{"id":10777,"date":"2007-05-17T19:36:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-17T19:36:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_yevamot_1528\/"},"modified":"2015-10-26T08:24:55","modified_gmt":"2015-10-26T13:24:55","slug":"masechet_yevamot_1528","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_yevamot_1528\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Yevamot 15a-28b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

This month\u2019s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by, Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris, the Lewy Family Foundation, and Marilyn and Edward Kaplan<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yevamot 15a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

As we learned on yesterday’s daf<\/em><\/a>, Bet Hillel<\/a> believes that the mitzvah<\/a><\/em> of yibum<\/a><\/em> does not apply in a case where a man was married to two women – one of whom was forbidden to marry his brother – and he dies without children. \u00a0In such a case, neither the ervah<\/em> (the woman who was forbidden), nor her fellow wife (a tzarah<\/em> in the language of the Mishnah<\/a>), will become yevamot<\/em>.<\/p>\n

According to Bet Shammai<\/a>, however, the tzarah<\/em> is treated independently and is subject to the rules of yibum<\/em> and\/or chalitzah<\/a><\/em> as if she had been the only wife of the deceased. The Mishnah comments that, their disagreement notwithstanding, the families of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel continued to marry one another.<\/p>\n

One suggestion raised in the Gemara<\/a>‘s attempt to explain why the families were willing to marry one another is that, on a practical level, Bet Shammai accepted Bet Hillel’s rulings, even though they disagreed on a theoretical level. One example presented by the Gemara to prove that Bet Shammai insisted that their position was the correct one was the case of shoket Yehu<\/em> – Yehu’s trough, which was connected to a regulation-size mikvah<\/a><\/em> via a small opening, and people used it to immerse vessels that had become tamei<\/em> (ritually defiled).<\/p>\n

The Gemara relates that Bet Shammai arranged for the connection between the trough and the mikvah<\/em> to be widened, since their position is that to be considered a kosher mikvah<\/em> there must be a large opening between them; Bet Hillel believed that only a small opening – the size of a shfoferet ha-node<\/em> – was necessary.<\/p>\n

The node<\/em> of a shfoferet ha-node<\/a><\/em> is a bag or bottle made of an entire skin removed from an animal. These skins were used for a variety of purposes, but primarily to store small objects or food. When one was used to store liquids (water, wine or oil, for example) the skin would be removed without making any holes in it, and they would leave the skin of the legs attached, as well. When finished, one of the legs would have a tube – usually a reed – inserted into it, and the liquids would be poured in and out from that small tube.<\/p>\n

\n

Yevamot 16a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Gemara<\/a> records a tradition handed down from the prophet Haggai<\/a> that we accept converts from the city of Tadmor<\/a>, a position with which Rabbi Yochanan<\/a> disagrees.<\/p>\n

Two suggestions are given by the Gemara to explain why we would not accept such converts; it is either because of “Solomon<\/a>‘s slaves,” or because of “the daughters of Jerusalem<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

The Gemara explains that both of these positions are based on a ruling (which is not accepted as the halakha<\/a><\/em>) that a child born from a relationship between a non-Jewish man and a Jewish woman is a mamzer<\/a><\/em>, an individual who is considered Jewish but is limited in who he can marry. The case of Solomon’s slaves is described in I Melakhim<\/a> (9:18<\/a>), where we learn that King Solomon had non-Jewish slaves who built the city of Tadmor. Apparently these slaves were known to have taken Jewish women as wives, and there was reason to suspect that their descendants were still living in that city. The case of the daughters of Jerusalem is explained by Rabbah bar bar Channah<\/a>. Based on the passage in Eicha<\/a> (5:11<\/a>), he suggests that when the first Temple<\/a> was destroyed and the city of Jerusalem sacked, although most of the attackers looked to take the spoils of gold and silver, some turned to the daughters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

The city of Tadmor was an oasis in the Syrian Desert<\/a>. For many years it was a central business district and important crossroads between Syria, Arabia and Babylon<\/a> (see map<\/a>). The city was sometimes called Tarmod, but it is best known by the name Palmyra<\/a>, for the many palm trees that grew there.<\/p>\n

