Yevamot 100b — the Talmud in English

And if

there were

for him

a doubtful number of

brothers [

that is, doubtful brothers]

from

the first husband,

and brothers from

the last husband

who were not from the same mother,

and the doubt exists with regard to each of these: doubt whether he is a brother through the father, doubt whether he is a stranger.

If one of the brothers from the family of the first or from the family of the second died, then

he,

the doubtful one—either

performs halitza or performs yibbum,

for if she is not his yevama, then she is a stranger to him.

And

if the doubtful one died, then

they—

the sons of the two families—

one

from this family

performs halitza,

and afterward

one

from the second family

performs yibbum

if he wishes.

For in either event she is permitted to him, because either she is his yevama, or she is a stranger to him and has been permitted to the outside world through the halitza of the second family.

If one

of the husbands

was an Israelite and one

of the husbands

was a kohen,

and it is found that the child is doubtfully a kohen, doubtfully an Israelite [then his law is as we learned in the preceding Mishna concerning “when the intermingled ones grew up and emancipated one another,” where too one was a kohen and one was an Israelite, and each of them did not know what he was, and therefore]:

This doubtful one

marries only a woman fit for a kohen,

because perhaps he is a kohen.

And he may not become impure through the dead,

because perhaps he is a kohen.

And

however,

if he became impure, he does not receive the forty lashes,

for perhaps he is an Israelite.

He may not eat—

this doubtful one—

teruma,

for perhaps he is an Israelite.

And

however,

if he ate, he does not pay the principal and the fifth,

for the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

And he does not distribute

teruma

at the threshing floor,

lest he come to eat it.

And he sells

the doubtful one

the teruma

that he separated from his own produce,

and the money is his,

for the priests cannot take it from his possession without proof.

And he does not distribute the sacred things of the Temple,

namely, the hides given to the priests, for perhaps he is an Israelite.

And they do not give him the sacred things,

namely, priests’ dedicated property and firstborn animals.

And

however,

they do not take out

the firstborn animals and the dedicated property

that are his from his possession,

and with his firstborn animal he acts as will be explained later in the Mishna.

And the doubtful one is exempt

from

the foreleg, the cheeks, and the stomach,

for perhaps he is a kohen, and the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

And his firstborn animal shall graze until it becomes blemished,

so that he will be able to eat it even though he is perhaps an Israelite; he need not give it to a priest when it becomes blemished, for the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

And the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites are imposed upon him,

for his meal-offering is scooped in the manner of an Israelite’s meal-offering, but is not eaten in the manner of priests’ meal-offerings.

If both of them—

the first husband and the second—

were priests,

then the doubtful one is certainly a kohen:

He,

the doubtful one,

is an acute mourner for them,

for the first and second husbands on the day of each one’s death, and on that day he does not eat sacred offerings for he is an acute mourner by doubt.

And

also

they,

the first and second husbands,

are acute mourners for him,

by doubt.

He,

the doubtful one,

does not become impure for them,

for the first and second husbands, since he does not know which one is his father, so that he would be permitted to become impure for him.

And

also

they do not become impure for him,

for the same reason.

He,

the doubtful one,

does not inherit them,

the first and second husbands, because the heirs of each one of them repel the doubtful one and say to him: Perhaps you are the son of the second, and we alone are the heirs of the deceased.

Но они —

первый и второй муж —

наследуют ему,

если он умрет без сыновей; то есть, поскольку есть сомнение, кто из них является наследником, они делят наследство из-за сомнения.

And the doubtful one is exempt

from

[the penalty for] striking and cursing this one [

the first husband]

and this one [

the second husband], for it is not known which one is his father, so that he would be liable to death on account of “one who strikes his father” or “one who curses his father.”

Служение коэнов в Храме осуществлялось двадцатью четырьмя чередами коэнов; каждая череда служила дважды в год, каждый раз одну неделю, и время служения каждой череды было установлено.

