Yevamot 158

בימי רבי בקשו להתיר נתינים אמר להם רבי חלקנו נתיר חלק מזבח מי יתיר

In the days of Rabbi there was a desire to permit the nethinim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enter into the congregation. ');">¹</span> Said Rabbi to them, 'We could very well surrender our portion; who could surrender the portion of the altar?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the congregation and the altar have shares in them (cf. Josh. ibid.). ');">²</span>

ופליגא דר' חייא בר אבא דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן חלק עדה לעולם אסור חלק מזבח בזמן שבית המקדש קיים אסור אין בית המקדש קיים שרי:

He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi, who forbade the portion of the altar in his time though the Sanctuary was no more in existence. ');">³</span> is thus in disagreement with R. Hiyya b. Abba. For R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: The portion of the congregation is forbidden for ever,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until a properly constituted authority should allow it. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אמר רבי יהושע שמעתי שהסריס חולץ וחולצין לאשתו והסריס לא חולץ ולא חולצין לאשתו ואין לי לפרש

and the portion of the altar is forbidden only when the Sanctuary is in existence, but when the Sanctuary is not in existence it is permitted. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. R. JOSHUA STATED: I HAVE HEARD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tradition from his teachers. ');">⁵</span>

א"ר עקיבא אני אפרש סריס אדם חולץ וחולצין לאשתו מפני שהיתה לו שעת הכושר סריס חמה לא חולץ ולא חולצין לאשתו מפני שלא היתה לו שעת הכושר

THAT A SARIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁶</span> SUBMITS TO <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁶</span>

ר' אליעזר אומר לא כי אלא סריס חמה חולץ וחולצין לאשתו מפני שיש לו רפואה סריס אדם לא חולץ ולא חולצין לאשתו מפני שאין לו רפואה

AND THAT <i>HALIZAH</i> IS ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, AND ALSO THAT A SARIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁶</span> DOES NOT SUBMIT TO <i>HALIZAH</i> AND THAT NO <i>HALIZAH</i> IS TO BE ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, AND I AM UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In what case of saris halizah is, and what case it is not applicable. ');">⁷</span>

העיד ר' יהושע בן בתירא על בן מגוסת שהיה בירושלים סריס אדם ויבמו את אשתו לקיים דברי ר"ע

R. AKIBA SAID, I WILL EXPLAIN IT: A MAN-MADE SARIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., a 'eunuch of man', one whose emasculation was the result of human action. (Cf. infra n. 12). ');">⁸</span> SUBMITS TO <i>HALIZAH</i> AND <i>HALIZAH</i> IS ALSO ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS IN A STATE OF FITNESS. A SARIS BY NATURE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., a 'eunuch of the sun', one who was a eunuch from the time he first saw the sun, i.e., a congenital eunuch. ');">⁹</span>

הסריס לא חולץ ולא מייבם וכן איילונית לא חולצת ולא מתייבמת

NEITHER SUBMITS TO <i>HALIZAH</i> NOR IS <i>HALIZAH</i> ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, SINCE THERE NEVER WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS FIT. R. ELIEZER SAID: NOT SO, BUT A SARIS BY NATURE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., a 'eunuch of the sun', one who was a eunuch from the time he first saw the sun, i.e., a congenital eunuch. ');">⁹</span> SUBMITS TO <i>HALIZAH</i> AND <i>HALIZAH</i> IS ALSO ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, BECAUSE HE MAY BE CURED. A MAN-MADE SARIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 538, n. 10. ');">¹⁰</span>

הסריס שחלץ ליבמתו לא פסלה בעלה פסלה מפני שהיא בעילת זנות וכן איילונית שחלצו לה אחין לא פסלוה בעלוה פסלוה מפני שבעילתה בעילת זנות:

NEITHER SUBMITS TO <i>HALIZAH</i> NOR IS <i>HALIZAH</i> ARRANGED FOR HIS WIFE, SINCE HE CANNOT BE CURED. R. JOSHUA B. BATHYRA TESTIFIED CONCERNING BEN MEGOSATH, WHO WAS A MAN-MADE SARIS LIVING IN JERUSALEM. THAT HIS WIFE WAS ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED BY THE LEVIR, THUS CONFIRMING THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA. THE SARIS NEITHER SUBMITS TO <i>HALIZAH</i> NOR CONTRACTS THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, AND SO ALSO A WOMAN WHO IS INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION MUST NEITHER PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> NOR BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מכדי שמעינן לר"ע דאמר חייבי לאוין כחייבי כריתות דמו וחייבי כריתות לאו בני חליצה וייבום נינהו

IF A SARIS SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> FROM HIS SISTER-IN-LAW, HE DOES NOT THEREBY CAUSE HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 538, n. 10. ');">¹⁰</span> IF, HOWEVER, HE COHABITED WITH HER HE CAUSES HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a priest. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר ר' אמי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנשא אחיו גיורת ור"ע סבר לה כר' יוסי דאמר קהל גרים לא אקרי קהל

