Yevamot 87

Chapter 87

א היתה אחת כשרה ואחת פסולה אם היה חולץ חולץ לפסולה ואם היה מייבם מייבם לכשרה:

1 IF ONE OF THESE, HOWEVER, WAS ELIGIBLE1 AND THE OTHER INELIGIBLE,1

ב <big>גמ׳</big> ארבעה אחין ס"ד אלא אימא ארבעה מאחין:

2 THEN IF HE2 SUBMITS TO HALIZAH IT MUST BE FROM HER WHO IS INELIGIBLE,3

ג הרשות בידו: ושבקי ליה והתניא (דברים כה, ח) וקראו לו זקני עירו הן ולא שלוחן ודברו אליו מלמד שמשיאין לו עצה הוגנת לו

3 AND IF HE CONTRACTS LEVIRATE MARRIAGE IT MAY BE EVEN WITH HER WHO IS ELIGIBLE. GEMARA. FOUR BROTHERS? Is this conceivable!4

ד שאם היה הוא ילד והיא זקנה הוא זקן והיא ילדה אומרין לו מה לך אצל ילדה מה לך אצל זקנה כלך אצל שכמותך ואל תשים קטטה בביתך

4 — Read, FOUR of the BROTHERS. MAY. And is he allowed?5

ה לא צריכא דאפשר ליה א"ה אפילו טובא נמי עצה טובה קמ"ל ד' אין טפי לא כי היכי דנמטייה עונה בחדש:

5 Surely it was taught: Then the elder's of his city shall call him,6 'they' but not their representative; 'and speak unto him'6

ו מי שהיה נשוי וכו': ונייבם לתרוייהו א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן אמר קרא (דברים כה, ט) אשר לא יבנה את בית אחיו בית אחד הוא בונה ואין בונה שני בתים

6 teaches that he is given suitable advice. If he,2 for instance, was young and she7

ז ונחלוץ לתרוייהו אמר מר זוטרא בר טוביה אמר קרא (דברים כה, י) בית חלוץ הנעל בית אחד הוא חולץ ואין חולץ שני בתים

7 old, or if he was old and she was young, he is told, 'What would you with8 a young woman'? or 'What would you with an old woman'? 'Go to one who is [of the same age] as yourself and create no strife in your house'!9

ח ונייבם לחדא ונחלוץ לחדא אמר קרא (דברים כה, ז) אם לא יחפוץ הא חפץ ייבם כל העולה ליבום עולה לחליצה כל שאין עולה לייבום אין עולה לחליצה

8 — This is applicable to that case only where he can afford it.10 If so, even more wives also!11

ט ועוד שלא יאמרו בית מקצתו בנוי ומקצתו חלוץ ויאמרו אי דמייבם והדר חליץ הכי נמי אלא [דלמא] חליץ והדר מייבם וקם ליה בלא יבנה

9 — Sound advice was given: Only four but no more, so that each may receive one marital visit a month.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once a week, on Friday evenings, is the time when scholars in moderate health should pay their marital visits (Keth 62b). More than four wives would reduce each one's visits to less than one per month. ');">12 WHERE A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED etc. Let him contract levirate marriage with both! — R. Hiyya b. Abba replied in the name of R. Johanan: Scripture stated, That doth not build up his brother's house,13

י ואימא כי איכא חדא תתקיים מצות יבום כי איכא תרתי לא תתקיים מצות יבום

10 he builds one house14 but does not build two houses. Then let him submit to halizah from both of them! — Mar Zutra b. Tobia replied: Scripture stated, The house of him who had his shoe drawn off,15

יא א"כ צרת ערוה דאסר רחמנא למה לי השתא ב' בעלמא אמרת לאו בני חליצה ויבום נינהו צרת ערוה מיבעיא

11 he submits to the drawing off of the shoe in respect of one house but must not submit to the drawing off of the shoe in respect of two houses. Then let him submit to halizah16 from one and contract levirate marriage with the other! — Scripture stated, That doth not build,17

יב אלמה לא אצטריך סד"א ערוה אבראי קיימא ותתייבם צרתה קמ"ל דאסירא

12 as he has not built18 he must never again build. Then let him contract levirate marriage with one and submit to halizah from the other! — Scripture states, If he like not,19

יג אלא יבמתו יבמתו ריבה:

13 if, however, he liked, he may contract levirate marriage; whosoever may go up20 to contract levirate marriage, may also go up to perform halizah and whosoever may not go up17

יד היתה אחת כשרה: אמר רב יוסף כאן שנה רבי לא ישפוך אדם מי בורו ואחרים צריכים להם:

14 to contract levirate marriage21 may not go up to perform halizah. Furthermore, in order that it be not said that the same house22

טו <big>מתני׳</big> המחזיר גרושתו והנושא חלוצתו והנושא קרובת חלוצתו יוציא והולד ממזר דברי ר"ע

15 is partially 'built' and partially 'drawn off'. But let them say! — If he had first contracted levirate marriage and then submitted to halizah this would have been so indeed;23 it is possible, however, that he may submit to halizah and subsequently contract levirate marriage and thus place himself under the prohibition of that doth not build.24

טז וחכ"א אין הולד ממזר ומודים בנושא קרובת גרושתו שהולד ממזר:

16 Might it be suggested that where there is only one,25 the law of the levirate marriage shall be observed, but that where there are two, the law of levirate marriage shall not be observed! — If so, what need was there for the All Merciful to prohibit marriage with the rival of a forbidden relative? If any two rivals, it has been said, are not both subject to halizah and the levirate marriage, was there any need [to mention the exemption of] a rival of a forbidden relative! Why not? It is certainly needed! For it might have been assumed that the forbidden relative stands excluded, and her rival may, therefore, be taken in levirate marriage, hence it was taught that she also was forbidden! — But in fact [this is the proper explanation:] The repetition of his brother's wife26

