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

Daf Yomi

May 25, 2022 | 讻状讚 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘

  • 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.聽

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,聽 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?

 

转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 讜诇讗 讚专讻讬讛 诇诪住驻讚讬讛


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.


谞转讬谞讬诐 谞讬拽专讬谞讛讜 讜谞驻讬讬住讬谞讛讜 讜讬拽专讗 讛诪诇讱 诇讙讘注讜谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇讬讛诐 诪讛 讗注砖讛 诇讻诐 讜讘诪讛 讗讻驻专 讜讘专讻讜 讗转 谞讞诇转 讛壮 讜讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讙讘注讜谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 注诐 砖讗讜诇 讜注诐 讘讬转讜 讜讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗讬砖 讜讙讜壮 讬转谉 诇谞讜 砖讘注讛 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讘谞讬讜 讜讛讜拽注谞讜诐 诇讛壮 讜讙讜壮 诪讬驻讬讬住 讜诇讗 驻讬讬住讬谞讛讜


As for the Gibeonites, let us call them and appease them. Consequently, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the king called the Gibeonites and said to them鈥hat 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 Israel鈥Let seven men of his sons be delivered to us, and we will hang them up to the Lord鈥︹ (II聽Samuel 21:1鈥6). He tried to appease them in other ways, but they would not be appeased.


讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 住讬诪谞讬诐 讬砖 讘讗讜诪讛 讝讜 讛专讞诪谞讬诐 讜讛讘讬讬砖谞讬谉 讜讙讜诪诇讬 讞住讚讬诐 专讞诪谞讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 诇讱 专讞诪讬诐 讜专讞诪讱 讜讛专讘讱 讘讬讬砖谞讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘注讘讜专 转讛讬讛 讬专讗转讜 注诇 驻谞讬讻诐 讙讜诪诇讬 讞住讚讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 讗砖专 讬爪讜讛 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讗转 讘讬转讜 讜讙讜壮 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 住讬诪谞讬诐 讛诇诇讜 专讗讜讬 诇讛讚讘拽 讘讗讜诪讛 讝讜


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: 鈥淎nd He will give you mercy, and have mercy upon you and multiply you鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd that His fear shall be upon your faces鈥 (Exodus 20:17), and the fear that is on one鈥檚 face is his shame.
They perform acts of kindness, as it is written: 鈥淔or 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 justice鈥 (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.


讜讬拽讞 讛诪诇讱 讗转 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 专爪驻讛 讘转 讗讬讛 讗砖专 讬诇讚讛 诇砖讗讜诇 讗转 讗专诪谞讬 讜讗转 诪驻讘砖转 讜讗转 讞诪砖转 讘谞讬 诪讬讻诇 讘转 砖讗讜诇 讗砖专 讬诇讚讛 诇注讚专讬讗诇 讘谉 讘专讝讬诇讬 讛诪讞诇转讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛注讘讬专讜诐 诇驻谞讬 讗专讜谉 讻诇 砖讗专讜谉 拽讜诇讟讜 诇诪讬转讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讗专讜谉 拽讜诇讟讜 诇讞讬讬诐


The Gemara continues with its understanding of the incident: 鈥淎nd 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 Meholathite鈥 (II聽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 Saul鈥檚 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.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 讜讬讞诪诇 讛诪诇讱 注诇 诪驻讘砖转 讘谉 讬讛讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 砖诇讗 讛注讘讬专讜


Rav 岣na bar Ketina raised an objection: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the king had pity on Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of Saul, because of the Lord鈥檚 oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan, son of Saul鈥 (II聽Samuel 21:7). If the seven men were condemned by the Ark, how did the king鈥檚 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.


讜讻讬 诪砖讜讗 驻谞讬诐 讬砖 讘讚讘专 讗诇讗 砖讛注讘讬专讜 讜拽诇讟讜 讜讘拽砖 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐 讜驻诇讟讜 讜讗讻转讬 诪砖讜讗 驻谞讬诐 讬砖 讘讚讘专 讗诇讗 砖讘拽砖 专讞诪讬诐 砖诇讗 讬拽诇讟谞讜 讛讗专讜谉


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.


讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讜诪转讜 讗讘讜转 注诇 讘谞讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讟讘 砖转注拽专 讗讜转 讗讞转 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜讗诇 讬转讞诇诇 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 讘驻专讛住讬讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the story as related by the Bible: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:16)? As Saul鈥檚 sons had not sinned, why were they put to death? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 God鈥檚 name. In order to repair the damage, David acquiesced to the Gibeonites鈥 demands, even though they contradicted Torah law.


讜转拽讞 专爪驻讛 讘转 讗讬讛 讗转 讛砖拽 讜转讟讛讜 诇讛 讗诇 讛爪讜专 诪转讞诇转 拽爪讬专 注讚 谞转讱 诪讬诐 注诇讬讛诐 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讜诇讗 谞转谞讛 注讜祝 讛砖诪讬诐 诇谞讜讞 注诇讬讛诐 讬讜诪诐 讜讞讬转 讛砖讚讛 诇讬诇讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇讬谉 谞讘诇转讜 注诇 讛注抓


The Gemara continues with its analysis of the incident. The verse states: 鈥淎nd 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 night鈥 (II聽Samuel 21:10). The Gemara raises a difficulty: How could they have left Saul鈥檚 executed sons unburied all that time? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗is body shall not remain all night upon the tree; but you shall surely bury him the same day鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:23)?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 诪讜讟讘 砖转注拽专 讗讜转 讗讞转 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜讬转拽讚砖 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 讘驻专讛住讬讗 砖讛讬讜 注讜讘专讬诐 讜砖讘讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讛 讟讬讘谉 砖诇 讗诇讜 讛诇诇讜 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讛诐 讜诪讛 注砖讜 驻砖讟讜 讬讚讬讛诐 讘讙专讬诐 讙专讜专讬诐 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗讜诪讛 砖专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讚讘拽 讘讛 讻讝讜 讜诪讛 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讻讱 讘谞讬 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讜诪讛 讙专讬诐 讙专讜专讬诐 讻讱 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


诪讬讚 谞转讜住驻讜 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讗诇祝 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 诇砖诇诪讛 砖讘注讬诐 讗诇祝 谞讜砖讗 住讘诇 讜砖诪谞讬诐 讗诇祝 讞讜爪讘 讘讛专 讜讚诇诪讗 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讜 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 谞转谉 砖诇诪讛 注讘讚


Immediately, one hundred and fifty thousand converts joined the Jewish people, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Solomon had seventy thousand that bore burdens and eighty thousand that were hewers in the mountains鈥 (I聽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: 鈥淏ut of the children of Israel Solomon made no slaves鈥 (I聽Kings 9:22).


讜讚诇诪讗 讚讜讙讝专 讘注诇诪讗 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬住驻专 砖诇诪讛 讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讛讙专讬诐 讗砖专 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 [讜讙讜壮] 讜讬诪爪讗讜 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讗诇祝 [讜讙讜壮] 讜讬注砖 诪讛诐 砖讘注讬诐 讗诇祝 (谞讜砖讗) 住讘诇 讜砖诪讜谞讬诐 讗诇祝 讞讜爪讘 讘讛专


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: 鈥淎nd Solomon counted all the converted men that were in Eretz Yisrael鈥nd they were found to be one hundred and fifty thousand鈥nd he made seventy thousand of them to bear burdens, and eighty thousand to be hewers in the mountains鈥 (II聽Chronicles 2:16鈥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 God鈥檚 name in the wake of the punishment meted out to the descendants of Saul.


讜谞转讬谞讬诐 讚讜讚 讙讝专 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讛 讙讝专 注诇讬讛诐 讚讻转讬讘 诪讞讜讟讘 注爪讬讱 注讚 砖讜讗讘 诪讬诪讬讱 诪砖讛 讙讝专 诇讛讛讜讗 讚专讗 讚讜讚 讙讝专 诇讻讜诇讬 讚专讗


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? Wasn鈥檛 it Moses who issued a decree against them, as it is written: 鈥淔rom the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your water鈥 (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.


