Yevamot 70

מתני׳ <big><strong>החולץ</strong></big> ליבמתו ונמצאת מעוברת וילדה בזמן שהולד של קיימא הוא מותר בקרובותיה והיא מותרת בקרוביו ולא פסלה מן הכהונה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A LEVIR PARTICIPATED IN <i>HALIZAH</i> WITH HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose husband died without issue. ');">¹</span> WHO WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND TO BE PREGNANT, AND SHE GAVE BIRTH, HE IS, WHEREVER THE CHILD IS VIABLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the child died soon after. ');">²</span>

אין הולד של קיימא הוא אסור בקרובותיה והיא אסורה בקרוביו ופסלה מן הכהונה

PERMITTED TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a viable child was born the halizah is rendered void. ');">³</span> AND HE DOES NOT RENDER HER UNFIT FOR THE PRIESTHOOD;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She, unlike any other haluzah, may marry a priest. V. n. 3 supra. ');">⁴</span>

הכונס את יבמתו ונמצאת מעוברת וילדה בזמן שהולד של קיימא יוציא וחייבין בקרבן

BUT WHEREVER THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if it was of a premature birth. ');">⁵</span> THE LEVIR IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES, AND HE RENDERS HER UNFIT TO MARRY A PRIEST.

ואם אין ולד של קיימא יקיים

IF A LEVIR MARRIED HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose husband died without issue. ');">¹</span> WHO IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PREGNANT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to the levirate marriage. ');">⁶</span>

ספק בן תשעה לראשון ספק בן שבעה לאחרון יוציא והולד כשר וחייבין באשם תלוי:

AND SHE GAVE BIRTH, HE, WHEREVER THE CHILD IS VIABLE, MUST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the levirate marriage should not take place where the deceased brother has had any issue. ');">⁷</span> DIVORCE HER. AND BOTH ARE UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF BRINGING AN OFFERING;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering for their unwitting transgression in contracting a forbidden marriage (one's brother's wife) where the precept of the levirate marriage did not apply. V. supra n. 7. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר החולץ למעוברת והפילה רבי יוחנן אמר אינה צריכה חליצה מן האחין ר"ל אמר צריכה חליצה מן האחין

BUT IF THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE, HE MAY RETAIN HER. IF IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER IT IS A NINE-MONTHS CHILD OF THE FIRST [HUSBAND] OR A SEVEN-MONTHS CHILD OF THE SECOND [HUSBAND]. SHE MUST BE DIVORCED, AND THE CHILD IS LEGITIMATE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in either case he has been born from a lawful union: If he is a nine-months child he is the legitimate offspring of the deceased brother; and if he is a seven-months child of the surviving brother, the deceased had died without issue and the marriage between the widow and the surviving brother was accordingly lawful. ');">⁹</span> BUT THEY ARE UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF AN ASHAM TALUI.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offering prescribed for doubtful trespass. V. Lev. V, 17ff and cf. Ker. 17b. ');">¹⁰</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר א"צ חליצה מן האחין חליצת מעוברת שמה חליצה וביאת מעוברת שמה ביאה ור"ל אמר צריכה חליצה מן האחין חליצת מעוברת לא שמה חליצה וביאת מעוברת לא שמה ביאה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was stated: In the case of a levir who participated In <i>halizah</i> with a pregnant woman who subsequently miscarried, R. Johanan said, She need not perform the <i>halizah</i> with the brothers; and Resh Lakish said: She must perform <i>halizah</i> with the brothers. 'R. Johanan said, She need not perform <i>halizah</i> with the brothers', because the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who miscarried. ');">¹¹</span> is deemed to be proper <i>halizah</i> and marital contact with a pregnant woman is deemed to be proper marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The miscarriage proved that the previous halizah or marriage were lawful. ');">¹²</span>

במאי קמפלגי איבעית אימא קרא ואיבעית אימא סברא

'Resh Lakish said: She must perform <i>halizah</i> with the brothers', because the <i>halizah</i> with a pregnant woman is not deemed to be a proper <i>halizah</i>, nor is marital contact with a pregnant woman deemed to be a proper marriage. On what principle do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. ');">¹³</span> differ? — If you wish I might say: In the interpretation of a Scriptural text. And if you prefer I might say: On a logical point. 'If you wish I might say: In the interpretation of a Scriptural text';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. BaH a.l. Cur. edd. reverse the order. ');">¹⁴</span>

איבעית אימא סברא רבי יוחנן סבר אם יבא אליהו ויאמר דהא דאיעברא מפולי מפלה מי לאו בת חליצה ויבום היא השתא נמי תגלי מילתא למפרע

R. Johanan is of the opinion that the All Merciful said, And have no child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹⁵</span> and this man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deceased whose widow has now miscarried. ');">¹⁶</span>

ור"ל אמר תגלי מילתא למפרע לא אמרינן

surely has none; while Resh Lakish is of the opinion that And have no [en lo] child<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">¹⁷</span> implies. 'Hold an inquiry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'consider', 'investigate'. The 'Ayin ([H]) of [H] is interchanged with the Aleph ([H]) of [H]. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואיבעית אימא קרא רבי יוחנן סבר (דברים כה, ה) ובן אין לו אמר רחמנא והא לית ליה ור"ל סבר ובן אין לו עיין עליו

concerning him'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inquire whether the deceased has been survived by any kind of child. Even a miscarriage is deemed to be a child. Cf. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 474. nn. 6ff. ');">¹⁹</span> 'And If you prefer I might say: On a logical point'; R. Johanan argues: Had Elijah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prophet, who could predict the future. ');">²⁰</span>

איתיביה ר' יוחנן לר"ל אין הולד של קיימא הוא אסור בקרובותיה והיא אסורה בקרוביו ופסלה מן הכהונה בשלמא לדידי דאמינא חליצת מעוברת שמה חליצה משום הכי פסלה אלא לדידך דאמרת חליצת מעוברת לא שמה חליצה אמאי פסלה מן הכהונה

appeared and announced that the woman would miscarry. would she not have been subject to <i>halizah</i> or levirate marriage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course she would. ');">²¹</span> Now also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she has actually miscarried, though after the halizah or levirate marriage. ');">²²</span>

א"ל מדרבנן ולחומרא בעלמא

the fact is established retrospectively. And Resh Lakish maintains that a fact cannot be said to have been established retrospectively. R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: WHEREVER THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE THE LEVIR IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES, AND HE RENDERS HER UNFIT TO MARRY A PRIEST. This is quite correct according to my view: Since I maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is a proper <i>halizah</i> he, consequently, renders her unfit. According to you, however, who maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is not proper <i>halizah</i>, why does he render her unfit to marry a priest? — The other answered him: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition for the woman to marry a priest. ');">²³</span>

א"ד איתיביה ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן אין הולד של קיימא הוא אסור בקרובותיה והיא אסורה בקרוביו ופסלה מן הכהונה בשלמא לדידי דאמינא חליצת מעוברת לא שמה חליצה היינו דקתני פסלה מן הכהונה לחומרא ולא קתני אינה צריכה חליצה מן האחין

is only Rabbinical and it is a mere restriction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One not knowing the circumstances of this particular case would erroneously assume that any other haluzah may also be married to a priest. ');">²⁴</span> Others say: Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: WHEREVER THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE THE LEVIR IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES, AND HE RENDERS HER UNFIT TO MARRY A PRIEST. This is quite correct according to my view; since I maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is not a proper <i>halizah</i> it was justly stated as a restriction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2. Had not this been specifically stated it might have been assumed that, as the halizah is invalid, she is not rendered unfit at all. ');">²⁵</span>

אלא לדידך אינה צריכה חליצה מן האחין מיבעי ליה א"ל אין הכי נמי ואיידי דתנא רישא לא פסלה תנא סיפא פסלה

that HE RENDERS HER UNFIT TO MARRY A PRIEST but not that 'she requires no <i>halizah</i> from the brothers';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she does. ');">²⁶</span> according to you, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who regard the halizah as valid. ');">²⁷</span>

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לר"ל אין הולד של קיימא יקיים בשלמא לדידי דאמינא חליצת מעוברת שמה חליצה וביאת מעוברת שמה ביאה משום הכי קתני יקיים

it should have been stated that 'she requires no <i>halizah</i> from the brothers'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the prohibition to marry each other's relatives and his rendering her unfit for a priest would be inferred as self-evident. ');">²⁸</span> — The other replied: It should have been indeed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., yes, thus also'. ');">²⁹</span>

אלא לדידך דאמרת חליצת מעוברת לא שמה חליצה וביאת מעוברת לא שמה ביאה יחזור ויבעול ויקיים מיבעי ליה מאי יקיים יחזור ויבעול ויקיים דלא סגי

only because in the first clause it was stated, HE DOES NOT RENDER HER UNFIT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling concerning halizah not being applicable in this context, since a viable child was born. ');">³⁰</span> it was also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So in old editions. Cur. edd. omit 'also'. ');">³¹</span>

