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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 13, 2022 | 讬状讚 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 shleima 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 98

Presentation in PDF format

The Gemara brings more sources to try to prove whether Rav Sheshet or Rav Acha were correct regarding their debate about a convert being able to marry his brother’s wife. If a person was conceived before his mother converted but was born after his mother’s conversion, which relative is he permitted/forbidden to marry? If five women’s children got mixed at birth, and they all marry and then die without children, and all have brothers through their fathers but are unsure who is the brother of each one, how is the mitzva of yibum fulfilled?

 

讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬住讜专讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 转谞讗 谞诪讬 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉

there is a rabbinic prohibition, contrary to Rav A岣鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara answers: The same is true that there is no prohibition, either. And since the baraita wanted to teach in the latter clause that if they were born in sanctity they are liable, it also taught in the first clause that they are not liable. For this reason, the baraita mentions only the absence of liability.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讗讘 诇讙讜讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讟讜驻讬 讘讝诪讛 讚诇讗 讬讚讬注 讗讘诇 讬讚讬注 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬讚讬注 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rava said: With regard to that which the Sages said, that a gentile has no patrilineage, do not say that it is because they are so steeped in licentiousness that they do not know the identity of their fathers with certainty, but if that identity is known, we are concerned that the paternity is recognized, with regard to the prohibition of intercourse with forbidden paternal relatives and other halakhic issues. Rather, even when it is known, we are still not concerned.

讚讛讗 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 转讗讜诪讬诐 讚讟驻讛 讗讞转 讛讬讛 讜谞讞诇拽讛 诇砖转讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗驻拽讜专讬 讗驻拽专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讝专注讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘砖专 讞诪讜专讬诐 讘砖专诐 讜讝专诪转 住讜住讬诐 讝专诪转诐

The proof is from the case of two identical twin brothers, who were one drop that was divided into two and obviously have the same father, and yet it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: They do not perform 岣litza and they do not perform levirate marriage, although they certainly have the same father. Learn from this that the Merciful One dispossesses the male gentile of his offspring, as it is written with regard to Egyptians: 鈥淲hose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose semen is the semen of horses鈥 (Ezekiel 23:20), i.e., the offspring of a male gentile is considered no more related to him than the offspring of donkeys and horses.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘谞讬驻讟讬讬诐 讛讙专 砖谞砖讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗讬砖讜转 诇讙专 讜讗诇讗 讙专 讚拽讚讬砖 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讗住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 诇讙专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚谞住讘讗 讗讞 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专

The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute between Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov and Rav Sheshet. Come and hear another proof, as Rabbi Yosei said: An incident took place involving Niftayim the convert, who married the wife of his maternal half brother, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said that there is no valid marriage for a convert. The Gemara asks: Is this possible? And if a convert betroths a woman who is not related to him, is his betrothal to her indeed ineffective? Rather, modify the baraita and say that with regard to a convert there is no prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife. The Gemara concludes: What, is the baraita not referring to a case where the brother, her first husband, married her when he was already a convert, thereby proving that a convert is permitted to marry the wife of his deceased brother who was also a convert, even if they were maternal brothers?

诇讗 讚谞住讘讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讗讟讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a case where the brother married her while he was still a gentile, and since he converted they are no longer married. The Gemara asks: If he married her while he was a gentile, what is the purpose of stating this obvious halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say the Sages should decree that the marriage is prohibited even in a case where the first husband married her while he was a gentile, due to the prohibition against their marriage if the brother married her when he was already a convert. The baraita therefore teaches us that there is no such decree.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 讘谉 讬讗住讬讬谉 讻砖讛诇讻转讬 诇讻专讻讬 讛讬诐 诪爪讗转讬 讙专 讗讞讚 砖谞砖讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讘谞讬 诪讬 讛专砖讱 讗诪专 诇讬 讛专讬 讗砖讛 讜砖讘注讛 讘谞讬讛 注诇 住驻住诇 讝讛 讬砖讘 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗诪专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讙专 谞讜砖讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讜讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 讬讜谞讛 砖谞讬转 诇讗诪专 砖谞讬转 讚讘专讛 注诪讜 砖讻讬谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 诇讗 讚讘专讛 注诪讜 砖讻讬谞讛 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讙专 谞讜砖讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚谞住讘讗 讗讞讬讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专

