Yevamot 71

Chapter 71

א דכל העולה ליבום עולה לחליצה וכל שאין עולה ליבום אינו עולה לחליצה

1 that whosoever is subject to the obligation of levirate marriage is also subject to halizah, and whosoever is not subject to the obligation of the levirate marriage is not subject to halizah!1 Rather, said Raba, it is this that was meant:2 Where a levir married his yebamah who was found to be pregnant, her rival may not be married, because it is possible that the child would be viable, and marital contact with a pregnant woman is no proper marriage nor is the halizah of a pregnant woman proper halizah, while the child does not bring exemption until he is actually born.3

ב אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר הכונס יבמתו ונמצאת מעוברת הרי זו לא תנשא צרתה שמא יהא ולד בן קיימא וביאת מעוברת לא שמה ביאה וחליצת מעוברת לא שמה חליצה והולד אינו פוטר עד שיצא לאויר העולם

2 It was taught in agreement with the view of Raba: Where a levir married his yebamah who was found to be pregnant, her rival may not be married, because it is possible that the child would be viable, and neither marital contact nor halizah but only the child brings exemption; and the child brings exemption only after he is born. The reason, then,4 is because it is possible that the child might be viable, but where the child is not viable her rival is exempt;5

ג תניא כוותיה דרבא הכונס יבמתו ונמצאת מעוברת הרי זו לא תנשא צרתה שמא יהא ולד בן קיימא ואין ביאה וחליצה פוטרת אלא ולד פוטר והולד אין פוטרה עד שיצא לאויר העולם

3 does this imply an objection against Resh Lakish?6 — Resh Lakish can answer you [that the Baraitha] is thus to be interpreted:7 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 may not be viable, and the halizah of a pregnant woman is no valid halizah nor is the marital contact with a pregnant woman a proper marriage; and were you to suggest that one should be guided by the majority of women, and the majority of women bear healthy children, [it could be retorted that] a child brings no exemption until he is actually born.8

ד טעמא דשמא יהא ולד בן קיימא הוא הא לא הוי ולד בן קיימא מיפטר צרתה לימא תיהוי תיובתא דר"ל

4 Said R. Eleazar: Is it possible that there should exist [such a ruling as] that of Resh Lakish and that we should not have learnt it in a Mishnah? When he went out he carefully considered the matter and found one. For we learned: If people came to a woman whose husband and rival had gone to a country beyond the sea and told her, 'Your husband is dead',9 she may neither be married10 nor be taken in levirate marriage11

ה אמר לך ר"ל הכי קתני הכונס יבמתו ונמצאת מעוברת הרי זו לא תנשא צרתה שמא לא יהא הולד בן קיימא וחליצת מעוברת לא שמה חליצה וביאת מעוברת לא שמה ביאה

5 until she has ascertained whether her rival12 is pregnant.13 One can well understand why she may not be taken in levirate marriage, since it is possible that the child14

ו וא"ת הלך אחר רוב נשים ורוב נשים ולד מעליא ילדן ולד אין פוטר עד שיצא לאויר העולם

6 may be viable and [the levir] would thus15 infringe the Pentateuchal prohibition against [marrying] a brother's wife: but why should she not perform the halizah? It is possible to understand the reason why she must not perform the halizah within the nine months16 and also contract a marriage within nine months,16

ז א"ר אלעזר אפשר איתא להא דריש לקיש ולא תנן לה במתניתין נפק דק ואשכח דתנן האשה שהלך בעלה וצרתה למדינת הים ובאו ואמרו לה מת בעלך הרי זו לא תנשא ולא תתייבם עד שתדע שמא מעוברת היא צרתה

7 since such [procedure would naturally be forbidden on account of the] doubt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being uncertain whether the child would be viable or not. Should he be viable, neither the halizah nor the marriage would be valid, while exemption on his account would not come into force until his actual birth. ');">17 but let her perform the halizah within the nine months16 and be married after the nine months!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This should be permitted according to the view of R. Johanan at all events: If the rival had been pregnant and miscarried or had not been pregnant at all, the halizah was, surely, valid. ');">18