As noted in the Gemara, the Tanach<\/a><\/em> records that the city was built by King Solomon’s slaves (see also II Divrei HaYamim<\/a> 8:4<\/a>), which impacted on the religion and culture of the city.<\/p>\n

\n

Yevamot 17a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the women about whom the first Mishnah<\/a> (2a<\/a>) taught that there is no mitzvah<\/a><\/em> of yibum<\/a><\/em> is the case of eishet achiv she-lo hayah be-olamo<\/em> – when there is a brother who was not born until after the woman became a widow. In such a case, the severe prohibition of a person marrying his brother’s wife remains in effect, and the woman does not have to wait until the newborn child is old enough to perform yibum<\/em> or chalitzah<\/a><\/em>; she can get married immediately.<\/p>\n

This halakha<\/a><\/em> is mentioned as one of 15 cases in the first Mishnah in the masechet<\/a><\/em>; the first Mishnah of the second perek <\/em>– which begins on our daf <\/em>– deals with it in some detail. The Gemara<\/a> suggests that the source for this halakha<\/em> is the passage that opens the rules of yibum<\/em> (see Devarim<\/a> 25:5<\/a>), beginning with the condition “when brothers live together,” which implies that this is a law that applies only when the brothers were alive at the same time.<\/p>\n

Tosafot<\/a> ask whether the rule of derakhehah darkei no’am<\/em> (see Mishlei<\/a> 3:17<\/a>) should be applied in this case. Derakhehah darkei no’am<\/em> – the idea that the commandments of the Torah<\/a> are pleasant and considerate – is used in many circumstances in the Talmud<\/a> to clarify that a given interpretation cannot be considered because it would make fulfilling the Torah an unpleasant experience. In our case, it should be fairly obvious that forcing the widow to wait and see whether a brother will be born to her late husband would contradict the idea of derakhehah darkei no’am<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The answer suggested by Tosafot is that the pasuk <\/em>brought as a source by our Gemara includes even a case when the late husband’s mother was pregnant, a situation that would not have been covered by derakhehah darkei no’am.<\/em><\/p>\n

In truth, the Talmud Yerushalmi<\/a><\/em> does make use of the idea of derakhehah darkei no’am,<\/em> albeit without using that specific language, arguing that were the yevamah<\/em> (the widow) to be obligated to wait for the possibility of a new brother, surely the Torah would have mentioned the role played by her in-laws within these laws, since the possibility of their having more children impacts on the status of the yevamah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

Yevamot 18a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Throughout Masechet<\/a><\/em> Yevamot<\/a><\/em> we have been learning the rules of the commandment of yibum<\/a><\/em> – under what circumstances will a widow become a yevamah<\/em> who marries her late husband’s brother, when she is forbidden to him, etc.<\/p>\n

What is the relationship between the yavam<\/em> (the brother upon whom the commandment of yibum<\/em> falls) and the yevamah<\/em> (the widow) prior to their fulfilling the commandment of yibum<\/em> or, alternatively, their decision to perform chalitzah<\/a><\/em>, which will effectively end their familial connection? Could the brother choose to marry one of the yevamah<\/em>‘s immediate relatives (e.g. her mother or her sister), or would that be tantamount to marrying a forbidden woman to whom he is related through marriage?<\/p>\n

To deal with this question, the Gemara<\/a> introduces the concept of zikah<\/em> and teaches that there is an argument whether zikah<\/em> exists between the yavam<\/em> and the yevamah<\/em>. Rav Huna<\/a> quotes Rav<\/a> as permitting the yavam<\/em> to marry his yevamah<\/em>‘s mother, indicating that he does not believe that zikah<\/em> exists between them. Rav Yehuda<\/a> forbids such a marriage, which shows that, in his view, there is zikah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The word zikah<\/em> is a noun that expresses a theoretical relationship or connection, which – in its original meaning – indicates that one person is tied to another in some way (in modern Hebrew, for example, the word azikim<\/em> means handcuffs or restraints). The Sages used the term less for its literal meaning and more to express a legal or emotional tie between people.<\/p>\n