The service of the priests in the Temple was performed by twenty-four divisions of priests. Each division served twice a year, each time for one week, and the time of each division was fixed.

Each division was divided into ancestral houses, and each ancestral house served one day of the week, on the day fixed for it.

In each division there were several families of priests, and the membership of the family’s sons in the division assigned to it passed from generation to generation.

It was the sons of the division who merited the sacred offerings divided among the priests.

And this doubtful one, who does not know to which division he belongs, whether to that of the first husband or to that of the second:

goes up

to perform the service

in the division of

this

husband

and this,

and the sons of the division do not prevent him.

And

however,

he does not distribute

sacred offerings with any division, for each division sends him to the other division to distribute the sacred offerings with it.

If

the first and second husbands

were in one division,

then this doubtful one

takes one portion

of the sacred offerings, because in either event one portion belongs to him.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “[If he had brothers from the first and brothers from the second who were not from the same mother, he either performs halitza or performs yibbum,] and one performs halitza and one performs yibbum”:

Specifically, first halitza and afterward yibbum,

one is not permitted to perform yibbum unless the other first performed halitza;

but yibbum first,

before the second performs halitza—

no, because

perhaps

he encounters a yevama permitted to the outside world.

The Gemara brings here Samuel’s statement in order to raise an objection against him from our Mishna.

Samuel said:

If there

were ten priests standing, and one of them separated and had intercourse with

a woman and she gave birth, and we do not know who his father is—

then

the child is a silent one,

and he proceeds to explain it.

And we explain:

What is “a silent one”?

If you say

that one might explain it

as one whom they silence with regard to his father’s property,

so that he inherits not even one of the ten, although one of them is certainly his father.

It is impossible to explain it this way, because

it is obvious

—

for

who do we know his father is,

do we know who his father is? Obviously, the sons of each of the ten repel him and say to him that he is not their father’s son and is not his heir.

Rather, they silence him with regard to the status of priesthood,

so that he may not perform the service.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that they silence him with regard to the status of priesthood?

Because

the verse says: “And it shall be for him and for his offspring after him

an everlasting covenant of priesthood,” and since Scripture said “after him,” we have learned:

we require his offspring to be of established lineage after him,

that is, it must be recognizable concerning his offspring that it is his,

and

in our case

there is none,

for it is not recognizable concerning the priest’s offspring that it is indeed his offspring and not the offspring of another priest.

Возразил на это Рав Папа:

Rav Pappa raises an objection:

But if that is so, with regard to Abraham,

who was not a priest,

as it is written: “To be a God for you and for your offspring after you”—

there,

where it says “after you,”

what does the Merciful One warn him

to Abraham [what disqualification will you derive from it]? For concerning an Israelite, surely we do not say that the son becomes disqualified if he is not of established lineage after his fit father!?

This is what He said to him: Do not marry a gentile woman or a slave woman, lest your offspring follow her,

do not take a gentile woman or a slave woman, so that the offspring you will have from her will not follow her, as is the law with an Israelite who has intercourse with a slave woman or a gentile woman, whose child is identified after her.

Мейтиви из барайты, приведенной выше, в главе «Ха-холец», относительно левирата, когда левиратный муж не подождал три месяца после смерти своего брата и женщина родила ребенка, который, возможно, является девятимесячным сыном первого и, возможно, семимесячным сыном последнего:

барайты, приведённой выше, в главе «Ха-холец», о левиратном муже, который не подождал после смерти брата три месяца, и женщина родила ребёнка, который, возможно, был зачат первым мужем девять месяцев назад или вторым мужем семь месяцев назад:

It was objected

from a beraita brought above in Perek Ha-Holitz, concerning a yavam who did not wait three months after his brother’s death and she gave birth, the child being doubtfully a nine-month child of the first and doubtfully a seven-month child of the last:

The

first one born to them, who is doubtfully the son of the deceased, who was a kohen, and doubtfully the son of the yavam, who was also a kohen, is

fit to become High Priest.