ח בשלמא יבומי לא שמא יהא ולד בן קיימא ויפגע באיסור אשת אח דאורייתא אלא לא תחלוץ אמאי בשלמא תחלוץ בתוך ט' ותנשא בתוך ט' לא היינו ספק

8 — But even in accordance with your view,19 let her perform the halizah and be married after the nine months!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When all doubt as to pregnancy would have been removed. Why, then, has it been stated that she may not marry until she had ascertained (even though many years have passed), whether her rival had been pregnant. ');">20 The fact, however, is that nothing may be inferred from this;21

ט אלא תחלוץ בתוך תשעה ותנשא לאחר תשעה

9 for both Abaye b. Abin22 and R. Hinena b. Abin22 stated:23

י ולטעמיך תחלוץ ותנשא לאחר ט'

10 It is possible that the child24 might be viable25 and you would then subject her to the necessity of an announcement26

יא אלא בר מינה דההיא דאביי בר אבא ורב חיננא בר אביי דאמרי תרוייהו שמא יהא ולד בן קיימא ונמצא אתה מצריכה כרוז לכהונה

11 in respect of the priesthood.27 — Well, let her be subjected!28 — It may happen that someone would be present at the halizah and not at the announcement,26

יב ולצרכה דלמא איכא איניש דהוי בחליצה ולא הוי בהכרזה ואתי למימר קשרי חלוצה לכהן

12 and would form the opinion that a haluzah was permitted to a priest. Said Abaye to him: Was it stated, 'She shall neither perform halizah nor be taken in levirate marriage'? The statement, surely, was, 'She shall neither be married nor be taken in levirate marriage'29 without halizah; if halizah, however, had been performed30

יג א"ל אביי מידי לא תחלוץ ולא תתייבם קתני לא תנשא ולא תתייבם קתני בלא חליצה אבל אי חליץ לה הכי נמי דשריא

13 she would indeed have been permitted!31 It was taught in agreement with Resh Lakish: Where a levir participated in the halizah with a pregnant woman who subsequently miscarried, she is required to perform halizah with the brothers. Raba said: The law is in accordance with the views of Resh Lakish in the following three rulings.32

יד תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש החולץ למעוברת והפילה צריכה חליצה מן האחין

14 One is the ruling just spoken of. Another is his ruling in connection with the following Mishnah:33 If a man34 distributed his property verbally35

טו אמר רבא הלכתא כוותיה דר"ל בהני תלת חדא הא דאמרן אידך דתנן המחלק נכסיו על פיו ריבה לאחד ומיעט לאחד והשוה להם את הבכור דבריו קיימין

15 and gave to one [son] more and to another less, or if he assigned to the firstborn a share equal to that of his brothers,36 his arrangements are valid.37 If, however, he said, 'As an inheritance',38

טז ואם אמר משום ירושה לא אמר כלום כתב בין בתחלה בין בסוף בין באמצע משום מתנה דבריו קיימין

16 his instructions are disregarded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he said nothing'. One has no right to give instructions which are contrary to the law of the Torah which entitled every son to a portion and the firstborn to a double portion in the father's estate. ');">39 If he wrote40 either at the beginning or the end or the middle, 'as a gift',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., used an expression denoting 'gift', even though it was accompanied by one denoting 'inheritance'. If he wrote, for instance, let a certain field (a) be presented to X that he may inherit it (beginning), or (b) inherited by X and be presented to him that he may inherit it (middle), or (c) be inherited by X and be presented to him (end). ');">41 his instructions are valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 126b. V. supra note 6. So long as the expression of 'gift' was used, the other expression of 'inheritance' that may have been coupled with it, does not in any way affect the validity of the testator's instructions. ');">42

Previous Chapter Next Chapter