讜讗讻转讬 讬讛讜砖注 讙讝专 注诇讬讬讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬转谞诐 讬讛讜砖注 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讞讜讟讘讬 注爪讬诐 讜砖讜讗讘讬 诪讬诐 诇注讚讛 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讛壮 讬讛讜砖注 讙讝专 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讚讜讚 讙讝专 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐


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


讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 讘拽砖讜 诇讛转讬专 谞转讬谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讞诇拽谞讜 谞转讬专 讞诇拽 诪讝讘讞 诪讬 讬转讬专


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 people鈥檚 right to enslave the Gibeonites, and so they should be treated like emancipated slaves, who can permit the altar鈥檚 share? Do they not belong to the Temple and the altar as well?


讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诇拽 注讚讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专 讞诇拽 诪讝讘讞 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讗住讜专 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 砖专讬:


The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the teaching of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba. As Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 砖讛住专讬住 讞讜诇抓 讜讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 讜讛住专讬住 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 诇驻专砖


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


讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗谞讬 讗驻专砖 住专讬住 讗讚诐 讞讜诇抓 讜讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 住专讬住 讞诪讛 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain. A eunuch caused by man, i.e., one who became emasculated after birth, performs 岣litza with his yevama and his brothers perform 岣litza 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 岣litza with his yevama and his brothers do not perform 岣litza with his wife, because he did not have an hour of fitness, as he never had the potential to father children.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛 讞讜诇抓 讜讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 专驻讜讗讛 住专讬住 讗讚诐 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 专驻讜讗讛


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


讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注诇 讘谉 诪讙讜住转 砖讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 住专讬住 讗讚诐 讜讬讘诪讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


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.


讛住专讬住 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐 讜讻谉 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 诇讗 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转


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


讛住专讬住 砖讞诇抓 诇讬讘诪转讜 诇讗 驻住诇讛 讘注诇讛 驻住诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 讜讻谉 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讞诇爪讜 诇讛 讗讞讬谉 诇讗 驻住诇讜讛 讘注诇讜讛 驻住诇讜讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讘注讬诇转讛 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转:


If a sexually underdeveloped man performed 岣litza with his yevama, he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as his 岣litza 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 one鈥檚 sister-in-law. And similarly, with regard to a sexually underdeveloped woman, if one of the brothers performed 岣litza 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.


讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讻讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讚诪讜 讜讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讬讬讘讜诐 谞讬谞讛讜


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 岣litza 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 岣litza be valid?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讗 讗讞讬讜 讙讬讜专转 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 拽讛诇 讙专讬诐 诇讗 讗拽专讬 拽讛诇


Rabbi Ami said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the eunuch鈥檚 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.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讬讘讜诪讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讬讘诐 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讞讜诇抓 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讜诇抓


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 岣litza with his yevama, Rabbi Akiva as well said that he performs 岣litza with her, while in fact he may enter into levirate marriage with her if he so chooses.


讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注诇 讘谉 诪讙讜住转 砖讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 住专讬住 讗讚诐 讜讬讘诪讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


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 岣litza but even levirate marriage is permitted. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.


诪转讬讘 专讘讛 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 住专讬住 讗讚诐 讜讛讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗讜 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讻讬爪讚 诪转讜 讜诇讛诐 谞砖讬诐 讜诇讛诐 讗讞讬谉 讜注诪讚讜 讗讞讬谉 讜注砖讜 诪讗诪专 讘谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讜谞转谞讜 讙讟 讗讜 砖讞诇爪讜 诪讛 砖注砖讜 注砖讜 讜讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜


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 岣litza 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 岣litza 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.