Come and hear another proof, as ben Yasiyan said: When I went to cities overseas, I found one convert who married the wife of his maternal half brother. I said to him: My son, who permitted this to you? He said to me: There is a local woman and her seven sons to whom this was permitted. On this very bench [safsal], Rabbi Akiva sat and said two statements: He said that a convert may marry the former wife of his maternal half brother, and he said that the verse 鈥淎nd the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying鈥 (Jonah 3:1) implies that the Divine Presence spoke with him only a second time. However, a third time the Divine Presence did not speak with him, i.e., Jonah did not receive any more prophecies. In any event, this baraita teaches that a convert may marry the wife of his maternal brother. What, is it not referring to a case where the convert鈥檚 brother married her when he himself was already a convert?

诇讗 讚谞住讘讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讙讝讜专 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讗讟讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a case where the brother married her while he was still a gentile. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this obvious halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say we should decree that marriage between a convert and the former wife of his brother is prohibited even if the brother married her while he was still a gentile, due to the prohibition against their marrying if the brother married her when he was already a convert. The baraita therefore teaches us that there is no such decree.

讜诪讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖诪讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 讜讘讗 讗诐 拽讜讚诐 诪注砖讛 讗诪专讛 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

And is that convert who cited Rabbi Akiva a reliable witness, despite the fact that the ruling affects him personally? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to any Torah scholar who teaches a ruling of halakha in a certain case and it comes to be, if he said it before the incident, one listens to him. And if not, if the ruling followed the incident, one does not listen to him.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讜专讛 讜讘讗 讛讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗诪专 讛专讬 讗砖讛 讜砖讘注讛 讘谞讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讛讚讛

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the convert taught the ruling, and only afterward it came to be that he himself married his sister-in-law. And if you wish, say that he is reliable because he supported his ruling by stating that there was a practical case involving a woman and her seven sons, in which Rabbi Akiva ruled that this kind of marriage is permitted. And if you wish, say that here it is different, as the convert stated a different incident with it. Since he cited an unrelated teaching of Rabbi Akiva in the same testimony, this teaching is also considered reliable.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讬讛讬 讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 讬讜谞讛 砖谞讬转 诇讗诪专 砖谞讬转 讚讘专讛 注诪讜 砖讻讬谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 诇讗 讚讘专讛 注诪讜 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讛讜讗 讛砖讬讘 [讗转] 讙讘讜诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诇讘讜讗 讞诪转 注讚 讬诐 讛注专讘讛 讻讚讘专 讛壮 讗砖专 讚讘专 讘讬讚 注讘讚讜 讬讜谞讛 讘谉 讗诪转讬 讛谞讘讬讗

The Master said that Rabbi Akiva inferred from the verse 鈥淎nd the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying鈥 that the Divine Presence spoke with him only a second time. However, a third time the Divine Presence did not speak with him. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written with regard to King Jeroboam ben Joash: 鈥淗e restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet鈥 (II聽Kings 14:25)? Evidently, Jonah prophesied at least once more.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 注诇 注住拽讬 谞讬谞讜讛 拽讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讚讘专 讛壮 讗砖专 讚讘专 讘讬讚 注讘讚讜 讛谞讘讬讗 讻砖诐 砖谞讛驻讱 诇谞讬谞讜讛 诪专注讛 诇讟讜讘讛 讻讱 讘讬诪讬 讬专讘注诐 讘谉 讬讜讗砖 谞讛驻讱 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪专注讛 诇讟讜讘讛

Ravina said: Rabbi Akiva was saying that Jonah did not prophesize a third time about the issue of Nineveh. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this is the meaning of the phrase 鈥淎ccording to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet鈥: It is not that Jonah had prophesized about the conquests of Jeroboam ben Joash, but rather that just as the fortune of Nineveh turned from bad to good, so too, in the days of Jeroboam ben Joash, Israel鈥檚 fortune turned from bad to good.

