Yevamot 109b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Abbahu said: It is derived—

the teaching about this comes by a gzera shava—

“pursuit, pursuit,”

which teaches the greatness of the reward expected for one who engages in bringing peace, which is like the reward of one who performs acts of kindness: the principal remains for him in the World to Come, and the fruits are in this world.

It is written here

concerning bringing peace [Psalms 34]

“Seek peace and pursue it.”

And it is written there

concerning acts of kindness [Proverbs 21]

“One who pursues righteousness and kindness—

shall find life, righteousness

in the World to Come

and honor

in this world.”

With the annulment of vows—

in accordance with Rabbi Natan.

As it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Natan says: One who vows

a vow is a sinner—

as though he built a private altar

to sacrifice an offering upon it, at a time when private altars are forbidden.

And this is the meaning: just as one who builds a private altar indeed has a good intention, for he wishes to sacrifice an offering upon it, but his deeds are undesirable, because it is forbidden to sacrifice an offering outside the place of the Temple at a time when sacrificing upon a private altar is forbidden—so it is with one who makes a vow: he indeed intends for the good, but the vow is not desirable, because it brings him to sin, for at times he fails and does not fulfill it, and transgresses “He shall not profane his word.”

Therefore, one who engages in the annulment of vows, so that they will not remain in force, is praiseworthy.

And one who upholds it

the vow—that is, he does not concern himself with annulling it, but insists on maintaining it—

is as though he sacrificed upon it

on the private altar, at a time when private altars are forbidden

an offering.

And he should distance himself from three things.

From refusal—

perhaps she will grow up, and

then

regret it

the refusal.

From deposits—

in Bar Mata,

that he should not accept a deposit from a townsman, since it is accustomed to remain with him,

his house

the house of the recipient of the deposit

is considered his house,

for it appears to the depositor as though it were his own house.

That is, the depositor can easily take his deposit from the house of the deposit-holder without the deposit-holder noticing. Afterwards, the depositor will return and demand from him his deposit, or payment of its value.

From surety—

with the sureties of Shaletzion.

For Rabbi Isaac said: What

is the meaning of the verse

that is written

in the Book of Proverbs [chapter 11]

“Evil shall befall, for

he is surety for a stranger.

And one who hates those who give pledges will be secure”—does this prove it!? “

Evil shall befall”

—

evil after evil will come. “

For he is surety for a stranger”

— for those who accept converts,

since they mix converts, who are “strangers,” among the Jewish people, as will be explained.

And for the sureties of Shaletzion.

It is named after a place called “Shaletzion,” whose custom is that the lenders collect the debt from the surety and leave the borrower to himself.

Or it is an acronymic expression, “draw out, thrust,” meaning that the lender “draws out” himself from dealing with collection from the borrower, and “thrusts” himself—which is the meaning of “thrust”—to collect his debt directly from the surety.

And the language of the verse, “surety,” also refers to them.

And for one who thrusts himself into a matter of halakha,

who says: It is enough for me that I study Torah, but I will not fulfill it, and I will receive reward for my study. And as it is said at the end of the verse, “And one who hates those who give pledges will be secure.”

The Gemara explains the three things:

Those who accept converts—

in accordance with Rabbi Helbo.

For Rabbi Helbo said: Converts are difficult for Israel like a leprous affliction on the skin.

And in accordance with the wording of the verse in Isaiah [chapter 14]: “And the convert shall join himself to them, and they shall attach themselves to the house of Jacob.”

And converts are difficult for Israel because they are not expert in the fine details of the mitzvot, and they do not conduct themselves according to halakha, and Israelites learn from them to do likewise.

The sureties of Shaletzion—

who perform “draw out, thrust.”

As explained above.

One who thrusts himself into a matter of halakha—

As it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Yosei says: Whoever says

about himself

“He has no Torah,”

that is, “I do not engage in Torah,”—

he has no

reward for studying

Torah!

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious

that he has no reward for Torah that he did not study!

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what should be said:

Whoever says, “He has nothing but Torah,”

that it is sufficient for him to study Torah without fulfilling its mitzvot—

he has no

reward

except

for studying

Torah.

And we refute this:

This too—

is obvious,

for he fulfilled no other mitzvot besides Torah study!?

