid according to Rabbi Akiva, just as if he had married a woman who is forbidden to him by a prohibition punishable by karet. Why, then, should his แธฅalitza be valid?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืฉื ืื—ื™ื• ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื”ืœ ื’ืจื™ื ืœื ืืงืจื™ ืงื”ืœ

Rabbi Ami said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the eunuchโ€™s brother had married a convert, and Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation of the Lord. Consequently, it is permitted even for those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation, e.g., a eunuch, to marry converts.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืืžืจ ืื™ื”ื• ื ืžื™ ื—ื•ืœืฅ

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the eunuch should also be able to perform levirate marriage with the convert. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, but since Rabbi Yehoshua said that a eunuch performs แธฅalitza with his yevama, Rabbi Akiva as well said that he performs แธฅalitza with her, while in fact he may enter into levirate marriage with her if he so chooses.

ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื ืขืœ ื‘ืŸ ืžื’ื•ืกืช ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืกืจื™ืก ืื“ื ื•ื™ื‘ืžื• ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืœืงื™ื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise in this regard, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified about a man named ben Megusat, who lived in Jerusalem and was a eunuch caused by man, that his brothers entered into levirate marriage with his wife, to fulfill the statement of Rabbi Akiva. This indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, not only แธฅalitza but even levirate marriage is permitted. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ืคืฆื•ืข ื“ื›ื ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ืฉืคื›ื” ืกืจื™ืก ืื“ื ื•ื”ื–ืงืŸ ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ ืื• ืžื™ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืžืชื• ื•ืœื”ื ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืœื”ื ืื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืขืฉื• ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื ืฉื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื ืชื ื• ื’ื˜ ืื• ืฉื—ืœืฆื• ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื• ืขืฉื• ื•ืื ื‘ืขืœื• ืงื ื•

Rabba raised an objection from the following baraita: A man with crushed testicles, and one whose penis has been severed, and a eunuch caused by man, and an elderly man who is no longer capable of fathering children, may either perform แธฅalitza or enter into levirate marriage. The baraita clarifies the matter: How so? If these men died and they had wives and they also had brothers, and the brothers proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed แธฅalitza with them, what they did is done, i.e., it is a valid act. And if the brothers had intercourse with the wives, they acquired them in levirate marriage, like any other yevama.

ืžืชื• ืื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืขืžื“ื• ื”ืŸ ื•ืขืฉื• ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื ืฉื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื ืชื ื• ื’ื˜ ืื• ื—ืœืฆื• ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื• ืขืฉื• ื•ืื ื‘ืขืœื• ืงื ื• ื•ืืกื•ืจ ืœืงื™ื™ืžืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ื™ื‘ื ืคืฆื•ืข ื“ื›ื ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ืฉืคื›ื” ื‘ืงื”ืœ ื”ืณ ืืœืžื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ

If the brothers of these sexually impaired men died, and the sexually impaired men proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their brothersโ€™ wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed แธฅalitza with them, what they did is done, i.e., it is a valid act. And if they had intercourse with their brothersโ€™ wives they acquired them in levirate marriage, but they are prohibited from maintaining them as their wives because it is stated: โ€œA man with crushed testicles or a severed penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lordโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:2). Apparently, we are dealing with a case where the eunuchโ€™s brother had married a woman who is in the congregation of the Lord, i.e., a Jew from birth who is governed by this prohibition, and not a convert.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื” ืœื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื ืคืฆืข

Rather, Rabba said that the case here is one where oneโ€™s brother died and his yevama happened before him for levirate marriage, and he was injured only afterward. Since the mitzva of levirate marriage had initially applied to him, he performs แธฅalitza with her.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื™ืชื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืคืฆื•ืข ื•ื ื™ื“ื—ื™ ืขืฉื” ื“ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืžื™ืื ื” ืžื™ืื ื”