转讗 砖诪注 讙专 砖讛讬讛 诇讬讚转讜 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讜讛讜专转讜 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讬砖 诇讜 砖讗专 讛讗诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讗专 讛讗讘 讻讬爪讚 谞砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 诪谉 讛讗诐 讬讜爪讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讘 讬拽讬讬诐 讗讞讜转 讛讗讘 诪谉 讛讗诐 讬讜爪讬讗

The Gemara resumes discussion of the dispute between Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov and Rav Sheshet. Come and hear another proof: A convert whose birth was in sanctity but whose conception was not in sanctity has maternal kinship, i.e., his relationship to his mother鈥檚 relatives is recognized. However, he does not have paternal kinship. How so? If he married his maternal half sister, who was born before him and converted, he must divorce her. Although by Torah law they are considered unrelated, the Sages rendered it prohibited for them to marry, lest he marry a maternal half sister who was born after him and is forbidden to him. If she is his paternal half sister, he may maintain her as his wife. If he married his father鈥檚 maternal half sister, he must divorce her.

诪谉 讛讗讘 讬拽讬讬诐 讗讞讜转 讛讗诐 诪谉 讛讗诐 讬讜爪讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讬诐 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注专讜讛 砖讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讗专 讛讗诐 讬讜爪讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讗讘 讬拽讬讬诐

If she is his father鈥檚 paternal half sister, he may maintain her as his wife. If she is his mother鈥檚 maternal half sister, he must divorce her. If she is his mother鈥檚 paternal half sister, Rabbi Meir says he must divorce her, and the Rabbis say he may maintain her. This is as Rabbi Meir would say: Any relative forbidden due to kinship with the mother, whether the woman is his paternal relative, e.g., his father鈥檚 maternal half sister, or his maternal relative, he must divorce her. However, if she is forbidden due to the father, he may maintain her.

讜诪讜转专 讘讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讜讘讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 诪讜转专讜转 诇讜 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讗砖转 讛讗讘

And he is permitted to marry his maternal brother鈥檚 wife and his father鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife, and all other forbidden relatives are also permitted to him. The expression: And all other relatives are also permitted to him, is added to include the father鈥檚 wife.

谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讻讜谞住 讗讞转 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗讞转 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 诪转讛 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讜讗讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 讗住讜专 讘讞诪讜转讜

With regard to one who married a woman and her daughter and they converted, he may remarry one but must divorce the other one. He should not marry her ab initio. If his wife, the daughter, died, he is permitted to maintain his mother-in-law as his wife. And some teach that he is prohibited from maintaining his mother-in-law.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪讜转专 讘讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚谞住讘讛 讗讞讬讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专 诇讗 讚谞住讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讗讟讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

In any event, this baraita teaches that he is permitted to marry his brother鈥檚 wife. The Gemara asks: What, is it not referring to a case where his brother married her when he was already a convert? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to a case where he married her while he was a gentile. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this obvious halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the Sages should decree that the marriage is prohibited if the brother married her while he was a gentile, due to the prohibition against their marriage if the brother married her when he was already a convert. The baraita therefore teaches us that there is no such decree.

讗诪专 诪专 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讻讜谞住 讗讞转 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗讞转 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讛砖转讗 讗驻讜拽讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讛转诐 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讱 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讬拽讬讬诐 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住

The Master said: If one married a woman and her daughter and they converted, he may remarry one but must divorce the other one. He should not marry her ab initio. The Gemara asks: Now that he must divorce her, is it necessary to state that he should not marry her ab initio? The Gemara answers: That statement is standing there, i.e., it is referring to the previous sentence, and this is what it is saying: Those wives that the Sages said that he may maintain, e.g., his paternal half sister, he should not marry them ab initio.