איכא דאמרי איתיביה ר"ל לרבי יוחנן אין הולד של קיימא יקיים בשלמא לדידי דאמינא חליצת מעוברת לא שמה חליצה וביאת מעוברת לא שמה ביאה היינו דקתני יקיים יחזור ויבעול ויקיים דלא סגי בלאו הכי

stated in the latter clause, HE RENDERS HER UNFIT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus, as in the first clause, omitting all reference to halizah. ');">³²</span> R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: IF THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE, HE MAY RETAIN HER. This is quite correct according to my view; since I maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is a proper <i>halizah</i> and marital contact<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levir. ');">³³</span>

אלא לדידך רצה יוציא רצה יקיים מיבעי ליה אה"נ איידי דתנא רישא יוציא תנא נמי סיפא יקיים

with a pregnant woman is a proper marriage. it was rightly stated HE MAY RETAIN HER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on MAY. No second contact is necessary after the miscarriage, (since the first was valid) and the levir may also, if he wishes, divorce her. ');">³⁴</span> According to you, however, who maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is not a valid <i>halizah</i> and the marital contact<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levir. ');">³⁵</span>

מיתיבי הכונס את יבמתו ונמצאת מעוברת הרי זו לא תנשא צרתה שמא יהא ולד בן קיימא אדרבה כי הוי הולד בן קיימא מיפטרה צרתה אלא אימא שמא לא יהא הולד בן קיימא

with a pregnant woman is not a valid marriage, it should have been stated, 'He must repeat contact and only then he may retain her'! — The meaning of HE MAY RETAIN HER is that he must repeat contact and then HE MAY RETAIN HER, but not otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not enough without such'. V. Emden, a.l. Cur. edd. omit the last two words. ');">³⁶</span> Others say: Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: IF THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE HE MAY RETAIN HER. This is quite correct according to my view; since I maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is not a valid <i>halizah</i> and marital contact with a pregnant woman is not a valid marriage, it was rightly stated HE MAY RETAIN HER, [meaning that] he must repeat contact and then HE MAY RETAIN HER, since otherwise this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The option of either retaining or divorcing her. ');">³⁷</span>

ואי ס"ד ביאת מעוברת שמה ביאה אמאי לא תנשא צרתה תיפטר בביאה של חבירתה

would not have been permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 3 supra. ');">³⁸</span> According to you,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who deem the marriage to be valid. ');">³⁹</span>

אמר אביי בביאה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא פטרה כי פליגי בחליצה

however, it should have been stated, 'If he wishes he may divorce her and if he prefers he may continue to live with her'! — It should have been indeed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes thus also'. ');">⁴⁰</span> only because in the earlier clause it was stated HE MUST DIVORCE HER, it was also stated in the latter clause HE MAY RETAIN HER.

רבי יוחנן סבר חליצת מעוברת שמה חליצה ביאת מעוברת לא שמה ביאה ר"ל סבר ביאת מעוברת לא שמה ביאה וחליצת מעוברת לא שמה חליצה

An objection was raised: 'Where a levir married his yebamah who was found to be pregnant, her rival may not be married, since it is possible that the child would be viable'. On the contrary! If the child were viable her rival would be exempt!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And free to marry. since her deceased husband is now survived by a living child, and neither she nor the other widow is subject to halizah or levirate marriage. ');">⁴¹</span> — But read: Since it is possible that the child would not be viable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that his mother as well as her rival would be subject to the levir, the former's previous marital contact, during her pregnancy. being invalid. ');">⁴²</span>

אמר ליה רבא מה נפשך אי ביאת מעוברת שמה ביאה חליצת מעוברת שמה חליצה ואי ביאת מעוברת לא שמה ביאה חליצת מעוברת נמי לא שמה חליצה דהא קי"ל

Now, if it could be imagined that marital contact with a pregnant woman is to be regarded as a valid marriage, why may not her rival be married? She should be exempted through the marital contact of her associate! — Abaye replied: Both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. ');">⁴³</span> agree that by marital contact she does not exempt [her rival]; they differ only on the question of <i>halizah</i>. R. Johanan is of the opinion that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is a valid <i>halizah</i>, though marital contact with a pregnant woman is not a valid marriage, while Resh Lakish is of the opinion that marital contact with a pregnant woman is no valid marriage, nor is <i>halizah</i> with a pregnant woman a valid <i>halizah</i>. Said Raba: Whatever is your opinion? If marital contact with a pregnant woman is a valid marriage. the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman should be a valid <i>halizah</i>; or if marital contact with a pregnant woman is no valid marriage, the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman also should be no proper <i>halizah</i>; for we have an established rule