Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav Assi: If at the present time an idolater betroths a Jewish girl, we suspect that the kiddushin (betrothal) since it may be that he is from the Ten Tribes (Sancheriv exiled them prior to the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdosh. Rav Assi maintains that a child born from a Jewish man and a gentile woman is a Jewish mamzer.).
The Gemora asks: Why don’t we apply the rule that anything that separates is assumed to have been separated from the majority; and the majority of idolaters are not descendants from the Ten Tribes?
The Gemora answers: Rav Assi's statement is referring to places where the Ten Tribes have settled, and any doubt which is related to something “in its place” is regarded as having a probability of fifty-fifty. In the place where the Ten Tribes settled, we don’t apply the principle of majority. (16b)
The Gemora identifies the regions where the Ten Tribes settled. (16b – 17a)
Rav Yehudah said: When I said the statement before Shmuel (if at the present time an idolater betroths a Jewish girl, we suspect that the kiddushin (betrothal) since it may be that he is from the Ten Tribes), he told me: Your son who comes from a Jewish woman is called your son (he is considered Jewish), however, your son who comes from an idolatrous woman is not called your son, but rather he is called her son. (Accordingly, he is disagreeing with Rav Assi. He maintains that there is no reason to be concerned for an idolater’s betrothal being valid since the children born from a marriage between a Jewish man and a gentile woman are gentiles.)
The Gemora asks: Weren’t there Jewish women in the Ten Tribes, as well? If a gentile man married the Jewish woman, their children would be Jewish; there should be a concern for an idolater’s betrothal to a Jewish woman since his mother might have been Jewish, in which case he would be a Jew and his kiddushin would be valid.
The Gemora answers: There is a tradition that the Jewish women of that generation could not bear children (their wombs were torn due to the anguish of the journey into exile). (17a)
WE SHALL RETURN TO YOU,
CHAMESH ESREI NASHIM
The Mishna asks: What is the case of the wife of his brother who was not in his world (this brother and the yavam were not alive at the same time)? There are two brothers, Reuven and Shimon; Reuven dies childless and then a third brother, Levi is born to them. The second brother, Shimon performs a yibum with Reuven’s wife, Sora, and then, he too, dies childless. Shimon had another wife, Chana, as well. They both (Sora and Chana) fall to yibum to Levi. Sora is exempt from yibum and chalitzah because she is the wife of Levi’s brother (Reuven) who was not in his world (Reuven and Levi were not alive together). Chana is also exempt from yibum and chalitzah because she is the co-wife of an ervah.
If Shimon had performed a ma’amar (Biblically, the yavam cohabits with the yevamah, thus acquiring her. The Rabbis established ma’amar, the betrothal of a yevamah as a prelude to yibum.) with Sora instead of yibum and then he dies childless, Chana would require chalitzah, but not yibum. (17a)
Rav Nachman states: There are two versions in the Mishna. One refers to Sora as “the first one,” and one refers to her as “the second one.” Both versions are not mistaken, for she can understandable be called the “first” or the “second.” She can be called the “first” because she was the first to fall for yibum. She can be called the “second” because she was the second one married to Shimon.
The Gemora asks: Wouldn’t the halacha be the same if Shimon first performed a yibum with Sora and then married Chana (and then Sora was married first, not second)?
The Gemora answers: Rather, the “second” is referring to the fact that it is her second time falling for yibum (once on account of being Reuven’s wife and once because of Shimon). (17a – 17b)
The Gemora inquires as to the source for the exemption of the wife of a brother who was not in this world. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: It is written [Devarim 25:5]: When brothers dwell together. We derive from here that in order to be permitted to perform yibum, the brothers must be alive together.
The word together in the verse teaches us that yibum is only applicable to paternal brothers, who are together in regards to inheritance, not maternal brothers.
Rabbah derives this halacha from a gezeira shavah (one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics – it links two similar words from dissimilar verses in the Torah). (17b)
The Gemora asks: Why don’t we apply the rule that anything that separates is assumed to have been separated from the majority; and the majority of idolaters are not descendants from the Ten Tribes?
The Gemora answers: Rav Assi's statement is referring to places where the Ten Tribes have settled, and any doubt which is related to something “in its place” is regarded as having a probability of fifty-fifty. In the place where the Ten Tribes settled, we don’t apply the principle of majority. (16b)
The Gemora identifies the regions where the Ten Tribes settled. (16b – 17a)
Rav Yehudah said: When I said the statement before Shmuel (if at the present time an idolater betroths a Jewish girl, we suspect that the kiddushin (betrothal) since it may be that he is from the Ten Tribes), he told me: Your son who comes from a Jewish woman is called your son (he is considered Jewish), however, your son who comes from an idolatrous woman is not called your son, but rather he is called her son. (Accordingly, he is disagreeing with Rav Assi. He maintains that there is no reason to be concerned for an idolater’s betrothal being valid since the children born from a marriage between a Jewish man and a gentile woman are gentiles.)
The Gemora asks: Weren’t there Jewish women in the Ten Tribes, as well? If a gentile man married the Jewish woman, their children would be Jewish; there should be a concern for an idolater’s betrothal to a Jewish woman since his mother might have been Jewish, in which case he would be a Jew and his kiddushin would be valid.
The Gemora answers: There is a tradition that the Jewish women of that generation could not bear children (their wombs were torn due to the anguish of the journey into exile). (17a)
WE SHALL RETURN TO YOU,
CHAMESH ESREI NASHIM
The Mishna asks: What is the case of the wife of his brother who was not in his world (this brother and the yavam were not alive at the same time)? There are two brothers, Reuven and Shimon; Reuven dies childless and then a third brother, Levi is born to them. The second brother, Shimon performs a yibum with Reuven’s wife, Sora, and then, he too, dies childless. Shimon had another wife, Chana, as well. They both (Sora and Chana) fall to yibum to Levi. Sora is exempt from yibum and chalitzah because she is the wife of Levi’s brother (Reuven) who was not in his world (Reuven and Levi were not alive together). Chana is also exempt from yibum and chalitzah because she is the co-wife of an ervah.
If Shimon had performed a ma’amar (Biblically, the yavam cohabits with the yevamah, thus acquiring her. The Rabbis established ma’amar, the betrothal of a yevamah as a prelude to yibum.) with Sora instead of yibum and then he dies childless, Chana would require chalitzah, but not yibum. (17a)
Rav Nachman states: There are two versions in the Mishna. One refers to Sora as “the first one,” and one refers to her as “the second one.” Both versions are not mistaken, for she can understandable be called the “first” or the “second.” She can be called the “first” because she was the first to fall for yibum. She can be called the “second” because she was the second one married to Shimon.
The Gemora asks: Wouldn’t the halacha be the same if Shimon first performed a yibum with Sora and then married Chana (and then Sora was married first, not second)?
The Gemora answers: Rather, the “second” is referring to the fact that it is her second time falling for yibum (once on account of being Reuven’s wife and once because of Shimon). (17a – 17b)
The Gemora inquires as to the source for the exemption of the wife of a brother who was not in this world. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: It is written [Devarim 25:5]: When brothers dwell together. We derive from here that in order to be permitted to perform yibum, the brothers must be alive together.
The word together in the verse teaches us that yibum is only applicable to paternal brothers, who are together in regards to inheritance, not maternal brothers.
Rabbah derives this halacha from a gezeira shavah (one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics – it links two similar words from dissimilar verses in the Torah). (17b)
0 comments:
Post a Comment