Abaye said to him: If so, let the prohibition applying to a man with crushed testicles come and override the positive mitzva of levirate marriage. Didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (109a) as follows: With regard to a case of two brothers who were married to two sisters, one of whom was a minor married off by her brothers in a marriage valid only by rabbinic decree, and the brother who was married to the adult sister passed away, Rabban Gamliel says: If the minor sister refuses her husband, declaring that she does not desire the marriage, she has refused him. Since the marriage is valid only by rabbinic decree, the girl may terminate it before she reaches the age of twelve by declaring that she does not wish to remain in the marriage, and no bill of divorce is required. In such a case the marriage is nullified retroactively, and so her former husband, the yavam, may perform levirate marriage with her sister.

ื•ืื ืœืื• ืชืžืชื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืชื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืชืฆื ื”ืœื–ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื” ืืœืžื ืืชื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื” ื•ื“ื—ื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืชื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืคืฆื•ืข ื•ื ื™ื“ื—ื™

The mishna continues: But if she does not refuse him, the minor must wait and her husband must not have relations with her until she reaches adulthood and their marriage is valid by Torah law, since in the meantime she is forbidden to him as the sister of a woman awaiting levirate marriage with him. At that point, when the minor reaches adulthood, this one, the adult sister, goes out free from the yavam without levirate marriage or แธฅalitza as his wifeโ€™s sister. Apparently, the prohibition with regard to a wifeโ€™s sister comes and overrides the mitzva of levirate marriage that had previously been in effect. Here too, then, let the prohibition applying to a man with crushed testicles come and override the positive mitzva of levirate marriage.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื”ืš ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ื“ืฉืืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ื’ืจื™ื“ื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ

Rather, Rav Yosef said: This tanna of our mishna is the tanna of the school of Rabbi Akiva, who said that only the child born of a union between those who are liable for violating prohibitions involving incestuous relationships is a mamzer, but the child born of a union between people who are liable for violating ordinary prohibitions is not a mamzer. The prohibition applying to a man with crushed testicles falls into the latter category, and therefore his marriage is valid and he may perform แธฅalitza.

ืื™ืงืจื™ ื›ืืŸ ืœื”ืงื™ื ืœืื—ื™ื• ืฉื ื•ื”ื ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: Why does the mitzva of levirate marriage apply at all to a eunuch? Read here the verse with regard to levirate marriage: โ€œTo establish a name for his brother in Israelโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:7), and this one is no longer capable of this, even if previously he had an hour of fitness when he was fertile earlier in his life.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื ื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ืืฉื” ืฉื›ืฉืจื” ืœื™ื‘ื ืฉืœื ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœื” ืกืจื™ืก ื—ืžื” ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ืงื•ื“ื ืœืžื™ืชืชื•

Rava said: If it is so that anyone who cannot presently father children is exempt from levirate marriage even if he had previously been capable of doing so, there is no instance of a woman who is fit for the yavam, as even if her husband died of natural causes it is impossible that he did not become like a eunuch by natural causes an hour before his death. He had certainly lost his fertility before dying, and therefore he has the status of a eunuch, which means that the mitzva of levirate marriage should not apply in his case at all. Rather, it must be that a man who had previously been capable of fathering children is considered fit for the purposes of levirate marriage.

ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืงื ื“ืจื‘ื ืคื™ืจื›ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the mishna that a eunuch caused by man does not perform แธฅalitza and his marriage is invalid even though he had an hour of fitness when he was fertile, Ravaโ€™s answer, his proof from the fact that all men on their deathbeds lack sexual capacity, is undoubtedly a refutation.

ื”ืชื ื›ื—ื™ืฉื•ืชื ื“ืืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a man who is about to die cannot be compared to a eunuch, as there, he can no longer father children due to the general weakness that begins to take over his body as death approaches, which prevents him from engaging in relations with a woman, but his basic ability to father children remains unimpaired.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืกืจื™ืก ื—ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ

The Gemara raises a practical question: What are the circumstances of a eunuch by natural causes? Rav Yitzแธฅak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Anyone

Scroll To Top