诪转讜 讗讞讬谉 讜注诪讚讜 讛谉 讜注砖讜 诪讗诪专 讘谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讜谞转谞讜 讙讟 讗讜 讞诇爪讜 诪讛 砖注砖讜 注砖讜 讜讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜 讜讗住讜专 诇拽讬讬诪谉 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讘拽讛诇 讛壮 讗诇诪讗 讘拽讛诇 注住拽讬谞谉


If the brothers of these sexually impaired men died, and the sexually impaired men proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their brothers鈥 wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed 岣litza with them, what they did is done, i.e., it is a valid act. And if they had intercourse with their brothers鈥 wives they acquired them in levirate marriage, but they are prohibited from maintaining them as their wives because it is stated: 鈥淎 man with crushed testicles or a severed penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:2). Apparently, we are dealing with a case where the eunuch鈥檚 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.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞驻爪注


Rather, Rabba said that the case here is one where one鈥檚 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 岣litza with her.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 驻爪讜注 讜谞讬讚讞讬 注砖讛 讚讬讬讘讜诐 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讬讗谞讛 诪讬讗谞讛


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. Didn鈥檛 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.


讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转爪讗 讛诇讝讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讗诇诪讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 驻爪讜注 讜谞讬讚讞讬


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 岣litza as his wife鈥檚 sister. Apparently, the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 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.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讚砖讗专 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讙专讬讚讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专


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 岣litza.


讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 诇讛拽讬诐 诇讗讞讬讜 砖诐 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讗


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: 鈥淭o establish a name for his brother in Israel鈥 (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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗砖讛 砖讻砖专讛 诇讬讘诐 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讘注诇讛 住专讬住 讞诪讛 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讬转转讜


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.


诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讬专讜拽讗 讚专讘讗 驻讬专讻讗 讛讬讗


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


讛转诐 讻讞讬砖讜转讗 讚讗转讞讬诇讛 讘讬讛


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.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 住专讬住 讞诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇


The Gemara raises a practical question: What are the circumstances of a eunuch by natural causes? Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Anyone


  • 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...
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

转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 讜诇讗 讚专讻讬讛 诇诪住驻讚讬讛


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.


谞转讬谞讬诐 谞讬拽专讬谞讛讜 讜谞驻讬讬住讬谞讛讜 讜讬拽专讗 讛诪诇讱 诇讙讘注讜谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇讬讛诐 诪讛 讗注砖讛 诇讻诐 讜讘诪讛 讗讻驻专 讜讘专讻讜 讗转 谞讞诇转 讛壮 讜讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讙讘注讜谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 注诐 砖讗讜诇 讜注诐 讘讬转讜 讜讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗讬砖 讜讙讜壮 讬转谉 诇谞讜 砖讘注讛 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讘谞讬讜 讜讛讜拽注谞讜诐 诇讛壮 讜讙讜壮 诪讬驻讬讬住 讜诇讗 驻讬讬住讬谞讛讜


As for the Gibeonites, let us call them and appease them. Consequently, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the king called the Gibeonites and said to them鈥hat 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 Israel鈥Let seven men of his sons be delivered to us, and we will hang them up to the Lord鈥︹ (II聽Samuel 21:1鈥6). He tried to appease them in other ways, but they would not be appeased.


讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 住讬诪谞讬诐 讬砖 讘讗讜诪讛 讝讜 讛专讞诪谞讬诐 讜讛讘讬讬砖谞讬谉 讜讙讜诪诇讬 讞住讚讬诐 专讞诪谞讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 诇讱 专讞诪讬诐 讜专讞诪讱 讜讛专讘讱 讘讬讬砖谞讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘注讘讜专 转讛讬讛 讬专讗转讜 注诇 驻谞讬讻诐 讙讜诪诇讬 讞住讚讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 讗砖专 讬爪讜讛 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讗转 讘讬转讜 讜讙讜壮 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 住讬诪谞讬诐 讛诇诇讜 专讗讜讬 诇讛讚讘拽 讘讗讜诪讛 讝讜


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: 鈥淎nd He will give you mercy, and have mercy upon you and multiply you鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd that His fear shall be upon your faces鈥 (Exodus 20:17), and the fear that is on one鈥檚 face is his shame.
They perform acts of kindness, as it is written: 鈥淔or 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 justice鈥 (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.