יז <big>גמ׳</big> וסבר ר' עקיבא הנושא קרובת חלוצתו הולד ממזר והאמר ריש לקיש כאן שנה רבי אחות גרושה מדברי תורה אחות חלוצה מדברי סופרים תני קרובת גרושתו

17 widened the scope.27 IF ONE OF THEM, HOWEVER, WAS ELIGIBLE. Said R. Joseph: Here28

יח הכי נמי מסתברא דקתני סיפא ומודים בנושא קרובת גרושתו שהולד ממזר אי אמרת בשלמא איירי בה היינו דקתני ומודים אלא אי אמרת לא איירי בה מאי ומודים

18 it was taught by Rabbi29 that a man should not pour the water out of his cistern while others may require it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the levir himself would lose nothing by disqualifying the widow from marriage with a priest, he must not be the cause of her disqualification out of consideration for a priest who might wish to marry her. ');">30

יט ודלמא הא קא משמע לן דיש ממזר מחייבי כריתות הא קתני לה לקמן איזהו ממזר כל שאר בשר שהוא בלא יבא דברי ר"ע ר"ש התימני אומר כל שחייבין עליו כרת בידי שמים והלכה כדבריו

19 MISHNAH. A MAN WHO REMARRIED HIS DIVORCED WIFE,31 OR MARRIED HIS HALUZAH, OR MARRIED THE RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH MUST DIVORCE HER, AND THE CHILD32

כ ודלמא קסתים לן תנא כר"ש התימני א"כ ליתני שאר חייבי כריתות קרובת גרושתו למה לי אלא ש"מ איירי בה

20 IS A BASTARD; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. AKIBA. BUT THE SAGES SAID: THE CHILD IS NOT A BASTARD. THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE A MAN MARRIED THE RELATIVE OF HIS DIVORCEE THE CHILD32 IS A BASTARD.

כא [ודלמא] לעולם לא איירי בה ואיידי דתנא מחזיר גרושתו ונושא חלוצתו וקרובת חלוצתו תני נמי קרובת גרושתו

21 GEMARA. Does R. Akiba hold the view that the child of a man who MARRIED THE RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH is a bastard? Surely Resh Lakish stated: Here33 it was taught by Rabbi34

כב אלא קרובת חלוצתו לרבי עקיבא הוי ממזר אמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן היינו טעמא דר"ע דאמר קרא בית חלוץ הנעל הכתוב קראו ביתו

22 [that the prohibition to marry] the sister of a divorced wife is Pentateuchal and that that of the sister of a haluzah is Rabbinical!35 — Read,36

כג אמר רב יוסף אמר ר"ש ב"ר הכל מודים במחזיר גרושתו

23 THE RELATIVE OF HIS divorcee. This view may also logically be supported. For it was stated in the final clause, THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN A MAN MARRIED THE RELATIVE OF HIS DIVORCEE THE CHILD IS A BASTARD. Now, if you grant that her case37 was under discussion one can well see the reason why the expression of THEY AGREE had been used; if you contend, however, that her case37 was not under discussion what is the purport of THEY AGREE?38 Is it not possible that we were informed39 that the [offspring of a union] of those who are subject to the penalty of kareth is a bastard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Rabbis AGREE in this case because it involves kareth, though they maintain that the offspring of those who are subject to the penalty of flogging only is not a bastard, AGREE would consequently provide no proof that R. Akiba spoke of the relative of a divorcee! ');">40 — This surely is taught below: 'Who is a bastard? [The offspring of a union with] any consanguineous relative with whom cohabitation is forbidden; so R. Akiba. Simeon41 the Temanite said: [The offspring of any union] the penalty for which is kareth at the hands of heaven. And the halachah is in agreement with his view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 49a. The halachah must obviously be in agreement with the Rabbis who form the majority. Consequently there was no need for the Rabbis to state the same halachah in our Mishnah also. THEY AGREE must, therefore, imply that R. Akiba also spoke of the relative of a divorcee. ');">42 But is it not possible that the Tanna43 intended to indicate by his anonymous statement that the halachah is according to Simeon41 the Temanite?44 — If so, he should have stated, 'Others who are subject to the penalty of kareth', why then [specify] THE RELATIVE OF HIS DIVORCEE? Consequently it must he inferred that this case45 was under discussion. But is it not indeed possible to maintain that it45 was not under discussion, but because THE MAN WHO REMARRIED HIS DIVORCED WIFE OR MARRIED HIS HALUZAH OR THE RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH was spoken of,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And on which the Rabbis disagreed with R. Akiba. In the case of the RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH, however, R. Akiba, it might still be contended, regards the child as a bastard. ');">46 he also introduced THE RELATIVE OF his divorcee'?47 Would consequently [the offspring of a union with] the RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH, according to R. Akiba,48 be a bastard!49 — R. Hiyya b. Abba replied in the name of R. Johanan, This is R. Akiba's reason: Because Scripture stated, The house of him that had his shoe drawn off;50 Scripture thus called it his house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The relative of a haluzah, according to R. Akiba, is consequently, like that of a divorcee, forbidden Pentateuchally. The offspring of a union with such a relative is, therefore, a bastard. ');">51 R. Joseph stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Rabbi: All agree that, where a man remarried his divorced wife,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter