Daf Yomi - Yevamos 99 - Highlights

INTERMINGLED
The Gemora cites a braisa (a variation of the Mishna’s case): If some of them were brothers and some of them were not brothers, the ones who are brothers should submit to chalitzah, and the ones who are not brothers should perform yibum.

Rav Safra explains the braisa: If some of them (from the mother’s surviving sons, who were not involved in the confusion) were paternal brothers (to the ones that were intermingled and subsequently died) and some were maternal brothers (a paternal brother to one and a maternal brother to another), the maternal brothers should submit to chalitzah (thereby releasing the widows of their paternal brothers). (They may not perform yibum even after the widows had performed chalitzah with all the other brothers, since, should one of them happen to marry the widow of his maternal brother, he would thereby incur the penalty of kares.) And the paternal brothers may perform yibum with one or more of the widows after she submitted to chalitzah to all the brothers.

The braisa continues: If some of them were Kohanim (and therefore, they may not perform yibum with any widow receiving chalitzah) and some of them were not Kohanim, the Kohanim should submit to chalitzah, and the non-Kohanim may perform yibum.

The braisa continues: If some of them were Kohanim and some were maternal brothers, they should all submit to chalitzah, and they may not perform yibum. (98b)

LEGAL ODDITIES
The Rabbis taught in a braisa: A man must sometimes submit to chalitzah from his mother because of an uncertainty, from his sister because of an uncertainty and from his daughter because of an uncertainty. What is the case? If his mother and another woman had two male children, and then they gave birth to two male children in a hiding place (the children were interchanged and it was impossible for either mother to ascertain which was her own child) and the son of one mother married the mother of the other son, while the son of the other mother married the mother of the first, and they both died childless. Each son must submit to chalitzah from both women. It emerges that each submits to chalitzah from his mother because of an uncertainty.

What is the case where one will submit to chalitzah from his sister because of an uncertainty? If his mother and another woman gave birth to two female children in a hiding place (and they each had a son from a different marriage) and these son’s brothers from a different mother married these two girls and died childless. Each of the surviving brothers must submit to chalitzah from both widows. It emerges that a man submits to chalitzah from his sister because of an uncertainty.

What is the case where one will submit to chalitzah from his daughter because of an uncertainty? If his wife and another woman gave birth to two female children in a hiding place, and one of their husbands had two brothers. Each of the brothers married one of the girls and died childless. The father submits to chalitzah from both widows even though one of them is certainly his daughter. It emerges that a man submits to chalitzah from his daughter because of an uncertainty. (99a)

SAME PARENTS; FIVE NATIONS
The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Meir said: A husband and wife may sometimes produce five different nations. What is the case? If a Jew bought a slave and a slavewoman in the market (they did not yet undergo the process of becoming Canaanite slaves), and they had two sons from beforehand, and one of those sons converted. The result is that one is a convert and the other is an idolater. If subsequently, the master immersed them in a mikvah for the purpose of becoming slaves and then they cohabited with one another and bore a son, behold, we have a convert, an idolater and a slave. If the master subsequently freed the slavewoman and the slave cohabited with her and had another son, behold, we have a convert, an idolater, a slave and a mamzer. If the master then freed the slave and they (the freed slave and slavewoman) married each other and had another son, behold, we have a convert, an idolater, a slave, a mamzer and a Jew.

The Gemora asks: What does this teach us?

The Gemora answers: It teaches us that a child born from a union of an idolater or a slave with a Jewess is classified as a mamzer. (99a)

A SON SELLING A FATHER
The Gemora cites a braisa: There is a case where a man sells his father to enable his mother to collect her kesuvah. What is the case? If a Jew bought in the market a slave and a slavewoman, and they had a son from beforehand (who was not included in the sale, thus he remains an idolater). The master freed the slavewoman and then, he married her. He got up and bequeathed, in writing, his entire estate to her son. (The son now owns his father, the slave.) The husband dies and the wife demands payment for her kesuvah (which she can collect from any property the husband sold or gave away after the lien took effect).This results in the fact that the son sells his father (the slave) in order to enable his mother to collect her kesuvah.

The Gemora asks: What does this teach us?

The Gemora answers: The braisa represents the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that a slave is regarded as movable property, and such property is mortgaged for the payment of a kesuvah.

Alternatively, you can say that a slave is regarded as real property, and that is why a slave can be used for a collection of a kesuvah. (99a)

MISHNA
If a woman's child became intermingled with her daughter-in-law's child, and they grew up, married, and died childless, the halacha is as follows: The sons of the daughter-in-law must submit to chalitzah to the two widows and may not marry them by yibum, since we are uncertain which widow is his brother's wife (and would be permitted to take in yibum), and which widow is his father's brother's wife (and she would be forbidden); and the sons of the elder woman either submit to chalitzah or marry them by yibum, since it is uncertain which widow is his brother's wife or his brother's son's wife (and she is also permitted to them, provided that the sons of the daughter-in-law submit to chalitzah first).

If the legitimate (the sons whose identities are known) ones died, the halacha is as follows: The intermingled sons submit to chalitzah from the sons of the elder woman, and may not perform yibum since it is uncertain whether she is his brother's wife, or his father's brother's wife (and she would be forbidden). And with regards to the sons of the daughter-in-law, one submits to chalitzah (he may not take her in yibum first because perhaps she is awaiting yibum with the other son, and she is forbidden to the general population) and the other one marries by yibum (if he is the son of the daughter-in-law, he is rightfully performing yibum with her, and if he is the son of the elder woman, the widow is the wife of his brother’s son, who is permitted to him).