诪转讛 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讜讗讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 讗住讜专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讞讚讗 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讞讚讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The baraita taught: If his wife, the daughter, died, he is permitted to maintain his mother-in-law as his wife. And some teach that he is prohibited to maintain his mother-in-law. The Gemara comments: One of the teachings is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and the other one is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讞诪讜转讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讘讗讬住讜专讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讙讘讬 讙专 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞诪讜转讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 拽诇砖讈 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讜讙讘讬 讙专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

The one who prohibits the convert from maintaining his mother-in-law is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who said that one鈥檚 mother-in-law after his wife鈥檚 death remains forbidden to him to the same degree as during her lifetime. And therefore, with regard to a convert, the Sages decreed that she is forbidden to him, lest one marry his mother-in-law who is a Jew from birth after his wife鈥檚 death. And the one who permits him to maintain her is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 mother-in-law is weakened after his wife鈥檚 death, as they are not liable to receive the death penalty. And therefore, with regard to a convert, the Sages did not decree that she is forbidden to him.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖 谞砖讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讛转注专讜讘讜转 讜谞砖讗讜 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 讗专讘注讛 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗讞转 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 讗讜转讛

MISHNA: With regard to five women whose offspring were mixed, i.e., their lineage became indeterminate, and they had other sons as well who were not mixed, and the mixed sons matured and married women and subsequently died, then four sons who were not mixed, each one from a different mother, must perform 岣litza with one of the widows, as she might be the sister-in-law of any of them. And one son of the mother whose sons did not perform 岣litza may perform levirate marriage with her instead of 岣litza; even if she is not his sister-in-law, once she has received 岣litza from the others she may marry any man.

讛讜讗 讜砖诇砖讛 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗讞转 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 谞诪爪讗讜 讗专讘注 讞诇讬爪讜转 讜讬讬讘讜诐 诇讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Subsequently, he and three of the four other sons must perform 岣litza with one of the remaining widows, and the other one may perform levirate marriage. When this process has been completed for all the widows, four 岣litzot and a levirate marriage are found altogether for each and every widow.

讙诪壮 讜讚讜拽讗 诪讬讞诇抓 讜讛讚专 讬讘讜诪讬 讗讘诇 讬讘讜诪讬 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 讚拽驻讙注 讘讬讘诪讛 诇砖讜拽

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna that 岣litza specifically is performed first, and afterward levirate marriage. However, levirate marriage may not be performed first, as that would breach the prohibition against a yevama engaging in intercourse with a member of the public, if she is not his sister-in-law.

诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讜砖诇砖讛 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗讞转 讚诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讬讘诪讬谞讛讜 讞讚 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 讞讚讗 讚诇诪讗 诪转专诪讬讗 诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the son who performed levirate marriage and three of the four others must perform 岣litza with one of the remaining widows, and the remaining son may perform levirate marriage? Why can鈥檛 the same son who performed levirate marriage with the first widow be the one to perform levirate marriage with the other widows, too, after the other four sons perform 岣litza? The Gemara answers: Do not say that one of the brothers may perform levirate marriage with all of them. Rather, each one of them should perform levirate marriage with one, as perhaps one will happen upon his own sister-in-law, whereas if one performs levirate marriage with all of them, the others will not have a chance to perform the mitzva.

诪拽爪转谉 讗讞讬谉 讜诪拽爪转谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讞讬谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜砖讗讬谉 讗讞讬谉 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪拽爪转谉 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诪拽爪转谉 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉

搂 A continuation of a case in the mishna is stated in a baraita: If some of them are brothers, and some of them are not brothers, the brothers perform 岣litza and those who are not brothers perform levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? Rav Safra said that this is what it is saying: If some of the sons who were not mixed are only paternal brothers of the mixed sons, and some of them, in addition to being paternal half brothers, are also maternal half brothers of other members of the mixed group, then the maternal half brothers must perform 岣litza with all of the women, since each of them might be his maternal sister-in-law, who is forbidden to him, as levirate marriage applies only to a paternal sister-in-law. And those who are only paternal brothers perform levirate marriage.

诪拽爪转谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪拽爪转谉 砖讗讬谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讞讜诇爪讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 诪拽爪转谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪拽爪转谉 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉

The baraita continues: If some of them are priests and some of them are not priests, the priests perform 岣litza, and those who are not priests perform levirate marriage, as it is prohibited for a priest to marry a woman who underwent 岣litza. If some of them are priests and some of them are maternal half brothers, both these and those perform 岣litza and not levirate marriage.

