Yevamot 192

Chapter 192

א <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ואח"כ בא עליה אחיו שהוא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד פוסל על ידו ר"ש אומר לא פוסל בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ואח"כ בא על צרתה פוסל על ידי עצמו רבי שמעון אומר לא פוסל:
1 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of his brother who died without issue. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> AND THEN HIS BROTHER WHO WAS OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HER, [THE LATTER] RENDERS HER UNFIT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> FOR [THE FORMER].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, as in the case of a ma'amar after a ma'amar, the act of either levir is valid and, as no two levirs may marry the same sister-in-law, the latter must divorce her; and a sister-in-law divorced by one of the levirs may never again be married by any of them. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא אמר להם רבי שמעון לחכמים אם ביאה ראשונה ביאה ביאה שנייה אינה ביאה ואם ביאה ראשונה אינה ביאה ביאה שנייה נמי אינה ביאה
2 R. SIMEON SAID: HE DOES NOT RENDER HER UNFIT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His reason is given in the Gemara, infra. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of his brother who died without issue. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> AND AFTERWARDS HE COHABITED WITH HER RIVAL, HE HAS RENDERED [THEREBY THE FIRST AS WELL AS THE SECOND] UNFIT FOR MARRIAGE WITH HIMSELF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since levirate marriage may be contracted with one sister-in- law only. The first cohabitation constituting an imperfect kinyan, the second is effective to the extent of necessitating a divorce, and with a sister-in-law that was divorced by a levir, none of the levirs may subsequently contract levirate marriage. Cf. supra p. 656, n. 9. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ג מתניתין דלא כבן עזאי דתניא בן עזאי אומר יש מאמר אחר מאמר בשני יבמין ויבמה אחת
3 R. SIMEON SAID: HE DOES NOT RENDER [THEM] UNFIT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His reason is given in the Gemara, infra. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was taught: R. Simeon said to the Sages, 'If the first cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the first young levir. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> was a valid act,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Constituting a kinyan of the sister-in-law. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ד ואין מאמר אחר מאמר בשתי יבמות ויבם אחד:
4 the second cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the second young levir. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> cannot have any validity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is no validity in an act of cohabitation that follows an act of cohabitation (v. supra 50a), the second act is regarded as irregular intercourse with a stranger; and since it was committed unwittingly, the woman remains permitted to the first levir. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> if, the first cohabitation, however, has no validity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the levir's tender age. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ה <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ומת חולצת ולא מתייבמת נשא אשה ומת הרי זו פטורה בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ומשהגדיל נשא אשה אחרת ומת אם לא ידע את הראשונה משהגדיל הראשונה חולצת ולא מתייבמת והשנייה או חולצת או מתייבמת
5 the second cohabitation also should have no validity'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 8 and cf. supra 51b. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> Our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which regards the cohabitation of a young levir as having the same validity as a ma'amar (cf. supra p. 656, n. 9), and yet rules that an act of cohabitation after another act of cohabitation is legally effective whether in the case of two levirs and one sister- in-law (first case) or two sisters-in-law and one levir (second case). ');"><sup>14</sup></span> cannot represent the view of Ben 'Azzai; for it was taught: Ben 'Azzai stated, 'A <i>ma'amar</i> is valid after another <i>ma'amar</i> where it concerns two levirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one as well as the other having addressed to the widow one ma'amar only. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ו רבי שמעון אומר מייבם לאי זו שירצה וחולץ לשנייה אחד שהוא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד ואחד שהוא בן עשרים שלא הביא שתי שערות:
6 and one sister-in-law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because each levir (v. supra 51a) has equally the power to address such a ma'amar. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> but no <i>ma'amar</i> is valid after a <i>ma'amar</i> where it concerns two sisters-in-law and one levir.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second ma'amar having no validity owing to the first ma'amar which had completely effected the kinyan of the first sister-in-law; and no levir is permitted to contract levirate marriage with more than one of the widows of his deceased childless brother. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of his brother who died childless. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבא הא דאמור רבנן זיקת שני יבמין מיחלץ חלצה יבומי לא מיבמה לא תימא היכא דאיכא צרה דאיכא למגזר משום צרה