The Mishna continues: If the child of a Kohenes became intermingled with her slavewoman's child, they may both eat terumah (for even a slave of a Kohen is permitted to eat terumah), but they share one portion at the granary (this will be explained in the Gemora). They may not render themselves tamei through corpse tumah, and they may not marry women, whether eligible (to marry a Jew) or ineligible. If they grew up, and they freed one another, they must marry wives eligible for the Kehunah, and they may not render themselves tamei through corpse tumah, but if they did rendered themselves tamei, they do not incur lashes (for perhaps he is a freed slave, and not a Kohen). They are prohibited to eat terumah; and if they ate inadvertently, they do not repay the principal and the chomesh (the extra fifth to the Kohen as a penalty; this is because the burden of proof rests on the one attempting to exact payment from them, and he must bring a proof that the one who ate is not a Kohen). They do not share a portion at the granary (since they are forbidden to eat terumah), and they sell their own terumah (since they are not obligated to give it to a Kohen because the burden of proof will be on the Kohen), and the proceeds are theirs. They do not share in the consecrated foods of the Beis Hamikdosh, and we do not give them kodoshim items (such as bechor) and we may not take their kodoshim away from them. They are exempt from the requirement of giving the foreleg, the jaws, and the stomach to the Kohen (when a Jew slaughters a non-sacrificial animal, he is required to give these animal parts to the Kohen), and his firstborn shall graze until it becomes blemished (when it becomes disqualified for the altar, and may be eaten by its owner; the reason why an Israelite owner may not eat of the flesh of his firstborn, even after it has contracted a blemish, is not because of its sanctity but because its consumption by a non-Kohen is regarded as stealing from the Kohanim; no such consideration arises in a case where the owner can claim that he himself is a Kohen). All the stringencies of Kohanim and the stringencies of Israelites are applied to them. (99a – 99b)

GEMORA
The Mishna had stated: If the legitimate (the sons whose identities are known) ones died, the halacha is as follows etc. We can infer from here that the intermingled ones are illegitimate.

The Gemora asks: Are they regarded as illegitimate because they became intermingled?

Rav Papa answers: The Mishna should be emended to state that the definite ones died. (99b)

The Mishna had stated: If a woman's child became intermingled with her daughter-in-law's child, and they grew up, married, and died childless, the halacha is as follows: The sons of the daughter-in-law must submit to chalitzah to the two widows and may not marry them by yibum, since we are uncertain which widow is his brother's wife, and which widow is his father's brother's wife; and the sons of the elder woman either submit to chalitzah or marry them by yibum, since it is uncertain which widow is his brother's wife or his brother's son's wife.

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. (99b)

GIVING TERUMAH TO A SLAVE
The Mishna had stated: If the child of a Kohenes became intermingled with her slavewoman's child, they may both eat terumah, but they share one portion at the granary.

The Gemora asks: Isn’t it obviously that they only receive one share (since no more than one of them can lay claim to the Kehunah; why state the obvious)?

The Gemora answers: The Mishna should be understood to mean that they do not receive terumah from the granary unless they are both present together (only when the two come together do they receive one share; one without the other receives nothing). The Tanna of our Mishna follows the opinion who holds that we do not give a share of terumah to a slave unless his master is with him (and since one of the two is obviously a slave, neither of them can claim a share unless the other is with him). For it was taught in the following braisa: We do not give a share of terumah to a slave unless his master is with him (people might mistakenly think that he is a Kohen, and they will allow him to marry a Jewess); these were the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yosi, however, ruled: The slave may claim, “If I am a Kohen, give me for my own sake, and if I am a Kohen's slave, give me for the sake of my master.”

The Gemora explains this dispute: In the place of Rabbi Yehudah, people were raised to the status of the genealogically qualified, enabling them to marry women of unblemished and priestly descent on the evidence that they received a share of terumah at the granary (therefore, terumah must not be given to a slave in the absence of his master). In the place of Rabbi Yosi, however, no one was raised to the status of the genealogically qualified on the evidence of having received a share of terumah.

The Gemora cites a related braisa: Rabbi Elozar bar Tzadok said: I testified once in my life regarding the genealogical status of a person, and through that testimony, I elevated a slave to the genealogically qualified.

The Gemora asks: Do you think that he actually elevated a slave to the genealogically qualified? Hashem does not even allow the animal of a righteous person to transgress (referring to the animal of Rabbi Pinchas of Yair, who would not eat untithed produce); certainly Hashem would not bring a stumbling block to the righteous person himself!

The Gemora answers: Rather, Rabbi Elozar bar Tzadok wanted to elevate a slave to the genealogically qualified, but he realized at the end that he was in fact a slave. The Gemora explains the incident: Rabbi Elozar was in the city of Rabbi Yosi when he observed them giving terumah to a slave in the granary. He went and testified regarding his lineage in the city of Rabbi Yehudah. (He then realized that he could not testify regarding his genealogy, for even though, in Rabbi Yehudah’s locale, they would elevate one’s status on the evidence of having received a share of terumah, that was only because they didn’t give a slave terumah when he wasn’t in the presence of the master, whereas, in Rabbi Yosi’s locale, they did give terumah to a slave in absence of the master, but they didn’t testify regarding his genealogy based on that evidence.) (99b)

[END]