  • 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 shleima 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...
midras caves

A Story from the Underground

If you have been keeping up with Yevamot, you know that we have encountered some crazy, unlikely and seemingly theoretical...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 98: Non-Jews Don’t Have Parents halakhically

A child born to non-Jews is understood halakhically to be not related to his father. To the extent that identical...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 11: Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For previous...

Yevamot 98

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 98

讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬住讜专讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 转谞讗 谞诪讬 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉

there is a rabbinic prohibition, contrary to Rav A岣鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara answers: The same is true that there is no prohibition, either. And since the baraita wanted to teach in the latter clause that if they were born in sanctity they are liable, it also taught in the first clause that they are not liable. For this reason, the baraita mentions only the absence of liability.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讗讘 诇讙讜讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讟讜驻讬 讘讝诪讛 讚诇讗 讬讚讬注 讗讘诇 讬讚讬注 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬讚讬注 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rava said: With regard to that which the Sages said, that a gentile has no patrilineage, do not say that it is because they are so steeped in licentiousness that they do not know the identity of their fathers with certainty, but if that identity is known, we are concerned that the paternity is recognized, with regard to the prohibition of intercourse with forbidden paternal relatives and other halakhic issues. Rather, even when it is known, we are still not concerned.

讚讛讗 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 转讗讜诪讬诐 讚讟驻讛 讗讞转 讛讬讛 讜谞讞诇拽讛 诇砖转讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗驻拽讜专讬 讗驻拽专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讝专注讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘砖专 讞诪讜专讬诐 讘砖专诐 讜讝专诪转 住讜住讬诐 讝专诪转诐

The proof is from the case of two identical twin brothers, who were one drop that was divided into two and obviously have the same father, and yet it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: They do not perform 岣litza and they do not perform levirate marriage, although they certainly have the same father. Learn from this that the Merciful One dispossesses the male gentile of his offspring, as it is written with regard to Egyptians: 鈥淲hose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose semen is the semen of horses鈥 (Ezekiel 23:20), i.e., the offspring of a male gentile is considered no more related to him than the offspring of donkeys and horses.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘谞讬驻讟讬讬诐 讛讙专 砖谞砖讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗讬砖讜转 诇讙专 讜讗诇讗 讙专 讚拽讚讬砖 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讗住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 诇讙专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚谞住讘讗 讗讞 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专

The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute between Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov and Rav Sheshet. Come and hear another proof, as Rabbi Yosei said: An incident took place involving Niftayim the convert, who married the wife of his maternal half brother, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said that there is no valid marriage for a convert. The Gemara asks: Is this possible? And if a convert betroths a woman who is not related to him, is his betrothal to her indeed ineffective? Rather, modify the baraita and say that with regard to a convert there is no prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife. The Gemara concludes: What, is the baraita not referring to a case where the brother, her first husband, married her when he was already a convert, thereby proving that a convert is permitted to marry the wife of his deceased brother who was also a convert, even if they were maternal brothers?

诇讗 讚谞住讘讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讗讟讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a case where the brother married her while he was still a gentile, and since he converted they are no longer married. The Gemara asks: If he married her while he was a gentile, what is the purpose of stating this obvious halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say the Sages should decree that the marriage is prohibited even in a case where the first husband married her while he was a gentile, due to the prohibition against their marriage if the brother married her when he was already a convert. The baraita therefore teaches us that there is no such decree.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 讘谉 讬讗住讬讬谉 讻砖讛诇讻转讬 诇讻专讻讬 讛讬诐 诪爪讗转讬 讙专 讗讞讚 砖谞砖讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讘谞讬 诪讬 讛专砖讱 讗诪专 诇讬 讛专讬 讗砖讛 讜砖讘注讛 讘谞讬讛 注诇 住驻住诇 讝讛 讬砖讘 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗诪专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讙专 谞讜砖讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讜讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 讬讜谞讛 砖谞讬转 诇讗诪专 砖谞讬转 讚讘专讛 注诪讜 砖讻讬谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 诇讗 讚讘专讛 注诪讜 砖讻讬谞讛 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讙专 谞讜砖讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚谞住讘讗 讗讞讬讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专

