Daf Yomi - Yevamos 98 - Highlights

LEGALLY FATHERLESS
A braisa had stated: If there were twin brothers whose conception was not in sanctity, but their birth was in sanctity (their mother converted after conception, but before they were born), they do not perform chalitzah or yibum, but they would be liable to the punishment of kares if they would cohabit with their brother’s wife.

Rava seeks to explain why these brothers are regarded as maternal brothers (and are liable for the prohibition against cohabiting with a brother’s wife), but they are not regarded as paternal brothers (and that is why they are not subject for yibum and chalitzah). Rava said: The Rabbis said that an Egyptian, who converts has no father. This is so, even if we know with a certainty the father’s identity. This can be proven from the braisa cited above regarding twin brothers, where one drop of semen (from their father) divided into two, and the braisa rules that they are not subject to the laws of yibum and chalitzah. It seems evident from here that the Torah voided their paternity, as it is written [Yechezkel 23:20]: Their flesh (the Egyptians of old) is the flesh of donkeys and their issue is the issue of horses. (A Jewish child that converted is considered halachically fatherless.) (97b – 98a)

TWO BROTHERS BORN FROM A MOTHER WHO CONVERTED AFTERWARDS
The Gemora (97b) had cited a dispute between Rav Acha bar Yaakov and Rav Sheishes regarding whether brothers, who converted are permitted to marry each other’s wives or not. The Gemora attempts to bring a proof to Rav Acha bar Yaakov that such a marriage is permitted from the following braisa: Ben Yasyan related: When I traveled to the coastal towns, I came across a certain convert who had married the wife of his maternal brother. I said to him: My son, who permitted you to marry her? He replied: Behold, there is woman who converted and all her seven children married their brother’s wives. It was on this bench that Rabbi Akiva sat when he made the following two statements: A convert may marry the wife of his maternal brother, and he also stated: It is written [Yonah 3:1]: And the word of Hashem came unto Yonah the second time, saying. The phrase, “the second time” indicates that only a second time did the Shechinah speak to him; a third time, the Shechinah did not speak to him.

The braisa stated here that a convert may marry the wife of his maternal brother. Does this not refer to a case where his brother married her while he was a convert (and nevertheless such a marriage is permitted; this would support Rav Acha bar Yaakov’s opinion)?

The Gemora answers: No! The braisa is referring to a case where he married her while he was still an idolater (and the marriage was subsequently voided when he converted).

The Gemora asks: What was the necessity to state such an obvious law?

The Gemora answers: It might have been assumed that a preventive measure should be enacted in the case of a brother's betrothal while he is still an idolater lest erroneous conclusions be drawn in the case where he is married her while he was already a convert, therefore, the braisa taught us that no such measure was enacted. (98a)
BELIEVING THE CONVERT
The Gemora asks on the aforementioned braisa: How could Ben Yasyan accept the convert’s statement from Rabbi Akiva? Surely Rabbi Abba stated in the name of Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Wherever a scholar issues a halachic ruling (that was previously unknown) and such a point comes up for a practical decision, he is obeyed if he made the statement before the incident occurred, but if the statement was made only after the incident occurred, he is not obeyed.

The Gemora answers: If you wish I might say that the incident occurred after he made his statement.

Alternatively, I might say that it was because he brought proof from the woman and her seven children.

Alternatively, I might say that here it is different because he related another Rabbi Akiva’s other statement together with it (just as he was believed regarding that statement, he was believed regarding the other one as well). (98a)
HASHEM SPEAKING TO YONAH
Rabbi Akiva was cited in the braisa above as saying the following: It is written [Yonah 3:1]: And the word of Hashem came unto Yonah the second time, saying. The phrase, “the second time” indicates that only a second time did the Shechinah speak to him; a third time, the Shechinah did not speak to him.

The Gemora challenges this statement from a verse written elsewhere [Melachim II, 14:25]: He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamas until the sea of Aravah, according to the word of Hashem, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Yonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gas-cheifer. (It seems apparent that Hashem did in fact speak to Yonah a third time?)