And

according to your words, raise an objection:

here we require his offspring to be of established lineage after him, and

here there is

none,

for it is not known who his father is.

And we answer: The disqualification from priesthood when there is no

offspring of established lineage after him

is only

rabbinic, and the verse

that we brought is only

a mere asmachta.

And

therefore there is no difficulty from the beraita in Perek Ha-Holitz, because

when the Sages decreed

that they silence him with regard to the status of priesthood, they did so only

in a case of sexual immorality,

but

with marriage the Sages did not decree.

И все же мы спрашиваем:

А в случае незаконной связи разве мудрецы постановили это?!

And we are still astonished:

But in a case of sexual immorality, did the Sages decree!?

And we learned

in our Mishna:

“One who did not wait three months after her husband”

and married and gave birth.

If you say

that it means literally that she did not wait

after the death of her husband—

it is impossible to explain it this way, for

say the latter clause: He,

the doubtful one,

is an acute mourner for them [

for the two husbands]

and they,

the two husbands,

are acute mourners for him.

And

granted, “he is an acute mourner for them” can be found

even

in a case of marriage [

and not sexual immorality], so that the doubtful one is an acute mourner for them:

Upon the death of the

second

husband

for example, the second husband died and the doubtful one is an acute mourner for him—

And

in

the gathering of the bones of the first [

when they gathered the bones of the first], that is, with regard to the first, who died long ago, it can likewise be found that the doubtful one is an acute mourner for him, for example, when they now gathered his bones, since there is a law of acute mourning even upon the gathering of bones.

Rather—

if you should say that the Mishna is discussing a case in which the first died before she married—

“they are acute mourners for him”,

that is, the first and second husbands—

how can this be found!?

For

the first has already died

to him [

the first already died long ago, and when will he mourn for him]!?

But rather,

perhaps you will say that the Mishna is not discussing a case in which the first husband died, but rather

a divorced woman

from her first husband,

and what is “

one who did not wait”

after her husband,”

which we learned in our Mishna—that she did not wait

after the bill of divorce

of

her husband.

And this too cannot be explained in this way, because

come and hear the latter clause

of our Mishna:

“He

the doubtful one

does not become impure for them, and they

the first and second husbands

do not become impure for him.”

And if you should say that the Mishna is dealing with a divorced woman, it is difficult:

“Granted, ‘they do not become impure for him”

the reason is well understood, for we proceed

stringently—

that they should not become impure for him—

for

behold,

each and every one

of the husbands

perhaps

the deceased

is not his son

[that is, he is not his son], and it is forbidden to become impure for him.

But “he does not become impure for them”—

why!?

Granted, to

the

second

husband who died,

this doubtful one should not become impure for him

because perhaps he was born from the first, and he is a fit kohen, and it is forbidden for him to become impure to the second one who died, since he is not his father.

But to the first one

who died—

he should become impure for him

this doubtful one

in either case

[if you should say that we are dealing with a divorced woman]:

For

if he is his son

[if he is the first one’s son], behold,

he is properly becoming impure for him

[he is permitted to become impure to his father, even though he is a kohen].

And if he is the son of the latter

[and if he is the second one’s son], likewise

he is properly becoming impure for him,

for behold, this son

is a chalal,

for the Mishna is dealing with one who was divorced from her first husband, and since she married a kohen, she and her offspring became chalalim, and a chalal is not warned concerning impurity!?

Rather, is it not

necessarily that our Mishna is not dealing with one who married the first one and was divorced, and that which was difficult for us—how can it be found that the first husband should be an onen over him—

necessarily, it is dealing

with promiscuous intercourse,

that she committed adultery with the first one, and he is still alive.

And what is “after her husband”

which we taught in our Mishna—

after “the one who had intercourse with her.”