Come and hear another proof, as ben Yasiyan said: When I went to cities overseas, I found one convert who married the wife of his maternal half brother. I said to him: My son, who permitted this to you? He said to me: There is a local woman and her seven sons to whom this was permitted. On this very bench [safsal], Rabbi Akiva sat and said two statements: He said that a convert may marry the former wife of his maternal half brother, and he said that the verse 鈥淎nd the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying鈥 (Jonah 3:1) implies that the Divine Presence spoke with him only a second time. However, a third time the Divine Presence did not speak with him, i.e., Jonah did not receive any more prophecies. In any event, this baraita teaches that a convert may marry the wife of his maternal brother. What, is it not referring to a case where the convert鈥檚 brother married her when he himself was already a convert?

诇讗 讚谞住讘讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讙讝讜专 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讗讟讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a case where the brother married her while he was still a gentile. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this obvious halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say we should decree that marriage between a convert and the former wife of his brother is prohibited even if the brother married her while he was still a gentile, due to the prohibition against their marrying if the brother married her when he was already a convert. The baraita therefore teaches us that there is no such decree.

讜诪讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖诪讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 讜讘讗 讗诐 拽讜讚诐 诪注砖讛 讗诪专讛 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

And is that convert who cited Rabbi Akiva a reliable witness, despite the fact that the ruling affects him personally? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to any Torah scholar who teaches a ruling of halakha in a certain case and it comes to be, if he said it before the incident, one listens to him. And if not, if the ruling followed the incident, one does not listen to him.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讜专讛 讜讘讗 讛讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗诪专 讛专讬 讗砖讛 讜砖讘注讛 讘谞讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讛讚讛

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the convert taught the ruling, and only afterward it came to be that he himself married his sister-in-law. And if you wish, say that he is reliable because he supported his ruling by stating that there was a practical case involving a woman and her seven sons, in which Rabbi Akiva ruled that this kind of marriage is permitted. And if you wish, say that here it is different, as the convert stated a different incident with it. Since he cited an unrelated teaching of Rabbi Akiva in the same testimony, this teaching is also considered reliable.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讬讛讬 讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 讬讜谞讛 砖谞讬转 诇讗诪专 砖谞讬转 讚讘专讛 注诪讜 砖讻讬谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 诇讗 讚讘专讛 注诪讜 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讛讜讗 讛砖讬讘 [讗转] 讙讘讜诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诇讘讜讗 讞诪转 注讚 讬诐 讛注专讘讛 讻讚讘专 讛壮 讗砖专 讚讘专 讘讬讚 注讘讚讜 讬讜谞讛 讘谉 讗诪转讬 讛谞讘讬讗

The Master said that Rabbi Akiva inferred from the verse 鈥淎nd the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying鈥 that the Divine Presence spoke with him only a second time. However, a third time the Divine Presence did not speak with him. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written with regard to King Jeroboam ben Joash: 鈥淗e restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet鈥 (II聽Kings 14:25)? Evidently, Jonah prophesied at least once more.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 注诇 注住拽讬 谞讬谞讜讛 拽讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讚讘专 讛壮 讗砖专 讚讘专 讘讬讚 注讘讚讜 讛谞讘讬讗 讻砖诐 砖谞讛驻讱 诇谞讬谞讜讛 诪专注讛 诇讟讜讘讛 讻讱 讘讬诪讬 讬专讘注诐 讘谉 讬讜讗砖 谞讛驻讱 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪专注讛 诇讟讜讘讛

Ravina said: Rabbi Akiva was saying that Jonah did not prophesize a third time about the issue of Nineveh. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this is the meaning of the phrase 鈥淎ccording to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet鈥: It is not that Jonah had prophesized about the conquests of Jeroboam ben Joash, but rather that just as the fortune of Nineveh turned from bad to good, so too, in the days of Jeroboam ben Joash, Israel鈥檚 fortune turned from bad to good.