Ravina answers: Rabbi Akiva’s statement was specifically referring to the city of Nineveh. Hasham said that He will not speak to him any further regarding Nineveh, but He will speak to him concerning other matters.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers: He actually only spoke to Yonah twice, and the following is the explanation of the verse in Melachim: According to the word of Hashem … which He spoke by the hand of his servant, the prophet. Just as His intention towards Nineveh was turned from evil to good, so was his intention towards Israel, in the days of Yerovam the son of Yoash, turned from evil to good. (98a)
TWO BROTHERS BORN FROM A MOTHER WHO CONVERTED AFTERWARDS
The Gemora attempts once again to bring a proof to Rav Acha bar Yaakov from the following braisa: A convert whose conception was not in sanctity, but his birth was in sanctity has maternal relatives, but he does not have paternal relatives. If he married his maternal sister, he must separate from her, but if he married his paternal sister, he may remain with her. If he married a maternal sister of his father, he must separate from her, but if he married a paternal sister of his father, he may remain with her. If he married a maternal sister of his mother, he must separate from her, but if he married a paternal sister of his mother, he may remain with her. Rabbi Meir says: He must separate from her (since there is a maternal element to this relationship). The Chachamim say: He may remain with her (it does not resemble a maternal sister). He is permitted to marry his (older) brother’s wife (who was born not in sanctity; the Rabbis did not issue their decree regarding his brother’s wife since she is not a blood-relative) and his father’s brother’s wife and all other arayos are permitted to him. If an idolater marries a mother and a daughter and he subsequently converts, he may marry one of them and he must separate from the other. He should not marry them initially. If his wife dies, he is permitted to marry his mother-in-law. There are those that learn this braisa that if his wife dies, he is prohibited from marrying his mother-in-law.

The braisa stated here that a convert may marry his brother’s wife. Does this not refer to a case where his brother married her while he was a convert (and nevertheless such a marriage is permitted; this would support Rav Acha bar Yaakov’s opinion)?

The Gemora answers: No! The braisa is referring to a case where he married her while he was still an idolater (and the marriage was subsequently voided when he converted).

The Gemora asks: What was the necessity to state such an obvious law?

The Gemora answers: It might have been assumed that a preventive measure should be enacted in the case of a brother's betrothal while he is still an idolater lest erroneous conclusions be drawn in the case where he is married her while he was already a convert, therefore, the braisa taught us that no such measure was enacted. (98a – 98b)
MOTHER-IN-LAW
The braisa had stated: If his wife dies, he is permitted to marry his mother-in-law. There are those that learn this braisa that if his wife dies, he is prohibited from marrying his mother-in-law.

The Gemora explains that these two versions of the braisa correspond to the opinions of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The version that says that he is prohibited to marry his mother-in-law is following the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who states that a mother-in-law, after the death of his wife is subject to the same prohibition as a mother-in-law while the wife was alive, and therefore, in respect to a convert, a preventive measure was enacted. The version that says that he is permitted to marry his mother-in-law is following the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who states that that a mother-in-law, after the death of his wife is subject to a weaker prohibition than a mother-in-law while the wife was alive, and in respect to a convert, the Rabbis did not decree that a preventive measure should be enacted. (98b)
MISHNA
The Mishna states: If there were five women whose children became intermingled (and it is not known which is the son of which mother, and each of them has another son who did not become intermingled), and grew up, married and died childless, the halacha is as follows: Four submit to chalitzah from one of the widows (since she is possibly his brother's wife), and the remaining one performs yibum (for she is permitted to him either way: if she is in reality his brother's wife, he is fulfilling the mitzvah of yibum, and if not, her yavam has submitted to chalitzah from her and she is permitted to marry anyone in the general population). Then, he (the one who had performed yibum), and three of the others submit to chalitzah from another one of the widows, and the remaining one performs yibum. Thus, there are four chalitzos and one yibum to each one of the widows. (98b)
GEMORA
The Gemora states: The chalitzah must be performed prior to the yibum because if one will perform yibum first, and he is not the actual yavam, he is violating the prohibition of a yevamah marrying someone from the general population without being released by the yavam with a yibum or chalitzah. (98b)

[END]