Yevamot 98

הא איסורא איכא הוא הדין דאפילו איסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעי למיתני סיפא אבל חייבין תנא נמי רישא אין חייבין

there is a rabbinic prohibition, contrary to Rav Aḥa’s 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.

אמר רבא הא דאמור רבנן אין אב לגוי לא תימא משום דשטופי בזמה דלא ידיע אבל ידיע חיישינן אלא אפילו דידיע נמי לא חיישינן

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.

דהא שני אחין תאומים דטפה אחת היה ונחלקה לשתים וקתני סיפא לא חולצין ולא מייבמין שמע מינה אפקורי אפקריה רחמנא לזרעיה דכתיב בשר חמורים בשרם וזרמת סוסים זרמתם

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 ḥalitza 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: “Whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose semen is the semen of horses” (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.

תא שמע דאמר רבי יוסי מעשה בניפטיים הגר שנשא אשת אחיו מאמו ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו אין אישות לגר ואלא גר דקדיש הכי נמי לא תפסי בה קידושין אלא אימא אין אסור אשת אח לגר מאי לאו דנסבא אח כשהוא גר

The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute between Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov 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’s 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?

לא דנסבא כשהוא גוי כשהוא גוי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא ליגזור כשהוא גוי אטו כשהוא גר קא משמע לן

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.

תא שמע דאמר בן יאסיין כשהלכתי לכרכי הים מצאתי גר אחד שנשא אשת אחיו מאמו אמרתי לו בני מי הרשך אמר לי הרי אשה ושבעה בניה על ספסל זה ישב רבי עקיבא ואמר שני דברים גר נושא אשת אחיו מאמו ואמר ויהי דבר ה׳ אל יונה שנית לאמר שנית דברה עמו שכינה שלישית לא דברה עמו שכינה קתני מיהת גר נושא אשת אחיו מאמו מאי לאו דנסבא אחיו כשהוא גר

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 “And the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying” (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’s brother married her when he himself was already a convert?

לא דנסבא כשהוא גוי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא נגזור כשהוא גוי אטו כשהוא גר קא משמע לן

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.

ומי מהימן והאמר רבי אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל תלמיד חכם שמורה הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו אין שומעין לו

And is that convert who cited Rabbi Akiva a reliable witness, despite the fact that the ruling affects him personally? Didn’t 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.

איבעית אימא מורה ובא היה ואיבעית אימא משום דקאמר הרי אשה ושבעה בניה ואיבעית אימא שאני הכא דקאמר מעשה אחרינא בהדה

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.

אמר מר ויהי דבר ה׳ אל יונה שנית לאמר שנית דברה עמו שכינה שלישית לא דברה עמו והא כתיב הוא השיב [את] גבול ישראל מלבוא חמת עד ים הערבה כדבר ה׳ אשר דבר ביד עבדו יונה בן אמתי הנביא

The Master said that Rabbi Akiva inferred from the verse “And the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying” 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’t it written with regard to King Jeroboam ben Joash: “He 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” (II Kings 14:25)? Evidently, Jonah prophesied at least once more.

אמר רבינא על עסקי נינוה קאמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר הכי קאמר כדבר ה׳ אשר דבר ביד עבדו הנביא כשם שנהפך לנינוה מרעה לטובה כך בימי ירבעם בן יואש נהפך להם לישראל מרעה לטובה

Ravina said: Rabbi Akiva was saying that Jonah did not prophesize a third time about the issue of Nineveh. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this is the meaning of the phrase “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”: 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’s fortune turned from bad to good.

תא שמע גר שהיה לידתו בקדושה והורתו שלא בקדושה יש לו שאר האם ואין לו שאר האב כיצד נשא אחותו מן האם יוציא מן האב יקיים אחות האב מן האם יוציא

The Gemara resumes discussion of the dispute between Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov 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’s 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’s maternal half sister, he must divorce her.

מן האב יקיים אחות האם מן האם יוציא מן האב רבי מאיר אומר יוציא וחכמים אומרים יקיים שהיה רבי מאיר אומר כל ערוה שהיא משום שאר האם יוציא משום האב יקיים

If she is his father’s paternal half sister, he may maintain her as his wife. If she is his mother’s maternal half sister, he must divorce her. If she is his mother’s 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’s maternal half sister, or his maternal relative, he must divorce her. However, if she is forbidden due to the father, he may maintain her.

ומותר באשת אחיו מאמו ובאשת אחי אביו ושאר כל העריות מותרות לו לאיתויי אשת האב

And he is permitted to marry his maternal brother’s wife and his father’s brother’s 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’s wife.

נשא אשה ובתה כונס אחת ומוציא אחת לכתחלה לא יכנוס מתה אשתו מותר בחמותו ואיכא דתני אסור בחמותו

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.

קתני מיהת מותר באשת אחיו מאי לאו דנסבה אחיו כשהוא גר לא דנסבה כשהוא גוי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא ליגזור כשהוא גוי אטו כשהוא גר קא משמע לן

In any event, this baraita teaches that he is permitted to marry his brother’s 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.

אמר מר נשא אשה ובתה כונס אחת ומוציא אחת לכתחלה לא יכנוס השתא אפוקי מפיק לכתחלה מיבעיא התם קאי והכי קאמר הך דאמור רבנן יקיים לכתחלה לא יכנוס

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.

מתה אשתו מותר בחמותו ואיכא דתני אסור בחמותו חדא כרבי ישמעאל וחדא כרבי עקיבא

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.

מאן דאסר כרבי ישמעאל דאמר חמותו לאחר מיתה באיסורא קיימא וגבי גר גזרו ביה רבנן ומאן דשרי כרבי עקיבא דאמר חמותו לאחר מיתה קלשׁ ליה איסורא וגבי גר לא גזרו ביה רבנן:

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’s mother-in-law after his wife’s 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’s 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’s mother-in-law is weakened after his wife’s 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.

מתני׳ חמש נשים שנתערבו ולדותיהן הגדילו התערובות ונשאו נשים ומתו ארבעה חולצין לאחת ואחד מייבם אותה

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 ḥalitza 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 ḥalitza may perform levirate marriage with her instead of ḥalitza; even if she is not his sister-in-law, once she has received ḥalitza from the others she may marry any man.

הוא ושלשה חולצין לאחת ואחד מייבם נמצאו ארבע חליצות וייבום לכל אחת ואחת:

Subsequently, he and three of the four other sons must perform ḥalitza 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 ḥalitzot and a levirate marriage are found altogether for each and every widow.

גמ׳ ודוקא מיחלץ והדר יבומי אבל יבומי ברישא לא דקפגע ביבמה לשוק

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna that ḥalitza 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.

מאי הוא ושלשה חולצין לאחת דלא תימא ליבמינהו חד לכולהו אלא כל חד וחד מייבם חדא דלמא מתרמיא ליה דידיה

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the mishna’s ruling that the son who performed levirate marriage and three of the four others must perform ḥalitza with one of the remaining widows, and the remaining son may perform levirate marriage? Why can’t 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 ḥalitza? 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.

מקצתן אחין ומקצתן שאין אחין האחין חולצין ושאין אחין מייבמין מאי קאמר אמר רב ספרא הכי קאמר מקצתן אחין מן האב ומקצתן אחין מן האם אחין מן האם חולצין ואחין מן האב מייבמין

§ 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 ḥalitza 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 ḥalitza 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.

מקצתן כהנים ומקצתן שאינן כהנים כהנים חולצין שאינן כהנים מייבמין מקצתן כהנים ומקצתן אחין מן האם אלו ואלו חולצין ולא מייבמין

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