And the Gemara explains another explanation:

Rather,

this is what Rabbi Yosei teaches us,

even

reward for studying

Torah he does not have.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that he lost his reward for the Torah he studied?

Rav Pappa said: The verse says

[Deuteronomy 5]

“And you shall learn

and you shall perform.”

Everyone who is included in performance

of the mitzvot of the Torah—

is included in

the reward of

learning.

Everyone who is not included in performance—

is not included in

the reward of

learning.

And the Gemara returns to establish the earlier explanation:

And if you wish, say: Actually, as you said initially,

that

whoever says, “He has nothing but Torah,”—

he has nothing but

reward for

Torah.

And what we challenged, that this is an obvious matter, can be answered:

It is necessary where he teaches others,

for he teaches Torah to other people,

and

they

go and perform,

they go and fulfill the mitzvot according to his teaching.

Lest you say that he has reward for himself,

that he has reward for the fulfillment of mitzvot performed by others according to what he taught them, even though he himself fulfills mitzvot only by studying Torah and teaching it—

it teaches us

that the fulfillment of mitzvot by others whom he taught Torah does not grant him the reward of the mitzvot, since he himself does not fulfill mitzvot.

And the Gemara brings a third explanation:

And if you wish, say: “One who thrusts himself into a matter of halakha”—

it is speaking

of a judge, before whom a case comes,

of a judge before whom a legal case comes,

and he studies a halakha,

but he does not know the halakha in the case before him; rather, he knows what the halakha is in a similar case,

and he compares one matter with another,

and compares the case that came before him with the halakha in the other case.

And he has a master,

and he has a teacher in his place, whom he can ask about the halakha and know it thoroughly without comparing one matter with another,

but he does not go to ask.

He does not go to ask the teacher what the halakha is; rather, he “thrusts” himself to rely and depend upon himself, to decide the halakha alone by comparing one matter with another.

As we find:

for Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said

that Rabbi Yonatan said

that a judge should not trust himself, but should fear the decision of judgment:

A judge should always see himself as though a sword were placed between his thighs, and Gehenna were open beneath him,

as it is stated

[Song of Songs 3]

“Behold, it is Solomon’s bed; sixty mighty men surround it, of the mighty men of Israel—

because of fear at night.” “

«Lozhe Solomona» — eto ukazyvaet na Hram, gde nakhoditsya mesto Vsevyshnego, Kotoryi yavlyaetsya Tsarem, prinadlezhashchim miru. Ryadom s Hramom nakhoditsya Palata tesanogo kamnya, gde zas edala Sanhedrin.

And the “mighty men”—they are the judges, who require might in order to judge,

because of the fear of Gehenna, which resembles night,

for perhaps they will not judge correctly and will be punished for their error.

Rabban Gamaliel says: If she performed refusal,

she performed refusal; and if not, she should wait until she grows up, and this one will leave because of the prohibition of a wife’s sister.

Rabbi Elazar asked Rav: What is the reason of Rabban Gamaliel

who said that when his wife grows up, the yevama will then leave even without ḥalitza, by the law of the nakedness of a wife’s sister?

Is it

because he holds

that

the betrothal of a minor girl is “suspended,”

that they are pending, since the act of betrothal of a minor girl cannot take effect by Torah law while she is a minor, but

when she grows up

the minor girl—

her betrothals grow

her betrothals

with her,

together with her? That is, her betrothal did not take effect by Torah law except while she was a minor. But once she grew up, her betrothal that she received while she was a minor now takes effect by itself, and

although he did not have intercourse

with her husband after she grew up, and he did not now perform any act of betrothal, or an act of marital intimacy that could be considered betrothal, nevertheless she is betrothed to him by Torah law.

Therefore, her sister will leave without ḥalitza. For it is now clarified, when she grew up, retrospectively, that there was no bond at all between her sister and the yavam, since his betrothal of her sister was effective [which he performed before the sister fell for yibbum, although its validity is only at the time when she grew up].

And as in every case of a fall for yibbum involving the Torah prohibition of a wife’s sister, no bond at all is created between the yevama and the yavam, and therefore she does not require ḥalitza in order to become permitted to the outside world!

Or perhaps,

indeed the bond between the yevama and the yavam takes effect, because his betrothal of her sister did not take effect at all by Torah law while she was a minor. And if he does not have intercourse with her after she grows up, and does not acquire her after she grows up, the betrothal he performed with her during her minority will not take effect, and her sister, the yevama, will not leave because of the prohibition of a wife’s sister.

And what we learned in the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel, that after she grows up her sister, the yevama, leaves without ḥalitza, is because he had intercourse with her and acquired her after she grew up.

And her betrothal now has the power to remove the bond of her sister that had existed until now by Torah law,

because he holds

Rabban Gamaliel that a yavam who

betroths the sister of his yevama,

who fell before him for yibbum—

the yevama is exempted

by this, the

yevama, and goes away.

And Rabban Gamaliel disagrees with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira, who held above [folio 41a] that one who betroths the sister of his yevama does not remove the bond [at least rabbinically], and only marriage removes it.

And according to this possibility, only

if he had intercourse

with his wife after she grew up, thereby acquiring her as a wife by Torah law,

does

her sister then leave because of the prohibition of a wife’s sister without ḥalitza.

But

if he did not have intercourse

with his wife after she grew up—

she does not

leave because of the prohibition of a wife’s sister without ḥalitza, for she still requires him by Torah law.

He said to him,

Rav:

This is the reason of Rabban Gamaliel, because he holds

Rav that

one who betroths the sister of his yevama—

the yevama is exempted and goes away.

Therefore, only

if he had intercourse

with his wife after she grew up,

does

her sister leave without ḥalitza. But

if he did not have intercourse—

she does not

leave except through ḥalitza.

Rav Sheshet said: I thought,

I reasoned,

that when Rav was sleeping and lying down

while Rav was lying down drowsily,

he said this teaching,

Rav answered Rabbi Elazar in this way, in response to his question.

For behold,

it was taught in a beraita: One who betroths a minor girl—

her betrothals are suspended.

And Rav Sheshet proves:

What

is the meaning of the words of the beraita that “her betrothals are

suspended,”

is it not

that this is their meaning: they are pending until she grows up,

for

when

she grows up,

when the minor girl grows up,

her betrothals grow

her betrothals

with her,

together with her,

and

she becomes his wife by Torah law,

even though he did not have intercourse

with her, but the betrothal he performed with her during her minority now takes effect by Torah law?

Ravin, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Sheshet:

The beraita did not intend this when it said that “her betrothals are suspended”; rather, the opposite: according to the beraita, her betrothals do not become Torah betrothals when she grows up; rather, they are suspended on the condition that he have intercourse with her, and through his intercourse he will betroth her and take her as his wife by Torah law.

And this is what the beraita said:

This matter of a minor girl,

those betrothals that the Sages enacted for a minor girl, enabling her mother or brother to betroth her and marry her off—she does not rely upon them; rather, she thinks of performing refusal to him.

For her future marriage to him when she grows up is not certain, since as long as she is a minor her betrothals are

“suspended and standing,”

they are pending and standing in uncertainty as to what her husband will do with her when she grows up.

For only

if he has intercourse

with her husband when she grows up,

does

she then become his wife by Torah law.

But

if he does not have intercourse

with her husband after she grows up,

she will not

be his wife by Torah law.

And this matter—that her future marriage to him is uncertain, depending on what her husband will do with her when she grows up—causes her not to set her mind upon these betrothals now, but to think constantly of performing refusal to his betrothals.

Because

she says: His

the condition of my husband

is better than mine,

than my condition.

For when I grow up I will depend upon his will: if he has intercourse with me, I will be his wife by Torah law, and if he does not have intercourse with me, he can divorce me against my will. But I will not be able then to perform refusal, because refusal is effective only during minority.

But I,

my condition now, while I am a minor,

am better than he,

I am now better than he is, because I can perform refusal and leave without a bill of divorce.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

does

Rav hold

that only

if he has intercourse

with her husband when she grows up,

does

she then become his wife by Torah law, but

if he does not have intercourse

with her husband when she grows up,

she will not

be his wife by Torah law!?

But it was stated: A minor girl who did not perform refusal

with her husband while she was a minor,

and she grew up, arose, and married

another man, without receiving a bill of divorce from her first husband—

Rav said: She does not require a bill of divorce from the second,

for her marriage to him is nothing, since she is the wife of the first.

And Shmuel said: She requires a bill of divorce from the second,

since her marriage to the first is only rabbinic.

And it proves that according to Rav she is considered married to the first by Torah law once she grows up.