7 AND THEN DIED, SHE MUST PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The act of the minor, while it is valid enough to subject his sister- in-law to the levirate bond of his surviving brothers, does not sever the first levirate bond which is due to her union with the first deceased brother. Being now subject to the levirate bond originating from two levirs, she is deprived (cf. supra 31b) of her right to the levirate marriage, and must perform halizah only. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> IF HE HAD MARRIED [ANY OTHER] WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIED, SHE IS EXEMPT [FROM BOTH].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levirate marriage and halizah. The betrothal of a minor having no validity, the woman is not regarded as his wife in respect of the levirate. It is only in the case of a sister-in-law (v. supra n. 2) that his cohabitation is valid enough to subject the woman to the levirate bond. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW, AND AFTER HE HAD COME OF AGE HE MARRIED ANOTHER WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIED, IF HE HAD NOT [CARNALLY] KNOWN THE FIRST WOMAN AFTER HE HAD BECOME OF AGE, THE FIRST ONE MUST PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, as the minor did not cohabit with her since he became of age, she remained subject to the levirate bond originating from two levirs (cf. supra note 2). ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ח דהא הכא ליכא צרה מיחלץ חלצה יבומי לא מיבמה:
8 WHILE THE SECOND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being the deceased's lawful wife. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> MAY EITHER PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. R. SIMEON SAID: [THE SURVIVING LEVIR] MAY CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WITH WHICHEVER OF THEM HE MAY DESIRE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon does not admit the ineligibility for levirate marriage of a sister-in- law who is subject to the levirate bond originating from two levirs, V. supra 31b. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> AND SUBMITS TO <i>HALIZAH</i> FROM THE OTHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they cannot be regarded as rivals, the marriage of the one does not exempt the other, Both, however, may not be taken in levirate marriage, as a preventive measure against erroneous comparisons with two sisters-in-law who were lawfully married. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
ט נשא אשה ומת כו': תנינא להא דתנו רבנן שוטה וקטן שנשאו ומתו נשותיהן פטורות מן החליצה ומן הייבום:
9 [THE SAME LAW APPLIES] WHETHER HE IS OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY, OR WHETHER HE IS OF THE AGE OF TWENTY YEARS BUT HAD NOT PRODUCED TWO PUBIC HAIRS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marks of maturity. So long as these have not appeared he retains the legal status of a minor. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Raba stated: With reference to the statement of the Rabbis that in the case of the levirate bond originating from two levirs [the sister-in-law] must perform <i>halizah</i> only but may not contract levirate marriage, it must not be assumed that this is applicable only where there is a rival, because [in that case] a preventive measure was necessary on account of the rival;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 31b and cf. supra p. 658, n. 7 end. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> for here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
י בן תשע וכו' משהגדיל וכו': ויעשו ביאת בן ט' כמאמר בגדול ותדחה צרה מיבום אמר רב לא עשו ביאת בן ט' כמאמר בגדול ושמואל אמר עשו ועשו וכן א"ר יוחנן עשו ועשו
10 there is no rival and yet [the sister-in-law] must perform <i>halizah</i> only but may not contract the levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 658, n. 2. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> IF HE HAD MARRIED [ANY OTHER] WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIED etc. Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> we learned what the Rabbis taught: If an imbecile or a minor married and then died, their wives are exempt from <i>halizah</i> and from the levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 69b, infra 112b. A minor and an imbecile have the same legal status, and our Mishnah, speaking of the minor confirms this ruling. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יא ויעשו תנאי היא הך תנא דארבעה אחין גזר משום צרה
11 A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS etc. AND AFTER HE HAD COME OF AGE etc. Let the cohabitation of the boy of nine<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> be given the same validity as that of a <i>ma'amar</i> by an adult,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which (as stated supra 31b) debars the rival of the widow to whom the [ma'amar had been addressed, from the levirate marriage, though the rival's marriage with the deceased was in every respect a lawful union. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> and so let the rival [here]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
יב ואשמעינן בגדול וה"ה בקטן והאי דאמר גדול משום דבגדול קאי
12 be debarred from the levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then was it stated that THE SECOND MAY EITHER PERFORM HALIZAH OR CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE? ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — Now said Rab: The cohabitation of a boy of nine was not given the same validity as that of a <i>ma'amar</i> by an adult. Samuel, however, said: It was certainly given the same validity:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they made and they made'. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> and so said R. Johanan: It certainly was given the same validity. Then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Samuel and R. Johanan. ');"><sup>33</sup></span>
יג והאי תנא דהכא סבירא ליה עשו ולא גזר משום צרה ואשמעינן בקטן והוא הדין בגדול והאי דקאמר בקטן דבקטן קאי
13 let the same validity be given here also!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and let them make'. Cf. supra n. 6. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> — This [question is a matter of dispute between] Tannaim. That Tanna [whose ruling is contained in the chapter] of the 'Four Brothers'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The chapter which contains the Mishnah referred to is named after the first two words with which it begins. V. supra 260. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> enacted a preventive measure on account of the rival;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 31b. ');"><sup>36</sup></span>
יד אזל ר' אלעזר אמר לשמעתא בי מדרשא ולא אמרה משמיה דר' יוחנן שמע רבי יוחנן איקפד עול לגביה רבי אמי ור' אסי אמרו ליה לא כך היה המעשה בבית הכנסת של טבריא בנגר שיש בראשו גלוסטרא
14 and though he stated the law in respect of an adult the same law is applicable to a minor, the reason why he mentioned the adult being only because he was engaged on the question of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stood'. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> the adult. The Tanna here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> however, is of the opinion that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cohabitation of a minor and the ma'amar of an adult. ');"><sup>39</sup></span>
טו שנחלקו בו רבי אלעזר ורבי יוסי עד שקרעו ספר תורה בחמתן קרעו ס"ד אלא אימא שנקרע ס"ת בחמתן והיה שם רבי יוסי בן קיסמא אמר תמיה אני אם לא יהיה בית הכנסת זו עבודת כוכבים וכן הוה
15 were given the same validity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they made'. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> and he enacted no preventive measure on account of the rival; and though he spoke of the minor the same law applies to an adult, the reason why he spoke of the minor being only because he was dealing with the minor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stood'. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> R. Eleazar came and reported this statement at the schoolhouse but did not report it in the name of R. Johanan. When R. Johanan heard this he was annoyed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Perhaps because R. Eleazar did not act in accordance with Aboth VI, 6, 'Whosoever reports a thing in the name of him who said it brings deliverance into the world'. V., however, the Gemara's explanation infra. ');"><sup>41</sup></span>
טז הדר איקפד טפי אמר חברותא נמי
16 Thereupon R. Ammi and R. Assi came in and said to him: Did it not happen at the Synagogue of Tiberias that R. Eleazar and R. Jose disputed [so hotly] concerning a door bolt which had a knob<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, 'a fastening contrivance' (Jast.). ');"><sup>42</sup></span> at one end<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar forbids its use on the Sabbath because it cannot be regarded as a 'vessel' and is consequently forbidden to be moved from its place; while R. Jose maintains that the knob at its end, whereby the bolt may occasionally be used as a pestle for crushing foodstuffs, imports to it the character of a vessel and it may. therefore. be used and moved on the Sabbath. V. 'Er. 101b. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> that they tore a Scroll of the Law in their excitement. 'They tore?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The active form, [H], implies intentionally. ');"><sup>44</sup></span>
יז עול לגביה ר' יעקב בר אידי א"ל (יהושע יא, טו) כאשר צוה ה' את משה עבדו כן צוה משה את יהושע וכן עשה יהושע לא הסיר דבר מכל אשר צוה ה' את משה וכי על כל דבר שאמר יהושע היה אומר להם כך אמר לי משה אלא יהושע יושב ודורש סתם והכל יודעין שתורתו של משה היא אף ר' אלעזר תלמידך יושב ודורש סתם והכל יודעין כי שלך היא
17 Could this be imagined! Say rather 'That a Scroll of the Law was torn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Niph'al. accidentally. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> in their excitement'. R. Jose b. Kisma who was then present exclaimed, 'I shall be surprised if this Synagogue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which permitted strife among its scholars. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> is not turned into a house of idolatry', and so it happened. [On hearing this] he was annoyed all the more. 'Comradeship too' he exclaimed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They compared his resentment against his disciple R. Eleazar to a dispute between colleagues, as if he and his disciple were school companions. 'The fellows (my pupils) too, are quoted against me?' (Jast.) ');"><sup>47</sup></span>
יח אמר להם מפני מה אי אתם יודעין לפייס כבן אידי חברינו ורבי יוחנן מ"ט קפיד כולי האי דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (תהלים סא, ה) אגורה באהלך עולמים וכי אפשר לו לאדם לגור בשני עולמים אלא אמר דוד לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבונו של עולם יהי רצון
18 Thereupon R. Jacob b. Idi came in and said to him: <i>'As the Lord commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. XI, 15. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> did Joshua, then, concerning every word which he said, tell them, "Thus did Moses tell me"? But, the fact is that Joshua was sitting and delivering his discourse without mentioning names, and all knew that it was the Torah of Moses. So did your disciple R. Eleazar sit and deliver his discourse without mentioning names and all knew that it was yours'. 'Why', he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> chided them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ammi and R. Assi. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> are you not capable of conciliating like the son of Idi our friend?' Why was R. Johanan so annoyed? — [For the following reason]. For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: What is the meaning of the Scriptural text, I will dwell in Thy tent for ever?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LXI, 5; [H] lit., 'worlds'. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> Is it possible for a man to dwell in two worlds! But [in fact it is this that] David said to the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Lord of the Universe, May it be Thy will
Previous ChapterNext Chapter