And since it has been clarified that our Mishna is dealing with promiscuous intercourse, that she committed adultery with the first one, it is difficult:

And

behold,

it teaches in the latter clause: the doubtful one ascends

the doubtful one

in the watch of this one and of that one

to perform the Temple service.

And this is a refutation of Shmuel,

who said that in a case of promiscuous intercourse the Sages decreed that he be silenced from the status of priesthood.

For behold, our Mishna necessarily deals with promiscuous intercourse, as she committed adultery with the first one, as explained, and nevertheless they do not silence him from the status of priesthood; rather, he performs the service like the other kohanim!?

Said

he answered,

Rav Shemaya:

Our Mishna is not dealing with a case in which the first one died, for if so, you would not find “they are onenim over him,” since the first one has already died; nor is it dealing with a case in which she was divorced from the first one, for if so, you would not find “he does not become impure for them,” since he can become impure to the second one, as he is a chalal; nor is it dealing with a case in which she committed adultery with the first one, for if so, you would not find “he ascends in his watch”; rather, our Mishna is dealing

with one who exercises refusal

from the first husband, for she was a minor whom her brothers and mother married off, and she exercised refusal with the first husband before she came of age, and she married another; and according to this explanation, all the clauses of the Mishna can be found.

The Gemara raises an objection to this explanation:

one who exercises refusal—

who is a minor at the time she exercises refusal—

can she give birth

[is she capable of giving birth]!?

That is to say: Is it possible to be uncertain concerning the child whom she gave birth to, that perhaps he is from the first one, when she was with the first one only during her minority, and a minor does not become pregnant with a viable child; necessarily, if she gave birth, she gave birth from the second one!

And

behold,

Rav Bibi taught before Rav Nahman:

Three women engage in intercourse with a cloth,

it is permitted for them to engage in intercourse with a cloth [in that place, and thereby their conception is prevented], and they are not like those who destroy semen:

A minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman

And the reason that it is permitted for them to engage in intercourse with a cloth:

A minor

engages in intercourse with a cloth because

perhaps she will become pregnant and die,

[that is to say: if she becomes pregnant, she will certainly die].

A pregnant woman

engages in intercourse with a cloth because

perhaps

she will become pregnant a second time and

will make her fetus

the first

a sandal,

lest the second fetus press against the first one and the form of the first fetus be diminished.

A nursing woman

engages in intercourse with a cloth because

perhaps

she will become pregnant, her milk will spoil, and the milk will not be good for the infant, and

he

will be forced

to wean her son

from nursing him,

and he will die,

the nursing infant.

And which is the minor

who engages in intercourse with a cloth?

From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day,

for during this period there is concern lest she become pregnant and die.

But

less than this

than eleven years, when she cannot become pregnant at all,

or more than this

than twelve years, when even if she becomes pregnant she does not die, she

engages in intercourse in her usual manner

without a cloth

and goes on.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Both this one and that one engage in intercourse in their usual manner and go on, and Heaven will have mercy

so that no harm befall her,

as it is stated: “The Guardian of the simple is the Lord.”

And we answer:

You can find it

for our Mishna

in mistaken betrothals,

where she was betrothed to the first one on a condition and it was not fulfilled.

And in accordance with what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:

It is written in the passage concerning the sota:

“And she was not seized

[that they did not force her]”—then she is

forbidden

to her husband.

If she was seized

by force—she is

permitted

to her husband.

And for this reason the verse said, “And she was not seized,” in order to teach:

Only this one, if she was not seized, is forbidden,

and you have

a woman

another, who, even though she was not seized

but had intercourse willingly with another while under her husband—nevertheless

is permitted

to her husband.

And which one?

This is one whose betrothals were mistaken betrothals, for even if her son is mounted on her shoulder,

she is

one who exercises refusal

and goes on her way,

for she is merely like an unmarried woman, and therefore if she commits adultery while under her husband, she is permitted to him.