转讗 砖诪注 讙专 砖讛讬讛 诇讬讚转讜 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讜讛讜专转讜 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讬砖 诇讜 砖讗专 讛讗诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讗专 讛讗讘 讻讬爪讚 谞砖讗 讗讞讜转讜 诪谉 讛讗诐 讬讜爪讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讘 讬拽讬讬诐 讗讞讜转 讛讗讘 诪谉 讛讗诐 讬讜爪讬讗

The Gemara resumes discussion of the dispute between Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov and Rav Sheshet. Come and hear another proof: A convert whose birth was in sanctity but whose conception was not in sanctity has maternal kinship, i.e., his relationship to his mother鈥檚 relatives is recognized. However, he does not have paternal kinship. How so? If he married his maternal half sister, who was born before him and converted, he must divorce her. Although by Torah law they are considered unrelated, the Sages rendered it prohibited for them to marry, lest he marry a maternal half sister who was born after him and is forbidden to him. If she is his paternal half sister, he may maintain her as his wife. If he married his father鈥檚 maternal half sister, he must divorce her.

诪谉 讛讗讘 讬拽讬讬诐 讗讞讜转 讛讗诐 诪谉 讛讗诐 讬讜爪讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讬诐 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注专讜讛 砖讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讗专 讛讗诐 讬讜爪讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讗讘 讬拽讬讬诐

If she is his father鈥檚 paternal half sister, he may maintain her as his wife. If she is his mother鈥檚 maternal half sister, he must divorce her. If she is his mother鈥檚 paternal half sister, Rabbi Meir says he must divorce her, and the Rabbis say he may maintain her. This is as Rabbi Meir would say: Any relative forbidden due to kinship with the mother, whether the woman is his paternal relative, e.g., his father鈥檚 maternal half sister, or his maternal relative, he must divorce her. However, if she is forbidden due to the father, he may maintain her.

讜诪讜转专 讘讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讜讘讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 诪讜转专讜转 诇讜 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讗砖转 讛讗讘

And he is permitted to marry his maternal brother鈥檚 wife and his father鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife, and all other forbidden relatives are also permitted to him. The expression: And all other relatives are also permitted to him, is added to include the father鈥檚 wife.

谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讻讜谞住 讗讞转 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗讞转 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 诪转讛 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讜讗讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 讗住讜专 讘讞诪讜转讜

With regard to one who married a woman and her daughter and they converted, he may remarry one but must divorce the other one. He should not marry her ab initio. If his wife, the daughter, died, he is permitted to maintain his mother-in-law as his wife. And some teach that he is prohibited from maintaining his mother-in-law.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪讜转专 讘讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚谞住讘讛 讗讞讬讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专 诇讗 讚谞住讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讬 讗讟讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

In any event, this baraita teaches that he is permitted to marry his brother鈥檚 wife. The Gemara asks: What, is it not referring to a case where his brother married her when he was already a convert? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to a case where he married her while he was a gentile. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this obvious halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the Sages should decree that the marriage is prohibited if the brother married her while he was a gentile, due to the prohibition against their marriage if the brother married her when he was already a convert. The baraita therefore teaches us that there is no such decree.

讗诪专 诪专 谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讻讜谞住 讗讞转 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗讞转 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讛砖转讗 讗驻讜拽讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讛转诐 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讱 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讬拽讬讬诐 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住

The Master said: If one married a woman and her daughter and they converted, he may remarry one but must divorce the other one. He should not marry her ab initio. The Gemara asks: Now that he must divorce her, is it necessary to state that he should not marry her ab initio? The Gemara answers: That statement is standing there, i.e., it is referring to the previous sentence, and this is what it is saying: Those wives that the Sages said that he may maintain, e.g., his paternal half sister, he should not marry them ab initio.

诪转讛 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讜讗讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 讗住讜专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讞讚讗 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讞讚讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The baraita taught: If his wife, the daughter, died, he is permitted to maintain his mother-in-law as his wife. And some teach that he is prohibited to maintain his mother-in-law. The Gemara comments: One of the teachings is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and the other one is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讞诪讜转讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讘讗讬住讜专讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讙讘讬 讙专 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞诪讜转讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 拽诇砖讈 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讜讙讘讬 讙专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

The one who prohibits the convert from maintaining his mother-in-law is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who said that one鈥檚 mother-in-law after his wife鈥檚 death remains forbidden to him to the same degree as during her lifetime. And therefore, with regard to a convert, the Sages decreed that she is forbidden to him, lest one marry his mother-in-law who is a Jew from birth after his wife鈥檚 death. And the one who permits him to maintain her is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 mother-in-law is weakened after his wife鈥檚 death, as they are not liable to receive the death penalty. And therefore, with regard to a convert, the Sages did not decree that she is forbidden to him.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖 谞砖讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讛转注专讜讘讜转 讜谞砖讗讜 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 讗专讘注讛 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗讞转 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 讗讜转讛

MISHNA: With regard to five women whose offspring were mixed, i.e., their lineage became indeterminate, and they had other sons as well who were not mixed, and the mixed sons matured and married women and subsequently died, then four sons who were not mixed, each one from a different mother, must perform 岣litza with one of the widows, as she might be the sister-in-law of any of them. And one son of the mother whose sons did not perform 岣litza may perform levirate marriage with her instead of 岣litza; even if she is not his sister-in-law, once she has received 岣litza from the others she may marry any man.

讛讜讗 讜砖诇砖讛 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗讞转 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 谞诪爪讗讜 讗专讘注 讞诇讬爪讜转 讜讬讬讘讜诐 诇讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Subsequently, he and three of the four other sons must perform 岣litza with one of the remaining widows, and the other one may perform levirate marriage. When this process has been completed for all the widows, four 岣litzot and a levirate marriage are found altogether for each and every widow.

讙诪壮 讜讚讜拽讗 诪讬讞诇抓 讜讛讚专 讬讘讜诪讬 讗讘诇 讬讘讜诪讬 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 讚拽驻讙注 讘讬讘诪讛 诇砖讜拽

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna that 岣litza specifically is performed first, and afterward levirate marriage. However, levirate marriage may not be performed first, as that would breach the prohibition against a yevama engaging in intercourse with a member of the public, if she is not his sister-in-law.

诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讜砖诇砖讛 讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗讞转 讚诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讬讘诪讬谞讛讜 讞讚 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪讬讬讘诐 讞讚讗 讚诇诪讗 诪转专诪讬讗 诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the son who performed levirate marriage and three of the four others must perform 岣litza with one of the remaining widows, and the remaining son may perform levirate marriage? Why can鈥檛 the same son who performed levirate marriage with the first widow be the one to perform levirate marriage with the other widows, too, after the other four sons perform 岣litza? The Gemara answers: Do not say that one of the brothers may perform levirate marriage with all of them. Rather, each one of them should perform levirate marriage with one, as perhaps one will happen upon his own sister-in-law, whereas if one performs levirate marriage with all of them, the others will not have a chance to perform the mitzva.

诪拽爪转谉 讗讞讬谉 讜诪拽爪转谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讞讬谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜砖讗讬谉 讗讞讬谉 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪拽爪转谉 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诪拽爪转谉 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉

搂 A continuation of a case in the mishna is stated in a baraita: If some of them are brothers, and some of them are not brothers, the brothers perform 岣litza and those who are not brothers perform levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? Rav Safra said that this is what it is saying: If some of the sons who were not mixed are only paternal brothers of the mixed sons, and some of them, in addition to being paternal half brothers, are also maternal half brothers of other members of the mixed group, then the maternal half brothers must perform 岣litza with all of the women, since each of them might be his maternal sister-in-law, who is forbidden to him, as levirate marriage applies only to a paternal sister-in-law. And those who are only paternal brothers perform levirate marriage.

诪拽爪转谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪拽爪转谉 砖讗讬谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讞讜诇爪讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 诪拽爪转谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪拽爪转谉 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉

The baraita continues: If some of them are priests and some of them are not priests, the priests perform 岣litza, and those who are not priests perform levirate marriage, as it is prohibited for a priest to marry a woman who underwent 岣litza. If some of them are priests and some of them are maternal half brothers, both these and those perform 岣litza and not levirate marriage.

Scroll To Top