SINCE HIS ACT IS SHEER PROSTITUTION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman being forbidden to him as 'his brother's wife'. ');">¹²</span> SIMILARLY, WHERE BROTHERS SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> FROM A WOMAN INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION, THEY DO NOT THEREBY CAUSE HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a priest. ');">¹¹</span>

אי הכי יבומי נמי מייבם אין הכי נמי ואיידי דאמר ר' יהושע חולץ אמר איהו נמי חולץ

IF, HOWEVER, THEY COHABITED WITH HER, THEY CAUSE HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a priest. ');">¹¹</span> SINCE COHABITATION WITH HER IS AN ACT OF PROSTITUTION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3. ');">¹³</span>

דיקא נמי דקתני העיד ר' יהושע בן בתירא על בן מגוסת שהיה בירושלים סריס אדם ויבמו את אשתו לקיים דברי ר"ע ש"מ

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Observe! R. Akiba was heard to state that 'Those who are subject to the penalty of negative precepts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man-made saris is one of these, since cohabitation with him is forbidden by a negative precept in Deut. XXIII, 2. ');">¹⁴</span> are on a par with those who are subject to the penalties of kareth';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 49a. ');">¹⁵</span>

מתיב רבה פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה סריס אדם והזקן או חולצין או מייבמין כיצד מתו ולהם נשים ולהם אחין ועמדו אחין ועשו מאמר בנשותיהן ונתנו גט או שחלצו מה שעשו עשו ואם בעלו קנו

but those who are subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i> are not eligible for <i>halizah</i> or levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could R. Akiba maintain in our Mishnah that A MAN-MADE SARIS SUBMITS TO HALIZAH. ');">¹⁶</span> — R. Ammi replied: 'What we are dealing with here is with a case, for instance, where his brother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deceased brother of the saris. ');">¹⁷</span>

מתו אחין ועמדו הן ועשו מאמר בנשותיהן ונתנו גט או חלצו מה שעשו עשו ואם בעלו קנו ואסור לקיימן משום שנאמר (דברים כג, ב) לא יבא פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה בקהל ה' אלמא בקהל עסקינן

had married a proselyte; and R. Akiba is of the same opinion as R. Jose, who stated that an assembly of proselytes is not regarded as an assembly.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A proselyte, not being included in the term assembly (v. Deut. XXIII. 2) she is permitted to the saris. Hence he submits to her halizah. ');">¹⁸</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 1. ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא אמר רבה כגון שנפלה לו ולבסוף נפצע

he should also be permitted to contract levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then was only halizah mentioned? ');">²⁰</span> — The law is so indeed; only because R. Joshua used the expression 'SUBMITS TO HALIZAH'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Joshua, who regards an assembly of proselytes as a congregation, marriage is in fact forbidden. Only halizah is permitted because in his opinion it is applicable in the case of those a union between whom is subject to the penalty of a negative precept. ');">²¹</span>

אמר ליה אביי וליתי איסור פצוע ונידחי עשה דייבום מי לא תנן ר"ג אומר אם מיאנה מיאנה

he [R. Akiba] also used the expression 'SUBMITS TO HALIZAH'. This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to R. Akiba even the levirate marriage is permitted. ');">²²</span> may also be proved by inference; for it was stated, R. JOSHUA B. BATHYRA TESTIFIED CONCERNING BEN MEGOSATH, WHO WAS A MAN-MADE SARIS LIVING IN JERUSALEM, THAT HIS WIFE WAS ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED BY THE LEVIR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levirate marriage. V. supra n. 5. ');">²³</span>

ואם לאו תמתין עד שתגדיל ותצא הלזו משום אחות אשה אלמא אתי איסור אחות אשה ודחי הכא נמי ניתי איסור פצוע ונידחי

THUS CONFIRMING THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA. This proves it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to R. Akiba even the levirate marriage is permitted. ');">²²</span> Rabbah raised an objection: He who is wounded in the stones or has his privy member cut off, a man-made saris, and an old man, may either participate in <i>halizah</i> or contract levirate marriage. How?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in what connection is this law applicable? ');">²⁴</span>

אלא אמר רב יוסף האי תנא הך תנא דבי רבי עקיבא היא דאמר מחייבי לאוין דשאר הוי ממזר מחייבי לאוין גרידי לא הוי ממזר

If these died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without issue. ');">²⁵</span> and were survived by wives and brothers, and those brothers addressed a ma'amar to the wives, or gave them letters of divorce, or participated with them in <i>halizah</i>, their actions are legally valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what they did they have done'; after their ma'amar, a divorce is required; after their divorce, no marriage may take place; and their halizah is valid. ');">²⁶</span>