Our Gemara suggests that according to Rav Yehuda the zikah<\/em> is so strong that even if the woman dies, the potential yavam<\/em> will not be allowed to marry her relatives, since we view it as though there was a relationship between them that was similar to marriage. The Talmud Yerushalmi<\/a><\/em>, however, brings an opinion that even if you accept the concept of zikah<\/em>, in the event that the yevamah<\/em> dies, it becomes clear that the yibum<\/em> relationship is never completed and the zikah<\/em> is retroactively annulled. Thus the surviving yavam<\/em> would be permitted to marry the dead woman’s relatives.<\/p>\n

\n

Yevamot 19a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

On yesterday’s daf <\/em><\/a>we learned of the concept of zikah<\/em> – a connection between the potential yavam<\/em> and yevamah<\/em> that creates almost a relationship of marriage between them. The idea of zikah<\/em> is used by our Gemara<\/a> to explain the contrarian position of Rabbi Shimon<\/a> in our Mishnah<\/a> (18b).<\/p>\n

Thus far in Masechet<\/a><\/em> Yevamot<\/a><\/em> we have accepted that the case of eishet achiv she-lo hayah be-olamo<\/em> – when there is a brother who was not born until after the woman became a widow – is not included in the mitzvah<\/a><\/em> of yibum<\/a><\/em> (see daf 17<\/a><\/em>); thus, in such a situation, neither the widow nor her tzarah<\/em> (fellow wife) could become the yevamah<\/em> of such a brother. In our Mishnah (18b), however, we learn that Rabbi Shimon requires either yibum<\/em> or halitzah<\/a><\/em> in just such a case.<\/p>\n

The Gemara explains that, according to Rabbi Shimon, an example of eishet achiv she-lo hayah be-olamo<\/em> will be when a man with no brothers passes away with no children. Any brother born after his death will be considered an eishet achiv she-lo hayah be-olamo<\/em>. If, however, there was a living brother at the time that the first brother dies, and that brother performs yibum<\/em>, when a new brother is born we view the yevamah<\/em> as the full wife of the living brother, and so the prohibition of eishet achiv she-lo hayah be-olamo<\/em> would not apply should the present husband die with no children.<\/p>\n

Rav Oshiya<\/a> goes one step further in the Gemara, arguing that even if the yavam<\/em> had not yet taken the widow as his yevamah<\/em> at the time that the newborn brother arrived, nevertheless because of the rule of zikah<\/em> we consider them already married, so Rabbi Shimon would not consider this a case of eishet achiv she-lo hayah be-olamo<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Abayye<\/a> points to an obvious difficulty with applying zikah<\/em> in this fashion. What if there are two surviving brothers when the first brother dies? How can Rabbi Shimon consider the yevamah<\/em> “married” to both of them based on the rule of zikah<\/em>?<\/p>\n

In truth, although it is simpler to understand how zikah<\/em> works when there is only one yavam<\/em>, the rishonim<\/a><\/em> suggest that zikah<\/em> to more than one yavam<\/em> means that as long as the potential exists for yibum<\/em> to take place between people, we consider all of the prohibitions that stem from a marital relationship to be in place, even as it is clear that no true marriage exists.<\/p>\n

\n

Yevamot 20a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Up until this point, the Mishnayot<\/a><\/em> in Masechet<\/a><\/em> Yevamot<\/a><\/em> have been teaching about cases where a husband dies with no children, but the commandment of levirate marriage<\/a> cannot be performed because the dead man was married to a woman who was an ervah<\/em> – a close relative who is forbidden to marry – to the surviving brother. Thus such a woman cannot become a yevamah<\/em>, nor is there a need to free her to marry others through chalitzah<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

Our Mishnah teaches that there are other women whose status is such that they cannot marry the brother, and so, there is no possibility of yibum<\/em> (levirate marriage). Nevertheless, chalitzah<\/em> is still necessary so that she will be permitted to marry outside the family. The two categories of such women are issur mitzvah<\/em> and issur kedusha.<\/em> The Mishnah defines issur mitzvah<\/em> as women who are prohibited from marrying the potential yavam<\/em> because of a Rabbinic ordinance forbidding their union, and issur kedusha<\/em> as cases where they cannot get married because of a Biblical prohibition, but one that is less severe than an ervah<\/em>, like a kohen<\/a><\/em> who is married to a divorcee or anyone who marries a mamzer<\/a><\/em> – an illegitimate child born from a forbidden sexual relationship.<\/p>\n

Abayye<\/a> explains the terminology as follows:<\/p>\n