Yevamot 17a — the Talmud in English

And Habor ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

this is Hadayev.

The Gozan River —

this is Ginzak.

And the cities of Media —

this is Hamadan, and its neighboring cities.

And some say: This is Nihar, and its neighboring cities.

“Its neighboring cities” —

which ones?

Who are they?

Shmuel said: A city

named

“Mushkhei,”

and a city named

“Hidkei,” and

a city named

“Dumekia.”

[And see the version in Kiddushin 72a]

Rabbi Yohanan said: And all of them are disqualified.

For most of the people in these places are mamzerim. Since the daughters of the Ten Tribes became intermingled among the nations, and their sons are Israelite mamzerim.

Because since their sons did not conduct themselves as Israelites, they would marry their relatives who were forbidden to them by karet, and they would father mamzerim from them.

And Rav Yehuda added:

When I said it before Shmuel,

when I told Shmuel the statement of Rav Asi, that an idolater who betrothed an Israelite woman nowadays, there is concern regarding his betrothal, for perhaps he is from the Ten Tribes — Shmuel assumed that the concern was for mamzerut, since the sons of the Ten Tribes fathered sons from gentile women, and because of this they are mamzerim.

And therefore

he said to me:

They are not mamzerim! Since these sons are not Israelites, but gentiles, and gentiles are not mamzerim.

For the verse that prohibits marriage with gentiles says: “For he will turn away [the gentile who takes your daughter] your son.”

And from here we learn that only

your son born from an Israelite woman is called ‘your son,’ but your son born from an idolatrous woman is not called your son, but her son!

Should you say:

But there are daughters,

who were taken captive by the gentiles, and their sons are Israelite mamzerim, for:

And Ravina said, learn from this

from the verse:

“The son of your daughter who comes from an idolater is called ‘your son’”!?

[See below, 23a, for its explanation]

Your answer is:

It is received by tradition,

we know through the tradition of the received teaching,

that the daughters

of

that generation

of that generation of the Ten Tribes

were ruptured,

their wombs were split, and the seed was not absorbed there.

There are those who say:

Rav Yehuda said:

When I said it before Shmuel, he said to me: They did not move from there until they made them complete idolaters.

As it is stated

[Hosea 5]:

“They acted treacherously against the Lord, for they fathered foreign children.”

Rav Yosef sat behind Rav Kahana, and Rav Kahana sat before Rav Yehuda, and he was sitting and saying: In the future Israel will make a festival when it is destroyed,

when

Tarmod

is destroyed. Since they are mamzerim and become assimilated among Israel, and disqualify them.

And we challenge this:

But

it already

was destroyed,

Tadmor!

And we answer:

That one —

it was Tamod,

and not Tadmor.

Rav Ashi said: Tarmod is the same as Tamod.

And this should not be difficult: It was already destroyed:

For

it is a doubling that was doubled,

for Tarmod was destroyed and then rebuilt.

It was destroyed on this side

on one side of the city,

he settled

and settled again

on this side,

on its other side.

And if it was destroyed on this side —

he settled on this side.

Rav Hamnuna sat before Ulla, and he was

raising difficulties

in the teaching

of Ulla.

He said

Ulla:

What a man and what a man,

how great Rav Hamnuna is,

were it not that Harpania is his city,

if Harpania were not his city, which is a place of people of unestablished lineage!

He was embarrassed,

Rav Hamnuna became embarrassed.

He said to him

Ulla to Rav Hamnuna:

The head-tax money

of the head tax

where did you give it?

He said to him:

I give the head tax

to the mouth of the river!

He said to him: If so, you are from the mouth of the river.

What is “Harpania”

that Ulla said?

Rabbi Zeira said: A mountain to which everyone

the disqualified

turns

to find women of their kind for themselves.

In a metanita it was taught: Anyone who does not know his family or his tribe —

turns there.

Rava said: And it —

is deeper

in evil

than Sheol.

For those who descend to Gehinnom have a remedy, but their disqualified status has no remedy.