讜讬拽讞 讛诪诇讱 讗转 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 专爪驻讛 讘转 讗讬讛 讗砖专 讬诇讚讛 诇砖讗讜诇 讗转 讗专诪谞讬 讜讗转 诪驻讘砖转 讜讗转 讞诪砖转 讘谞讬 诪讬讻诇 讘转 砖讗讜诇 讗砖专 讬诇讚讛 诇注讚专讬讗诇 讘谉 讘专讝讬诇讬 讛诪讞诇转讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛注讘讬专讜诐 诇驻谞讬 讗专讜谉 讻诇 砖讗专讜谉 拽讜诇讟讜 诇诪讬转讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讗专讜谉 拽讜诇讟讜 诇讞讬讬诐


The Gemara continues with its understanding of the incident: 鈥淎nd 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 Meholathite鈥 (II聽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 Saul鈥檚 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.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 讜讬讞诪诇 讛诪诇讱 注诇 诪驻讘砖转 讘谉 讬讛讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 砖诇讗 讛注讘讬专讜


Rav 岣na bar Ketina raised an objection: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the king had pity on Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of Saul, because of the Lord鈥檚 oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan, son of Saul鈥 (II聽Samuel 21:7). If the seven men were condemned by the Ark, how did the king鈥檚 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.


讜讻讬 诪砖讜讗 驻谞讬诐 讬砖 讘讚讘专 讗诇讗 砖讛注讘讬专讜 讜拽诇讟讜 讜讘拽砖 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐 讜驻诇讟讜 讜讗讻转讬 诪砖讜讗 驻谞讬诐 讬砖 讘讚讘专 讗诇讗 砖讘拽砖 专讞诪讬诐 砖诇讗 讬拽诇讟谞讜 讛讗专讜谉


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.


讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讜诪转讜 讗讘讜转 注诇 讘谞讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讟讘 砖转注拽专 讗讜转 讗讞转 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜讗诇 讬转讞诇诇 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 讘驻专讛住讬讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the story as related by the Bible: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:16)? As Saul鈥檚 sons had not sinned, why were they put to death? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 God鈥檚 name. In order to repair the damage, David acquiesced to the Gibeonites鈥 demands, even though they contradicted Torah law.


讜转拽讞 专爪驻讛 讘转 讗讬讛 讗转 讛砖拽 讜转讟讛讜 诇讛 讗诇 讛爪讜专 诪转讞诇转 拽爪讬专 注讚 谞转讱 诪讬诐 注诇讬讛诐 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讜诇讗 谞转谞讛 注讜祝 讛砖诪讬诐 诇谞讜讞 注诇讬讛诐 讬讜诪诐 讜讞讬转 讛砖讚讛 诇讬诇讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇讬谉 谞讘诇转讜 注诇 讛注抓


The Gemara continues with its analysis of the incident. The verse states: 鈥淎nd 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 night鈥 (II聽Samuel 21:10). The Gemara raises a difficulty: How could they have left Saul鈥檚 executed sons unburied all that time? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗is body shall not remain all night upon the tree; but you shall surely bury him the same day鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:23)?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 诪讜讟讘 砖转注拽专 讗讜转 讗讞转 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜讬转拽讚砖 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 讘驻专讛住讬讗 砖讛讬讜 注讜讘专讬诐 讜砖讘讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讛 讟讬讘谉 砖诇 讗诇讜 讛诇诇讜 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讛诐 讜诪讛 注砖讜 驻砖讟讜 讬讚讬讛诐 讘讙专讬诐 讙专讜专讬诐 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗讜诪讛 砖专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讚讘拽 讘讛 讻讝讜 讜诪讛 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讻讱 讘谞讬 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讜诪讛 讙专讬诐 讙专讜专讬诐 讻讱 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


诪讬讚 谞转讜住驻讜 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讗诇祝 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 诇砖诇诪讛 砖讘注讬诐 讗诇祝 谞讜砖讗 住讘诇 讜砖诪谞讬诐 讗诇祝 讞讜爪讘 讘讛专 讜讚诇诪讗 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讜 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 谞转谉 砖诇诪讛 注讘讚


Immediately, one hundred and fifty thousand converts joined the Jewish people, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Solomon had seventy thousand that bore burdens and eighty thousand that were hewers in the mountains鈥 (I聽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: 鈥淏ut of the children of Israel Solomon made no slaves鈥 (I聽Kings 9:22).


讜讚诇诪讗 讚讜讙讝专 讘注诇诪讗 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬住驻专 砖诇诪讛 讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讛讙专讬诐 讗砖专 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 [讜讙讜壮] 讜讬诪爪讗讜 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讗诇祝 [讜讙讜壮] 讜讬注砖 诪讛诐 砖讘注讬诐 讗诇祝 (谞讜砖讗) 住讘诇 讜砖诪讜谞讬诐 讗诇祝 讞讜爪讘 讘讛专


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: 鈥淎nd Solomon counted all the converted men that were in Eretz Yisrael鈥nd they were found to be one hundred and fifty thousand鈥nd he made seventy thousand of them to bear burdens, and eighty thousand to be hewers in the mountains鈥 (II聽Chronicles 2:16鈥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 God鈥檚 name in the wake of the punishment meted out to the descendants of Saul.


讜谞转讬谞讬诐 讚讜讚 讙讝专 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讛 讙讝专 注诇讬讛诐 讚讻转讬讘 诪讞讜讟讘 注爪讬讱 注讚 砖讜讗讘 诪讬诪讬讱 诪砖讛 讙讝专 诇讛讛讜讗 讚专讗 讚讜讚 讙讝专 诇讻讜诇讬 讚专讗


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? Wasn鈥檛 it Moses who issued a decree against them, as it is written: 鈥淔rom the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your water鈥 (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.


讜讗讻转讬 讬讛讜砖注 讙讝专 注诇讬讬讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬转谞诐 讬讛讜砖注 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讞讜讟讘讬 注爪讬诐 讜砖讜讗讘讬 诪讬诐 诇注讚讛 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讛壮 讬讛讜砖注 讙讝专 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讚讜讚 讙讝专 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐


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


讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 讘拽砖讜 诇讛转讬专 谞转讬谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讞诇拽谞讜 谞转讬专 讞诇拽 诪讝讘讞 诪讬 讬转讬专


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 people鈥檚 right to enslave the Gibeonites, and so they should be treated like emancipated slaves, who can permit the altar鈥檚 share? Do they not belong to the Temple and the altar as well?


讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诇拽 注讚讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专 讞诇拽 诪讝讘讞 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讗住讜专 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 砖专讬:


The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the teaching of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba. As Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 砖讛住专讬住 讞讜诇抓 讜讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 讜讛住专讬住 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 诇驻专砖


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


讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗谞讬 讗驻专砖 住专讬住 讗讚诐 讞讜诇抓 讜讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 住专讬住 讞诪讛 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain. A eunuch caused by man, i.e., one who became emasculated after birth, performs 岣litza with his yevama and his brothers perform 岣litza 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 岣litza with his yevama and his brothers do not perform 岣litza with his wife, because he did not have an hour of fitness, as he never had the potential to father children.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛 讞讜诇抓 讜讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 专驻讜讗讛 住专讬住 讗讚诐 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 专驻讜讗讛


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


讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注诇 讘谉 诪讙讜住转 砖讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 住专讬住 讗讚诐 讜讬讘诪讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


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.


讛住专讬住 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐 讜讻谉 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 诇讗 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转


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


讛住专讬住 砖讞诇抓 诇讬讘诪转讜 诇讗 驻住诇讛 讘注诇讛 驻住诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 讜讻谉 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讞诇爪讜 诇讛 讗讞讬谉 诇讗 驻住诇讜讛 讘注诇讜讛 驻住诇讜讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讘注讬诇转讛 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转:


If a sexually underdeveloped man performed 岣litza with his yevama, he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as his 岣litza 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 one鈥檚 sister-in-law. And similarly, with regard to a sexually underdeveloped woman, if one of the brothers performed 岣litza 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.


讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讻讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讚诪讜 讜讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讬讬讘讜诐 谞讬谞讛讜


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 岣litza 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 岣litza be valid?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖讗 讗讞讬讜 讙讬讜专转 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 拽讛诇 讙专讬诐 诇讗 讗拽专讬 拽讛诇


Rabbi Ami said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the eunuch鈥檚 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.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讬讘讜诪讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讬讘诐 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讞讜诇抓 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讜诇抓


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 岣litza with his yevama, Rabbi Akiva as well said that he performs 岣litza with her, while in fact he may enter into levirate marriage with her if he so chooses.


讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注诇 讘谉 诪讙讜住转 砖讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 住专讬住 讗讚诐 讜讬讘诪讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


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 岣litza but even levirate marriage is permitted. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.


诪转讬讘 专讘讛 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 住专讬住 讗讚诐 讜讛讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗讜 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讻讬爪讚 诪转讜 讜诇讛诐 谞砖讬诐 讜诇讛诐 讗讞讬谉 讜注诪讚讜 讗讞讬谉 讜注砖讜 诪讗诪专 讘谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讜谞转谞讜 讙讟 讗讜 砖讞诇爪讜 诪讛 砖注砖讜 注砖讜 讜讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜


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 岣litza 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 岣litza 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.


诪转讜 讗讞讬谉 讜注诪讚讜 讛谉 讜注砖讜 诪讗诪专 讘谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讜谞转谞讜 讙讟 讗讜 讞诇爪讜 诪讛 砖注砖讜 注砖讜 讜讗诐 讘注诇讜 拽谞讜 讜讗住讜专 诇拽讬讬诪谉 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讘拽讛诇 讛壮 讗诇诪讗 讘拽讛诇 注住拽讬谞谉


If the brothers of these sexually impaired men died, and the sexually impaired men proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their brothers鈥 wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed 岣litza with them, what they did is done, i.e., it is a valid act. And if they had intercourse with their brothers鈥 wives they acquired them in levirate marriage, but they are prohibited from maintaining them as their wives because it is stated: 鈥淎 man with crushed testicles or a severed penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:2). Apparently, we are dealing with a case where the eunuch鈥檚 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.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞驻爪注


Rather, Rabba said that the case here is one where one鈥檚 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 岣litza with her.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 驻爪讜注 讜谞讬讚讞讬 注砖讛 讚讬讬讘讜诐 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讬讗谞讛 诪讬讗谞讛


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. Didn鈥檛 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.


讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转爪讗 讛诇讝讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讗诇诪讗 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬转讬 讗讬住讜专 驻爪讜注 讜谞讬讚讞讬


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 岣litza as his wife鈥檚 sister. Apparently, the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 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.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讚砖讗专 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讙专讬讚讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专


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 岣litza.


讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 诇讛拽讬诐 诇讗讞讬讜 砖诐 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讗


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: 鈥淭o establish a name for his brother in Israel鈥 (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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗砖讛 砖讻砖专讛 诇讬讘诐 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讘注诇讛 住专讬住 讞诪讛 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讬转转讜


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.


诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讬专讜拽讗 讚专讘讗 驻讬专讻讗 讛讬讗


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


讛转诐 讻讞讬砖讜转讗 讚讗转讞讬诇讛 讘讬讛


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.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 住专讬住 讞诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇


The Gemara raises a practical question: What are the circumstances of a eunuch by natural causes? Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Anyone


Scroll To Top