איקרי כאן (דברים כה, ז) להקים לאחיו שם והא לאו בר הכי הוא

if they cohabited with them, the widows become their lawful wives.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they acquired'. ');">²⁷</span> If the brothers died and they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The maimed mentioned or the old man. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר רבא אם כן אין לך אשה שכשרה ליבם שלא נעשה בעלה סריס חמה שעה אחת קודם למיתתו

addressed a ma'amar to their<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brothers'. ');">²⁹</span> wives, or gave them divorce, or participated with them in <i>halizah</i>, their actions are valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 9. ');">³⁰</span>

לר' אליעזר פירוקא דרבא פירכא היא

and if they cohabited with them the widows become their lawful wives, but they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those that are maimed. The old man is excluded. V. infra. ');">³¹</span> may not retain them, because it is said in Scripture. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 2. V. Tosef. XI. ');">³²</span>

התם כחישותא דאתחילה ביה

This clearly proves that we are dealing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regarding the halizah and marriage with an impotent person as valid. ');">³³</span> with members of the assembly!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be suggested that R. Akiba speaks of women proselytes who are not included in the term 'assembly?' ');">³⁴</span>

היכי דמי סריס חמה אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן כל

— The fact is, said Rabbah, that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba's statement in our Mishnah. ');">³⁵</span> is a case where the widow became subject to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his deceased brother's wife. ');">³⁶</span> first and he was subsequently maimed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the obligation arose while the man was still in a state of potency, halizah with him is both necessary and valid. ');">³⁷</span> Said Abaye to him: Let the prohibition against the maimed man override the positive precept of the levirate marriage! Did we not learn [of a similar case]: R. Gamaliel said, If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor who was given away in marriage by her mother or brothers after the death of her father and whose elder sister has now become subject to the levirate marriage of her husband. ');">³⁸</span> made a declaration of refusal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mi'un (v. Glos.). No divorce is needed in the case of such a minor's marriage. ');">³⁹</span> well and good;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'she refused'. Her marriage becomes null and void retrospectively, and, as she has thus never been the legal wife of the levir, her sister (who is now no more the levir's wife's sister) may well contract with him the levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁰</span> and if not, let [the elder sister] wait until the minor grows up and she will then be exempt as his wife's sister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 18a, infra 109a. ');">⁴¹</span> Thus it follows that the prohibition against a wife's sister has the force of overriding [that of the levirate marriage]; here also, then, let the prohibition against the maimed man have the force of overriding it! — But, said R. Joseph. this Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, in fact, deals with a case where the impotency had set in prior to the obligation and yet permits the halizah. ');">⁴²</span> represents the view of the Tanna of the school of R. Akiba, who maintains that [the issue] of a union which is subject to the penalty of negative precepts owing to consanguinity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the contracting parties. ');">⁴³</span> is regarded as a bastard, but [the issue] of a union that is merely subject to the penalty of negative precepts is not a bastard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This Tanna, like the Tanna of our Mishnah, thus draws a distinction between two classes of trespass that are subject to the penalty of negative precepts: (a) cases due to consanguinity and (b) other cases. While the former are subject to the restrictions of those who are liable to kareth, the latter are not. Maimed persons belong to the latter class and are consequently subject to the levirate law. Cf. supra 49a. ');">⁴⁴</span> The text, 'To raise up unto his brother a name'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 7. ');">⁴⁵</span> should be applicable to this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The maimed levir. ');">⁴⁶</span> also, but he,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to his impotency at the time of the halizah. ');">⁴⁷</span> surely, is incapable of raising it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though at some earlier period he might have been; why then should he be subject to halizah? ');">⁴⁸</span> — Raba replied: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If his former potency is not to be taken into consideration. ');">⁴⁹</span> there exists no woman who is eligible for the levirate marriage whose husband was not a saris by nature<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Approaching death deprives a person of his generating powers, and he may then be regarded virtually as a saris. ');">⁵⁰</span> for a short time, at least, prior to his death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of such a saris should consequently be exempt from halizah (v. our Mishnah). How, then, would a widow ever be subject to halizah? It must, therefore, be admitted that a person's former capacity for propagation is taken into consideration even though that capacity was subsequently lost. ');">⁵¹</span> Against R. Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that a manmade saris does not submit to halizah, though prior to his incapacitation he was capable of propagation. ');">⁵²</span> however, Raba's reply<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves the contrary of R. Eliezer's statement (cf. supra n. 6). ');">⁵³</span> presents a [valid] objection! — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the power of propagation is lost on approaching death. ');">⁵⁴</span> it is only a general state of debility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which precedes death. ');">⁵⁵</span> that had set in.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this cannot at all be compared with the case of an actual saris whose incapacity is due to a definite defect in his generative organs. ');">⁵⁶</span> What are we to understand by A SARIS BY NATURE? — R. Isaac b. Joseph replied in the name of R. Johanan: Any man