As it is stated:

[Hosea 13] concerning those who descend to Sheol:

“From the hand of Sheol I will redeem them; from death I will ransom them.”

But their disqualified status —

they have no remedy.

The disqualified people of Harpania —

because of the disqualified people of

the city

Mishon,

which is near it, and the disqualified people of Mishon become intermingled with the people of Harpania.

And the disqualified people of Mishon —

because of the disqualified people of Tarmod,

which is near it.

The disqualified people of Tarmod —

because of Solomon’s slaves.

And this is what people say

as a proverb:

A large measure and a small measure,

between a large eifa and a small eifa —

they roll

and roll downward,

and go

and become distorted as they roll downward.

And the analogy is the disqualified people, who roll and descend from place to place.

For at first the disqualified descend

to “Sheol.”

And from Sheol,

which is a high place, they descend and roll

to Tarmod.

And from Tarmod

they descend

to Mishon, and from Mishon to Harpania.

We have completed upon you the chapter “Fifteen Women.”

In the First Chapter, the erva of “the wife of his brother who was not in his world” was taught among the fifteen women who are exempt from chalitza and from yibbum, and who also exempt their co-wives from chalitza and from yibbum.

And our Mishna came to explain:

Mishna:

How

is the erva of

“the wife of his brother who was not in his world”

, who is not taken in yibbum, and who also exempts her co-wife from chalitza and from yibbum?

For example, there were

two brothers

who lived together in the world,

and one of them died, and there was born to them

, after the death of the first brother,

a brother

who was a third brother.

And it is forbidden for the brother who was born to perform yibbum with the wife of the first brother, because they did not have one dwelling together in the world, and the Torah said, at the beginning of the passage of yibbum: “For brothers dwell together.”

And afterward he performed yibbum

the brother

the second, with the wife of his brother

the first,

and

the second brother died.

And now two yevamot fall before the third brother: one, who had already been married to the first brother who was not in his world, and she is an erva to him like the wife of a brother who has sons; and the second, who had been married only to his second brother, who had one dwelling with him in his world.

Thus

the first,

who had been married to his first brother,

leaves

him without the need for chalitza

because of

the erva of

the wife of his brother who was not in his world.

And the second —

because of her co-wife,

the co-wife of the erva of the wife of a brother who has no permission for yibbum.

And if

he performed with her

the second brother

a maamar,

a betrothal instituted by the Sages, who enacted that the yavam should betroth his yevama before having relations with her,

and

the second brother died, and the wife of the second brother is found to be the co-wife of the wife of the first brother, by rabbinic law, on account of the maamar betrothal of the second brother, and thus both of them fall from the second brother before the third brother [the first falls from him by rabbinic law, and the second by Torah law].

Thus the

second,

the wife of the second,

performs chalitza

by Torah law, for by Torah law the betrothal of the second did not take effect, and she is not the co-wife of an erva.

And she does not perform yibbum

by rabbinic law, since by virtue of the betrothal of the maamar, by rabbinic law she is considered like the co-wife of the wife of his brother who was not in his world. [And see Rashi’s wording!]

Gemara:

We learned in the opening clause of our Mishna that if the second brother performed yibbum with the wife of the first brother and died, the first leaves because of “the wife of his brother who was not in his world,” and the second leaves because of her co-wife.

But there are those who switch the version of “the first” to “the second,” and teach as follows:

The second

leaves because of “the wife of his brother who was not in his world.”

And the first

leaves because of her co-wife.

Rav Naḥman said: Whoever teaches

the wording appearing in our Mishna,

“the first

leaves because of the wife of his brother who was not in his world” —

has not erred!

His version is correct, and it is not an erroneous corruption.

And likewise

whoever teaches

the other version,

“the second

leaves because of the wife of his brother who was not in his world,” he too

has not erred!

That is, both versions are correct as halakha, and the difference between them is in the meaning of the words “first” and “second,” as is explained below: