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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 10, 2022 | 讬状讗 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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 96

 

Presentation in PDF format

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leah Ackner and Jonathan Loring in honor of their daughter, Meira Raizel’s Bat Mitzvah “16 years ago, we were called to the Torah to celebrate our marriage. Today, we are proud to watch you be called to the Torah as a Bat Mitzvah, chanting the very same verses mommy chanted at our aufruf. We are so proud of the person you are becoming. May you continue to learn and grow in Torah – we love you!”聽

The Gemara brings a number of other resolutions to how Shmuel could hold like Rabbi Yosi and also say that a yevama is not treated like a married woman. The Mishna describes a case where a man married multiple half-sisters thinking their sister had died, but in fact, they hadn鈥檛. To which is he considered married and to which not? Laws regarding yibum with a boy 9 years old are discussed. What is the difference between actions of his relating to yibum and one who has already reached puberty? If he engages in intercourse with the yevama, what is the strength of that relationship? What is two brothers each over nine but haven鈥檛 yet reached maturity, perform yibum with the yevama, how do we treat that? What if the nine-year-old performed yibum and then died, what would be the laws for his wife? What are the issues at stake?

讜讚诇诪讗 讗讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讬转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇诇 讜讘讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诪讛

But perhaps Shmuel鈥檚 ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is referring to the ruling that he does not disqualify his brother-in-law鈥檚 wife to his brother-in-law, in a case where his wife and brother-in-law left. Alternatively, the contradiction can be resolved in the following manner: From where do we know that there is a reason to accept the explanation of Rav Huna with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel? Perhaps there is no cause to agree with Rav Huna at all, and it can be explained that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A widow waiting for her yavam who engaged in licentious sexual relations is forbidden to her yavam.

讚专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诪讬驻住诇讗 讘讝谞讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪讬驻住诇讗 讘讝谞讜转 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讬讘诪讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉

According to this interpretation, the dispute is as follows: As Rav said, she is like a married woman and she is therefore disqualified by licentious sexual relations. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman and is not disqualified by licentious sexual relations. And alternatively, one can explain that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the issue of whether betrothal takes effect with a yevama: As Rav said, she is like a married woman with regard to all men other than her yavam, and therefore betrothal performed by anyone else does not takes effect with her. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman, and this means that betrothal does take effect with her.

讜讛讗 讗驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讘专转讛 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara asks with regard to this last answer: How can the dispute be explained in this manner? But Rav and Shmuel already disagreed over this once. The Sages would certainly not record the same dispute twice. The Gemara answers: It is possible that they did not in fact disagree twice with regard to the same case. Rather, one ruling was stated by inference from the other. In other words, their dispute was recorded in two different ways, the second time by inference from their original dispute.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪转讛 讗砖转讱 讜谞砖讗 讗讞讜转讛 诪讗讘讬讛 诪转讛 讜谞砖讗 讗讞讜转讛 诪讗诪讛 诪转讛 讜谞砖讗 讗讞讜转讛 诪讗讘讬讛 诪转讛 讜谞砖讗 讗讞讜转讛 诪讗诪讛 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讻讜诇谉 拽讬讬诪讜转 诪讜转专 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬转 讜驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉

MISHNA: Witnesses said to a husband: Your wife is dead, and he married her paternal sister, and witnesses subsequently told him that his second wife was dead and he married her maternal sister; afterward witnesses said that this one too was dead and he married her paternal sister; finally they told him that she was dead and he married the last woman鈥檚 maternal sister, and then they were all discovered to be alive. In this case he is permitted to his first wife, and to the third and to the fifth. Since these women are not sisters, his betrothal to them is effective. Consequently, if he died and one of them entered into levirate marriage, they exempt their rival wives.

讜讗住讜专 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讘专讘讬注讬转 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

But he is forbidden to the second and fourth wife, each of whom is the sister of his original wife. Therefore, if he passed away and the yavam had relations with one of them, his relations with any one of them does not exempt her rival wife, as she was forbidden to his brother, which means there was no mitzva of levirate marriage here at all.

讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇 讛砖谞讬讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讜转专 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讘专讘讬注讬转 讜驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬转 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

And if he had relations with the second woman in the aforementioned list after the death of the first, i.e., the first one indeed died but the other rumors were all false, in that case he is permitted to the second and the fourth, who are his lawful wives, and they exempt their rival wives, and he is forbidden to the third and the fifth, the sisters of the women married to him, and the sexual relations of the brother with any one of them does not exempt her rival wife.

讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞讬谉 讜讛讗讞讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 转讞诇讛 讜讛讗讞讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝

搂 The mishna addresses a different issue: If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama he thereby disqualifies his brothers from levirate marriage, despite the fact that as a minor he has not acquired the yevama through this act of intercourse, and the brothers likewise disqualify the woman from him if they have intercourse with the yevama. However, there is a difference between them, as he disqualifies them only if he engaged in relations with her first, and the brothers disqualify him whether they had relations first or last.

讻讬爪讚 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 驻住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞讬谉 讘讗讜 注诇讬讛 讗讞讬谉 讜注砖讜 讘讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谞讜 讙讟 讗讜 讞诇爪讜 驻讜住诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜

The mishna explains: How so? A boy aged nine years and one day who had relations with his yevama has disqualified his brothers, as they are no longer eligible to marry her. If his brothers had relations with her, or performed levirate betrothal with her, or gave her a bill of divorce, or performed 岣litza with her, they permanently disqualify him from engaging in relations with her.

讙诪壮 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 专讗砖讜谞讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讚讗讬

GEMARA: The mishna states: And if he had relations with the second after the death of the first. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all of them, all the other cases in the mishna, are not dealing with a situation after the death of the first woman? The entire case starts with the report: Your wife is dead. Rav Sheshet said: After the definite death of the first one. In other words, the mishna means that this did not follow a mere rumor that she was dead, but it was positively established that she had actually died.

讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 转讞诇讛 驻住讬诇 讘住讜祝 诇讗 驻住讬诇 讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗 讗讞讬讜 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注诇讬讛 驻住诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches that a boy aged nine years and one day who had relations with his yevama has disqualified her from his brothers. Throughout this discussion, whenever the Gemara refers to a nine-year-old boy, it is understood that he is actually nine years and one day old. The Gemara asks: Does a boy aged nine years and one day disqualify her to the brothers only if he had relations with her first, but if he had relations last he does not disqualify them? But didn鈥檛 Rav Zevid bar Rav Oshaya teach: One who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama, and afterward his brother, who is nine years and one day old, had relations with her, he has disqualified her. This indicates that the intercourse of a nine-year-old disqualifies his brother even if it occurred after that of his brother.

讗诪专讬 讘讬讗讛 驻住讬诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讜祝 诪讗诪专 转讞诇讛 驻住讬诇 讘住讜祝 诇讗 驻住讬诇 讜讘讬讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讜祝 驻住讬诇 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 砖讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 转讞诇讛 讜讛谉 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝 讻讬爪讚 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 讜讻讜壮

They say in response: The intercourse of a nine-year-old disqualifies his brothers even if it happens last; however, in the case of a boy who merely performed levirate betrothal with her, if he did so first he disqualifies his brothers, whereas if he was last, he does not disqualify his brothers. The Gemara asks: And do the sexual relations of a nine-year-old disqualify his brothers even when performed last? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: However, he disqualifies them only if was first, and the brothers disqualify him whether they were first or last. How so? A boy aged nine years and one day who had relations with his yevama has disqualified his brothers. The example the mishna uses for a boy who disqualifies his brothers first is an act of intercourse.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 转讞诇讛 讜讛谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讗诪专 讗讘诇 讘讬讗讛 驻讜住诇转 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讜祝 讻讬爪讚 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 驻住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞讬谉

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: With regard to a boy aged nine years and one day, he disqualifies his brothers first, and they disqualify him first and last. In what case is this statement said? This is said with regard to levirate betrothal, i.e., if they performed levirate betrothal with her. However, if the minor had relations with her, he disqualifies them even if he did so last. How so? If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama after his brother performed levirate betrothal with her, he has disqualified his brothers.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讗诪专 讻诇诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 讘讚讘专 讗讞讚 讜讛讗讞讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞讬谉 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讛讗讞讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讘诪讗诪专 讘讙讟 讘讞诇讬爪讛

The Gemara asks: And does a nine-year-old boy have the ability to perform levirate betrothal at all that would have any effect with regard to the eligibility of his brothers in levirate marriage? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a boy aged nine years and one day, he disqualifies the yevama to his brothers in one way, and the brothers disqualify him in four ways. How so? He disqualifies the brothers by relations, i.e., the yevama is forbidden to the other brothers if she has sexual relations with him, and the brothers disqualify him by relations, by levirate betrothal, by a bill of divorce, and by 岣litza. The tanna does not mention the levirate betrothal of a minor at all.

讘讬讗讛 讚驻住诇讛 讘讬谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗诪专 讚讘转讞讬诇讛 驻住讬诇 讘住讜祝 诇讗 驻住讬诇 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this claim: No proof can be derived from that source, as with regard to the sexual relations of a minor, which disqualifies his brothers whether it came first or last, the tanna can teach a definite ruling, i.e., he can state this halakha in an unambiguous and unqualified manner. Conversely, with regard to the levirate betrothal of a minor, which if it occurred first disqualifies his brothers but if it happened last, after one of the brothers performed levirate marriage with her, it does not disqualify them, the tanna cannot teach it in a definite and unqualified manner, but would have to elaborate and explain the precise circumstances. Therefore he omitted this case entirely.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬砖 诇讜 讙讟 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 讬砖 诇讜 诪讗诪专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬砖 诇讜 讙讟 讜讬砖 诇讜 诪讗诪专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

It was also stated by other amora鈥檌m: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A minor boy has the ability to give a bill of divorce in the case of a yevama, i.e., if he gave her a bill of divorce he has disqualified her to his brothers. And similarly Rav Ta岣lifa bar Avimi said: He has the ability to perform levirate betrothal. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: A minor has the ability to give a bill of divorce and he has the ability to perform levirate betrothal; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬砖 诇讜 讙讟 讜讛转谞讬讗 注砖讜 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 讻诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注砖讜 讞诇讬爪转 讘谉 转砖注 讻讙讟 讘讙讚讜诇 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬转谞讬 讻讙讬讟讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讝讜讟专

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Meir hold that a minor boy has the ability to give a bill of divorce? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: They established the sexual relations of a nine-year-old like a levirate betrothal performed by an adult. Rabbi Meir says: They established the 岣litza of a nine-year-old like a bill of divorce of an adult. The Gemara explains the difficulty: And if it is so, let Rabbi Meir teach: They established the 岣litza of a nine-year-old like his own bill of divorce, as he too can give a yevama a bill of divorce. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: He does have the ability to give a bill of divorce, but it is less powerful than the bill of divorce of an adult yavam, as explained by Rav Huna below.

诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讞专 讙讚讜诇 讜拽讟谉 讗讞专 拽讟谉 讗讘诇 讙讚讜诇 讗讞专 拽讟谉 诪讛谞讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who said that there is no bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for a yevama, i.e., if one of the brothers gave her a bill of divorce, no bill of divorce given later by a different brother is of any significance, this applies only when the bill of divorce was given by an adult after an adult, or by a minor after a minor. However, if an adult gave a bill of divorce after a minor, the bill of divorce of the adult is effective and disqualifies the yevama, as the bill of divorce of a minor is of less importance.

诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讬砖 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讞专 讙讚讜诇 讗讜 讘拽讟谉 讗讞专 拽讟谉 讗讘诇 拽讟谉 讗讞专 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 诪讛谞讬

According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that there is a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, this applies only to the case of an adult after an adult, or to a minor after a minor. However, they too agree that the bill of divorce of a minor after an adult is not effective, as a minor鈥檚 bill of divorce is certainly weaker than that of an adult. For this reason Rabbi Meir said that they established the 岣litza of a nine-year-old like a bill of divorce of an adult, to emphasize that a subsequent bill of divorce of a minor is of no account.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讬讜 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻讜住诇 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗 注诇 爪专转讛 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻讜住诇

MISHNA: If a boy aged nine years and one day had sexual relations with his yevama, and afterward his brother, who is also nine years and one day old, had relations with her, the second brother disqualifies her to the first one. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her. If a minor aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama, and afterward that same boy had relations with her rival wife, he thereby disqualifies her to himself, and both women are now forbidden to him. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讬讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: If the first sexual act of a nine-year-old is considered a proper act of sexual relations, then the second act is not an act of consequence, just as the intercourse of one adult yavam after that of another adult yavam is of no effect. And if you say that the first sexual act is not considered a sexual act, the second act of himself or his brother is also not a sexual act. However, the Rabbis maintain that as the intercourse of a nine-year-old is like a levirate betrothal, one sexual act can take effect after another.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讘谉 注讝讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转

The Gemara comments that according to this explanation, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of ben Azzai. As it is taught in a baraita that ben Azzai says: There is levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal in a case of two yevamin and one yevama. In other words, if they both performed levirate betrothal with her, their actions are effective and she is forbidden to them both. The reason is that she has ties to each of the two men, which means that each levirate betrothal is effective in forbidding the other man.

讜讗讬谉 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讘砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 讜讬讘诐 讗讞讚

But there is no levirate betrothal after a levirate betrothal in a case of two yevamot and one yavam, as the yavam did not have a full-fledged levirate bond with both of them. Therefore, if he performs a levirate betrothal with one of them, he has completed the bond. In contrast, the conclusion of the mishna is that the sexual relations of a nine-year-old with two yevamot is effective, and as the intercourse of a boy of this age is considered like a levirate betrothal the tanna of the mishna evidently maintains that there is levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal even in a case of one yavam.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 讜诪转 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讜诪转 讛专讬 讝讜 驻讟讜专讛 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 讜诪砖讛讙讚讬诇 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 讜诪转 讗诐 诇讗 讬讚注 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪砖讛讙讚讬诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讜讛砖谞讬讬讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

MISHNA: If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama and died, that yevama performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. If the minor married a woman in a regular manner and died, she is exempt from levirate marriage and 岣litza, as by Torah law a minor cannot marry. If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama, and after he matured he married a different woman and then died childless, if he did not carnally know the first woman after he matured, but only when he was a minor, the first one performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as she is in essence a yevama who had relations with a minor, and the second woman either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage, as she is his full-fledged wife.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讗讬 讝讜 砖讬专爪讛 讜讞讜诇抓 诇砖谞讬讬讛 讗讞讚 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 注砖专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转

Rabbi Shimon says: The brother consummates levirate marriage with whichever woman he chooses, and performs 岣litza with the second one. The mishna comments: This is the halakha both for a boy who is nine years and one day old, and also for one who is twenty years old who has not developed two pubic hairs. He has the status of a nine-year-old boy in this regard, as his intercourse is not considered a proper act of intercourse.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讝讬拽转 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 诪讬讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 讬讘讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘诪讛 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 爪专讛 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 爪专讛

GEMARA: If a brother performed levirate betrothal with a yevama and died, she has a levirate bond in relation to the remaining brothers from two deceased brothers. Rava said: With regard to that which the Rabbis said, that when the bond of two yevamin exists, she performs 岣litza and she does not enter into levirate marriage, you should not say that this applies only when there is a rival wife, as there is reason to decree due to a rival wife. The suggestion is that as the rival wife can enter into levirate marriage by Torah law, if the woman who performed levirate betrothal with the second brother was also permitted to enter into levirate marriage, people might mistakenly permit levirate marriage to two rival wives from the same family.

讚讛讗 讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 爪专讛 诪讬讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 讬讘讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘诪讛

The proof that this is not the case is that here, in the first clause of the mishna, there is no rival wife, as it is referring to one woman, which means that this yevama who had relations with the nine-year-old is tied by the bonds of both her first husband and the underage yavam, whose intercourse is like levirate betrothal, and even so she performs 岣litza but she does not enter into levirate marriage.

谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讜诪转 讻讜壮 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 砖谞砖讗讜 讜诪转讜 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches that if a nine-year-old boy married a woman and died, she is exempt from levirate marriage and 岣litza. The Gemara comments: We already learned this, as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecile and a minor who married women and died, their wives are exempt from 岣litza and from levirate marriage, as the marriage of a minor or an imbecile is of no account.

讘谉 转砖注 讜讻讜壮 诪砖讛讙讚讬诇 讜讻讜壮 讜讬注砖讜 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 讻诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇 讜转讚讞讛 爪专讛 诪讬讘讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 注砖讜 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 讻诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注砖讜 讜注砖讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖讜 讜注砖讜

搂 The mishna further teaches the case of a nine-year-old boy who had relations with his yevama and after he matured married another woman. The Gemara asks: And let the Sages at least establish the sexual relations of a nine-year-old to be like the levirate betrothal of an adult, and it would therefore override the requirement of the rival wife to enter into levirate marriage, in accordance with the halakha of the rival wife of a woman who has the bond of two yevamin. Rav said: They did not establish the intercourse of a nine-year-old to be like the levirate betrothal of an adult in all regards, and Shmuel said: They certainly did. And similarly, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They certainly did.

讜讬注砖讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讛讱 转谞讗 讚讗专讘注讛 讗讞讬谉 讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 爪专讛

If so, the question remains: And let them establish the sexual relations of a nine-year-old to be considered like levirate betrothal. Why is he able to perform levirate marriage with her rival wife? The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. This tanna who discusses the case of four brothers, one of whom died, followed by the brother who performed levirate betrothal with the yevama (31b), he maintains that the yevama and her rival wife may not perform levirate marriage with one of the surviving brothers. The reason is that he maintains that the Sages decreed that a woman who has the bond of two deceased brothers may not perform levirate marriage due to a rival wife. They must both perform 岣litza so that people will not say that two yevamot from one family can perform levirate marriage.

讜讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讙讚讜诇 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讘拽讟谉 讜讛讗讬 讚讗诪专 讙讚讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讙讚讜诇 拽讗讬

And that tanna taught us this halakha with regard to an adult brother who performed levirate marriage, and the same is true of a minor who had relations with her. And the reason that he stated the case of an adult in particular is because he was referring to an adult.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讛讻讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 注砖讜 讜诇讗 讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 爪专讛 讜讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘拽讟谉 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讘讙讚讜诇 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讘拽讟谉 讚讘拽讟谉 拽讗讬

And conversely, this tanna, of the mishna here, holds that they established the sexual relations of a minor entirely like the levirate betrothal of an adult, and he maintains that the Sages did not decree that a woman who has the bond of two deceased brothers may not perform levirate marriage due to the case of a rival wife. And he taught us this halakha with regard to a minor, and the same is true of an adult. And the reason that he stated the case of a minor in particular is because he was referring to a minor.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇砖诪注转讗 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬拽驻讚 注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 讛诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诇 讟讘专讬讗 讘谞讙专 砖讬砖 讘专讗砖讜 讙诇讜住讟专讗

Rabbi Elazar went and said this halakha in the study hall, but he did not state it in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Instead, he issued the halakha without attribution. Rabbi Yo岣nan heard that Rabbi Elazar omitted mention of his name and became angry with him. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi visited Rabbi Yo岣nan, to placate him so that he would not be annoyed with his beloved disciple. They said to him: Wasn鈥檛 there an incident in the synagogue of Tiberias involving a bolt that secures a door in place and that has a thick knob [gelustera] at its end? The question was whether it may be moved on Shabbat as a vessel, or whether it is considered muktze as raw material.

砖谞讞诇拽讜 讘讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚 砖拽专注讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讞诪转谉 拽专注讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖谞拽专注 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讞诪转谉 讜讛讬讛 砖诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 拽讬住诪讗 讗诪专 转诪讬讛 讗谞讬 讗诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讝讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讛

And it was stated that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei argued over this case until they became so upset with each other that they tore a Torah scroll in their anger. The Gemara interrupts this account to clarify exactly what happened: Tore? Can it enter your mind that such great Sages would intentionally tear a Torah scroll? Rather, you must say that a Torah scroll was torn through their anger. In the heat of their debate they pulled the scroll from one side to another until it tore. And Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma, who was there at the time, said: I would be surprised if this synagogue does not become a place of idolatrous worship. This unfortunate event is a sign that this place is unsuitable for a synagogue. And indeed this eventually occurred.

讛讚专 讗讬拽驻讚 讟驻讬 讗诪专 讞讘专讜转讗 谞诪讬

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi cited this baraita to hint to Rabbi Yo岣nan how careful one must be to avoid anger. However, Rabbi Yo岣nan grew even angrier, saying: You are even making us colleagues now? Those two Sages were peers, whereas Rabbi Elazar is merely my student.

注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讗转 诪砖讛 注讘讚讜 讻谉 爪讜讛 诪砖讛 讗转 讬讛讜砖注 讜讻谉 注砖讛 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讛住讬专 讚讘专 诪讻诇 讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讗转 诪砖讛 讜讻讬 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗诪专 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛诐 讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬 诪砖讛 讗诇讗 讬讛讜砖注 讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜专砖 住转诐 讜讛讻诇 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖转讜专转讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 讛讬讗 讗祝 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转诇诪讬讚讱 讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜专砖 住转诐 讜讛讻诇 讬讜讚注讬谉 讻讬 砖诇讱 讛讬讗

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi visited Rabbi Yo岣nan and said to him: The verse states: 鈥淎s God commanded His servant Moses, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua, he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses鈥 (Joshua 11:15). Now did Joshua, with regard to every matter that he said, say to the Jews: Thus Moses said to me? Rather, Joshua would sit and teach Torah without attributing his statements, and everyone would know that it was from the Torah of Moses. So too, your disciple Rabbi Elazar sits and teaches without attribution, and everyone knows that his teaching is from your instruction. Hearing this, Rabbi Yo岣nan was appeased.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬 讗转诐 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇驻讬讬住 讻讘谉 讗讬讚讬 讞讘专讬谞讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽驻讬讚 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗讙讜专讛 讘讗讛诇讱 注讜诇诪讬诐 讜讻讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 诇讙讜专 讘砖谞讬 注讜诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讚讜讚 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讬讛讬 专爪讜谉

Later, after calming down, he said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Why don鈥檛 you know how to appease me like our colleague ben Idi? The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is the reason that he was so angry about this matter? The Gemara answers that this is as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淚 will dwell in Your tent in worlds鈥 (Psalms 61:5), literally, forever? And is it possible for a person to live in two worlds simultaneously? Rather, David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let it be Your will

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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: 93-98 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the consequences of the case of a woman who goes abroad, it is said...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 96: Pushing the Parameters

3 mishnayot on the daf... Mishnah 1: Complicated scenarios to explore the parameters of testimony on a spouse's death that...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 10: 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 96

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 96

讜讚诇诪讗 讗讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讬转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇诇 讜讘讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诪讛

But perhaps Shmuel鈥檚 ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is referring to the ruling that he does not disqualify his brother-in-law鈥檚 wife to his brother-in-law, in a case where his wife and brother-in-law left. Alternatively, the contradiction can be resolved in the following manner: From where do we know that there is a reason to accept the explanation of Rav Huna with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel? Perhaps there is no cause to agree with Rav Huna at all, and it can be explained that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A widow waiting for her yavam who engaged in licentious sexual relations is forbidden to her yavam.

讚专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诪讬驻住诇讗 讘讝谞讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪讬驻住诇讗 讘讝谞讜转 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讬讘诪讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉

According to this interpretation, the dispute is as follows: As Rav said, she is like a married woman and she is therefore disqualified by licentious sexual relations. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman and is not disqualified by licentious sexual relations. And alternatively, one can explain that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the issue of whether betrothal takes effect with a yevama: As Rav said, she is like a married woman with regard to all men other than her yavam, and therefore betrothal performed by anyone else does not takes effect with her. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman, and this means that betrothal does take effect with her.

讜讛讗 讗驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讘专转讛 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara asks with regard to this last answer: How can the dispute be explained in this manner? But Rav and Shmuel already disagreed over this once. The Sages would certainly not record the same dispute twice. The Gemara answers: It is possible that they did not in fact disagree twice with regard to the same case. Rather, one ruling was stated by inference from the other. In other words, their dispute was recorded in two different ways, the second time by inference from their original dispute.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪转讛 讗砖转讱 讜谞砖讗 讗讞讜转讛 诪讗讘讬讛 诪转讛 讜谞砖讗 讗讞讜转讛 诪讗诪讛 诪转讛 讜谞砖讗 讗讞讜转讛 诪讗讘讬讛 诪转讛 讜谞砖讗 讗讞讜转讛 诪讗诪讛 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讻讜诇谉 拽讬讬诪讜转 诪讜转专 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬转 讜驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉

MISHNA: Witnesses said to a husband: Your wife is dead, and he married her paternal sister, and witnesses subsequently told him that his second wife was dead and he married her maternal sister; afterward witnesses said that this one too was dead and he married her paternal sister; finally they told him that she was dead and he married the last woman鈥檚 maternal sister, and then they were all discovered to be alive. In this case he is permitted to his first wife, and to the third and to the fifth. Since these women are not sisters, his betrothal to them is effective. Consequently, if he died and one of them entered into levirate marriage, they exempt their rival wives.

讜讗住讜专 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讘专讘讬注讬转 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

But he is forbidden to the second and fourth wife, each of whom is the sister of his original wife. Therefore, if he passed away and the yavam had relations with one of them, his relations with any one of them does not exempt her rival wife, as she was forbidden to his brother, which means there was no mitzva of levirate marriage here at all.

讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇 讛砖谞讬讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讜转专 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讘专讘讬注讬转 讜驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬转 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

And if he had relations with the second woman in the aforementioned list after the death of the first, i.e., the first one indeed died but the other rumors were all false, in that case he is permitted to the second and the fourth, who are his lawful wives, and they exempt their rival wives, and he is forbidden to the third and the fifth, the sisters of the women married to him, and the sexual relations of the brother with any one of them does not exempt her rival wife.

讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞讬谉 讜讛讗讞讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 转讞诇讛 讜讛讗讞讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝

搂 The mishna addresses a different issue: If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama he thereby disqualifies his brothers from levirate marriage, despite the fact that as a minor he has not acquired the yevama through this act of intercourse, and the brothers likewise disqualify the woman from him if they have intercourse with the yevama. However, there is a difference between them, as he disqualifies them only if he engaged in relations with her first, and the brothers disqualify him whether they had relations first or last.

讻讬爪讚 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 驻住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞讬谉 讘讗讜 注诇讬讛 讗讞讬谉 讜注砖讜 讘讛 诪讗诪专 谞转谞讜 讙讟 讗讜 讞诇爪讜 驻讜住诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜

The mishna explains: How so? A boy aged nine years and one day who had relations with his yevama has disqualified his brothers, as they are no longer eligible to marry her. If his brothers had relations with her, or performed levirate betrothal with her, or gave her a bill of divorce, or performed 岣litza with her, they permanently disqualify him from engaging in relations with her.

讙诪壮 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 专讗砖讜谞讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讚讗讬

GEMARA: The mishna states: And if he had relations with the second after the death of the first. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all of them, all the other cases in the mishna, are not dealing with a situation after the death of the first woman? The entire case starts with the report: Your wife is dead. Rav Sheshet said: After the definite death of the first one. In other words, the mishna means that this did not follow a mere rumor that she was dead, but it was positively established that she had actually died.

讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 转讞诇讛 驻住讬诇 讘住讜祝 诇讗 驻住讬诇 讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗 讗讞讬讜 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注诇讬讛 驻住诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches that a boy aged nine years and one day who had relations with his yevama has disqualified her from his brothers. Throughout this discussion, whenever the Gemara refers to a nine-year-old boy, it is understood that he is actually nine years and one day old. The Gemara asks: Does a boy aged nine years and one day disqualify her to the brothers only if he had relations with her first, but if he had relations last he does not disqualify them? But didn鈥檛 Rav Zevid bar Rav Oshaya teach: One who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama, and afterward his brother, who is nine years and one day old, had relations with her, he has disqualified her. This indicates that the intercourse of a nine-year-old disqualifies his brother even if it occurred after that of his brother.

讗诪专讬 讘讬讗讛 驻住讬诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讜祝 诪讗诪专 转讞诇讛 驻住讬诇 讘住讜祝 诇讗 驻住讬诇 讜讘讬讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讜祝 驻住讬诇 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 砖讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 转讞诇讛 讜讛谉 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝 讻讬爪讚 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 讜讻讜壮

They say in response: The intercourse of a nine-year-old disqualifies his brothers even if it happens last; however, in the case of a boy who merely performed levirate betrothal with her, if he did so first he disqualifies his brothers, whereas if he was last, he does not disqualify his brothers. The Gemara asks: And do the sexual relations of a nine-year-old disqualify his brothers even when performed last? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: However, he disqualifies them only if was first, and the brothers disqualify him whether they were first or last. How so? A boy aged nine years and one day who had relations with his yevama has disqualified his brothers. The example the mishna uses for a boy who disqualifies his brothers first is an act of intercourse.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 转讞诇讛 讜讛谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 转讞诇讛 讜住讜祝 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讗诪专 讗讘诇 讘讬讗讛 驻讜住诇转 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讜祝 讻讬爪讚 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 驻住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞讬谉

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: With regard to a boy aged nine years and one day, he disqualifies his brothers first, and they disqualify him first and last. In what case is this statement said? This is said with regard to levirate betrothal, i.e., if they performed levirate betrothal with her. However, if the minor had relations with her, he disqualifies them even if he did so last. How so? If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama after his brother performed levirate betrothal with her, he has disqualified his brothers.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讗诪专 讻诇诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 讘讚讘专 讗讞讚 讜讛讗讞讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞讬谉 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讛讗讞讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讘诪讗诪专 讘讙讟 讘讞诇讬爪讛

The Gemara asks: And does a nine-year-old boy have the ability to perform levirate betrothal at all that would have any effect with regard to the eligibility of his brothers in levirate marriage? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a boy aged nine years and one day, he disqualifies the yevama to his brothers in one way, and the brothers disqualify him in four ways. How so? He disqualifies the brothers by relations, i.e., the yevama is forbidden to the other brothers if she has sexual relations with him, and the brothers disqualify him by relations, by levirate betrothal, by a bill of divorce, and by 岣litza. The tanna does not mention the levirate betrothal of a minor at all.

讘讬讗讛 讚驻住诇讛 讘讬谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗诪专 讚讘转讞讬诇讛 驻住讬诇 讘住讜祝 诇讗 驻住讬诇 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this claim: No proof can be derived from that source, as with regard to the sexual relations of a minor, which disqualifies his brothers whether it came first or last, the tanna can teach a definite ruling, i.e., he can state this halakha in an unambiguous and unqualified manner. Conversely, with regard to the levirate betrothal of a minor, which if it occurred first disqualifies his brothers but if it happened last, after one of the brothers performed levirate marriage with her, it does not disqualify them, the tanna cannot teach it in a definite and unqualified manner, but would have to elaborate and explain the precise circumstances. Therefore he omitted this case entirely.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬砖 诇讜 讙讟 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 讬砖 诇讜 诪讗诪专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬砖 诇讜 讙讟 讜讬砖 诇讜 诪讗诪专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

It was also stated by other amora鈥檌m: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A minor boy has the ability to give a bill of divorce in the case of a yevama, i.e., if he gave her a bill of divorce he has disqualified her to his brothers. And similarly Rav Ta岣lifa bar Avimi said: He has the ability to perform levirate betrothal. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: A minor has the ability to give a bill of divorce and he has the ability to perform levirate betrothal; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬砖 诇讜 讙讟 讜讛转谞讬讗 注砖讜 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 讻诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注砖讜 讞诇讬爪转 讘谉 转砖注 讻讙讟 讘讙讚讜诇 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬转谞讬 讻讙讬讟讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讝讜讟专

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Meir hold that a minor boy has the ability to give a bill of divorce? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: They established the sexual relations of a nine-year-old like a levirate betrothal performed by an adult. Rabbi Meir says: They established the 岣litza of a nine-year-old like a bill of divorce of an adult. The Gemara explains the difficulty: And if it is so, let Rabbi Meir teach: They established the 岣litza of a nine-year-old like his own bill of divorce, as he too can give a yevama a bill of divorce. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: He does have the ability to give a bill of divorce, but it is less powerful than the bill of divorce of an adult yavam, as explained by Rav Huna below.

诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讞专 讙讚讜诇 讜拽讟谉 讗讞专 拽讟谉 讗讘诇 讙讚讜诇 讗讞专 拽讟谉 诪讛谞讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who said that there is no bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for a yevama, i.e., if one of the brothers gave her a bill of divorce, no bill of divorce given later by a different brother is of any significance, this applies only when the bill of divorce was given by an adult after an adult, or by a minor after a minor. However, if an adult gave a bill of divorce after a minor, the bill of divorce of the adult is effective and disqualifies the yevama, as the bill of divorce of a minor is of less importance.

诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讬砖 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讞专 讙讚讜诇 讗讜 讘拽讟谉 讗讞专 拽讟谉 讗讘诇 拽讟谉 讗讞专 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 诪讛谞讬

According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that there is a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, this applies only to the case of an adult after an adult, or to a minor after a minor. However, they too agree that the bill of divorce of a minor after an adult is not effective, as a minor鈥檚 bill of divorce is certainly weaker than that of an adult. For this reason Rabbi Meir said that they established the 岣litza of a nine-year-old like a bill of divorce of an adult, to emphasize that a subsequent bill of divorce of a minor is of no account.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讬讜 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻讜住诇 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗 注诇 爪专转讛 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻讜住诇

MISHNA: If a boy aged nine years and one day had sexual relations with his yevama, and afterward his brother, who is also nine years and one day old, had relations with her, the second brother disqualifies her to the first one. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her. If a minor aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama, and afterward that same boy had relations with her rival wife, he thereby disqualifies her to himself, and both women are now forbidden to him. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讬讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: If the first sexual act of a nine-year-old is considered a proper act of sexual relations, then the second act is not an act of consequence, just as the intercourse of one adult yavam after that of another adult yavam is of no effect. And if you say that the first sexual act is not considered a sexual act, the second act of himself or his brother is also not a sexual act. However, the Rabbis maintain that as the intercourse of a nine-year-old is like a levirate betrothal, one sexual act can take effect after another.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讘谉 注讝讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转

The Gemara comments that according to this explanation, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of ben Azzai. As it is taught in a baraita that ben Azzai says: There is levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal in a case of two yevamin and one yevama. In other words, if they both performed levirate betrothal with her, their actions are effective and she is forbidden to them both. The reason is that she has ties to each of the two men, which means that each levirate betrothal is effective in forbidding the other man.

讜讗讬谉 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讘砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 讜讬讘诐 讗讞讚

But there is no levirate betrothal after a levirate betrothal in a case of two yevamot and one yavam, as the yavam did not have a full-fledged levirate bond with both of them. Therefore, if he performs a levirate betrothal with one of them, he has completed the bond. In contrast, the conclusion of the mishna is that the sexual relations of a nine-year-old with two yevamot is effective, and as the intercourse of a boy of this age is considered like a levirate betrothal the tanna of the mishna evidently maintains that there is levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal even in a case of one yavam.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 讜诪转 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讜诪转 讛专讬 讝讜 驻讟讜专讛 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 讜诪砖讛讙讚讬诇 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 讜诪转 讗诐 诇讗 讬讚注 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪砖讛讙讚讬诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讜讛砖谞讬讬讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

MISHNA: If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama and died, that yevama performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. If the minor married a woman in a regular manner and died, she is exempt from levirate marriage and 岣litza, as by Torah law a minor cannot marry. If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama, and after he matured he married a different woman and then died childless, if he did not carnally know the first woman after he matured, but only when he was a minor, the first one performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as she is in essence a yevama who had relations with a minor, and the second woman either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage, as she is his full-fledged wife.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讗讬 讝讜 砖讬专爪讛 讜讞讜诇抓 诇砖谞讬讬讛 讗讞讚 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 注砖专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转

Rabbi Shimon says: The brother consummates levirate marriage with whichever woman he chooses, and performs 岣litza with the second one. The mishna comments: This is the halakha both for a boy who is nine years and one day old, and also for one who is twenty years old who has not developed two pubic hairs. He has the status of a nine-year-old boy in this regard, as his intercourse is not considered a proper act of intercourse.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讝讬拽转 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 诪讬讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 讬讘讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘诪讛 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 爪专讛 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 爪专讛

GEMARA: If a brother performed levirate betrothal with a yevama and died, she has a levirate bond in relation to the remaining brothers from two deceased brothers. Rava said: With regard to that which the Rabbis said, that when the bond of two yevamin exists, she performs 岣litza and she does not enter into levirate marriage, you should not say that this applies only when there is a rival wife, as there is reason to decree due to a rival wife. The suggestion is that as the rival wife can enter into levirate marriage by Torah law, if the woman who performed levirate betrothal with the second brother was also permitted to enter into levirate marriage, people might mistakenly permit levirate marriage to two rival wives from the same family.

讚讛讗 讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 爪专讛 诪讬讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 讬讘讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘诪讛

The proof that this is not the case is that here, in the first clause of the mishna, there is no rival wife, as it is referring to one woman, which means that this yevama who had relations with the nine-year-old is tied by the bonds of both her first husband and the underage yavam, whose intercourse is like levirate betrothal, and even so she performs 岣litza but she does not enter into levirate marriage.

谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讜诪转 讻讜壮 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 砖谞砖讗讜 讜诪转讜 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches that if a nine-year-old boy married a woman and died, she is exempt from levirate marriage and 岣litza. The Gemara comments: We already learned this, as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecile and a minor who married women and died, their wives are exempt from 岣litza and from levirate marriage, as the marriage of a minor or an imbecile is of no account.

讘谉 转砖注 讜讻讜壮 诪砖讛讙讚讬诇 讜讻讜壮 讜讬注砖讜 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 讻诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇 讜转讚讞讛 爪专讛 诪讬讘讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 注砖讜 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 讻诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注砖讜 讜注砖讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖讜 讜注砖讜

搂 The mishna further teaches the case of a nine-year-old boy who had relations with his yevama and after he matured married another woman. The Gemara asks: And let the Sages at least establish the sexual relations of a nine-year-old to be like the levirate betrothal of an adult, and it would therefore override the requirement of the rival wife to enter into levirate marriage, in accordance with the halakha of the rival wife of a woman who has the bond of two yevamin. Rav said: They did not establish the intercourse of a nine-year-old to be like the levirate betrothal of an adult in all regards, and Shmuel said: They certainly did. And similarly, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They certainly did.

讜讬注砖讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讛讱 转谞讗 讚讗专讘注讛 讗讞讬谉 讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 爪专讛

If so, the question remains: And let them establish the sexual relations of a nine-year-old to be considered like levirate betrothal. Why is he able to perform levirate marriage with her rival wife? The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. This tanna who discusses the case of four brothers, one of whom died, followed by the brother who performed levirate betrothal with the yevama (31b), he maintains that the yevama and her rival wife may not perform levirate marriage with one of the surviving brothers. The reason is that he maintains that the Sages decreed that a woman who has the bond of two deceased brothers may not perform levirate marriage due to a rival wife. They must both perform 岣litza so that people will not say that two yevamot from one family can perform levirate marriage.

讜讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讙讚讜诇 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讘拽讟谉 讜讛讗讬 讚讗诪专 讙讚讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讙讚讜诇 拽讗讬

And that tanna taught us this halakha with regard to an adult brother who performed levirate marriage, and the same is true of a minor who had relations with her. And the reason that he stated the case of an adult in particular is because he was referring to an adult.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讛讻讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 注砖讜 讜诇讗 讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 爪专讛 讜讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘拽讟谉 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讘讙讚讜诇 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讘拽讟谉 讚讘拽讟谉 拽讗讬

And conversely, this tanna, of the mishna here, holds that they established the sexual relations of a minor entirely like the levirate betrothal of an adult, and he maintains that the Sages did not decree that a woman who has the bond of two deceased brothers may not perform levirate marriage due to the case of a rival wife. And he taught us this halakha with regard to a minor, and the same is true of an adult. And the reason that he stated the case of a minor in particular is because he was referring to a minor.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇砖诪注转讗 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬拽驻讚 注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 讛诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诇 讟讘专讬讗 讘谞讙专 砖讬砖 讘专讗砖讜 讙诇讜住讟专讗

Rabbi Elazar went and said this halakha in the study hall, but he did not state it in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Instead, he issued the halakha without attribution. Rabbi Yo岣nan heard that Rabbi Elazar omitted mention of his name and became angry with him. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi visited Rabbi Yo岣nan, to placate him so that he would not be annoyed with his beloved disciple. They said to him: Wasn鈥檛 there an incident in the synagogue of Tiberias involving a bolt that secures a door in place and that has a thick knob [gelustera] at its end? The question was whether it may be moved on Shabbat as a vessel, or whether it is considered muktze as raw material.

砖谞讞诇拽讜 讘讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚 砖拽专注讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讞诪转谉 拽专注讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖谞拽专注 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讞诪转谉 讜讛讬讛 砖诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 拽讬住诪讗 讗诪专 转诪讬讛 讗谞讬 讗诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讝讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讛

And it was stated that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei argued over this case until they became so upset with each other that they tore a Torah scroll in their anger. The Gemara interrupts this account to clarify exactly what happened: Tore? Can it enter your mind that such great Sages would intentionally tear a Torah scroll? Rather, you must say that a Torah scroll was torn through their anger. In the heat of their debate they pulled the scroll from one side to another until it tore. And Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma, who was there at the time, said: I would be surprised if this synagogue does not become a place of idolatrous worship. This unfortunate event is a sign that this place is unsuitable for a synagogue. And indeed this eventually occurred.

讛讚专 讗讬拽驻讚 讟驻讬 讗诪专 讞讘专讜转讗 谞诪讬

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi cited this baraita to hint to Rabbi Yo岣nan how careful one must be to avoid anger. However, Rabbi Yo岣nan grew even angrier, saying: You are even making us colleagues now? Those two Sages were peers, whereas Rabbi Elazar is merely my student.

注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讗转 诪砖讛 注讘讚讜 讻谉 爪讜讛 诪砖讛 讗转 讬讛讜砖注 讜讻谉 注砖讛 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讛住讬专 讚讘专 诪讻诇 讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讗转 诪砖讛 讜讻讬 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗诪专 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛诐 讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬 诪砖讛 讗诇讗 讬讛讜砖注 讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜专砖 住转诐 讜讛讻诇 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖转讜专转讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 讛讬讗 讗祝 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转诇诪讬讚讱 讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜专砖 住转诐 讜讛讻诇 讬讜讚注讬谉 讻讬 砖诇讱 讛讬讗

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi visited Rabbi Yo岣nan and said to him: The verse states: 鈥淎s God commanded His servant Moses, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua, he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses鈥 (Joshua 11:15). Now did Joshua, with regard to every matter that he said, say to the Jews: Thus Moses said to me? Rather, Joshua would sit and teach Torah without attributing his statements, and everyone would know that it was from the Torah of Moses. So too, your disciple Rabbi Elazar sits and teaches without attribution, and everyone knows that his teaching is from your instruction. Hearing this, Rabbi Yo岣nan was appeased.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬 讗转诐 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇驻讬讬住 讻讘谉 讗讬讚讬 讞讘专讬谞讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽驻讬讚 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗讙讜专讛 讘讗讛诇讱 注讜诇诪讬诐 讜讻讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 诇讙讜专 讘砖谞讬 注讜诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讚讜讚 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讬讛讬 专爪讜谉

Later, after calming down, he said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Why don鈥檛 you know how to appease me like our colleague ben Idi? The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is the reason that he was so angry about this matter? The Gemara answers that this is as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淚 will dwell in Your tent in worlds鈥 (Psalms 61:5), literally, forever? And is it possible for a person to live in two worlds simultaneously? Rather, David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let it be Your will

Scroll To Top