Yevamot 24b — the Talmud in English

Rather, “firstborn,” which the Merciful One called him - ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

for what halakhic purpose

did Scripture call him “firstborn”? ?

For it would have been fitting to write “the eldest,” since there is a mitzva even with regard to the eldest of the ordinary brothers.

And we answer:

for a deficiency.

In order to learn from the inheritance of the firstborn of his father to this case:

Just as a firstborn does not take

a double portion

in that which is destined,

in an inheritance destined to come after the death of his father,

as

he takes twice as much

in

property

held

in his father’s possession on the day of his death.

So too, this

levir

does not take

in his father’s inheritance, in which he is owed two portions, his portion and the portion of his deceased brother,

in that which is destined, as in that which is held.

In an inheritance that comes after the father’s death, the levir will take only his own portion, and not the portion of his deceased brother.

Mishna:

One concerning whom there is a report [

one who was suspected] that he had relations

with the maidservant,

such that people spread this allegation about him,

and

afterward

she was freed,

the maidservant, and became Jewish, and was permitted to enter the congregation of Israel.

Or

one who was suspected of having relations

with a gentile woman, and

afterward

she converted—

that is

the suspect

shall not marry

her [he shall not marry her], even though the initial suspicion was not clarified by witnesses, since the Sages prohibited him from marrying her because of the disrepute, so that people would not say that the first report that had gone out was true.

And if

the suspect transgressed and

married

the freed maidservant or the convert—

they do not remove

her

from his possession,

despite the fact that initially it was forbidden for him to marry her.

One concerning whom there is a report about a married woman, and

because of this

they removed her

the court

from beneath

her husband’s hand, for a married woman who committed adultery is forbidden to her husband, and he must divorce her. She is forbidden to the suspected adulterer to marry.

And if this man went and married her,

even though he married her—

he shall divorce

her from beneath his hand, because a married woman who committed adultery is forbidden by Torah law both to her husband and to the adulterer.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One concerning whom there is a report about a maidservant and she was freed, or about a gentile woman and she converted, that is, the suspect shall not marry her.

And we infer: Although we said he shall not marry her,

this means that she is, at least, a convert,

for her conversion is a complete conversion. For only he is forbidden to marry her because of the suspicion, but others are permitted to marry her. And even he himself, if he married her, shall not divorce her, as explained in the Mishna.

And it is proven that her conversion was effective even though the circumstances indicate that she converted not for the sake of Judaism but in order that this man, with whom she had committed adultery, should marry her.

And he raises a contradiction

from that which was taught in a beraita: Any man who comes to convert, and we know the reason because of which he converted,

whether a man who converted for the sake of a woman

an Israelite woman whom he wishes to marry,

or a woman who converted for the sake of a man.

And likewise one who converted for the sake of “the table of kings”,

in order that he might recline at the tables of the kings of Israel.

Or who converted

for the sake of “Solomon’s slaves”,

for he wished to become one of the king’s slaves, so that the people would fear him, as was the case with Solomon’s slaves, who held positions of authority and were feared by the people.

All of these

are not converts, the words of Rabbi Neḥemya.

For Rabbi Neḥemya would say:

Whether

one who converts because of a certain fear, such as the Samaritans, at the time of the exile of Samaria, who were

converts because of lions,

for God sent lions against them, and because of fear of the lions they converted.

Or converts because of dreams,

who converted because someone told them, “the master of dreams” .

Or

one who converts because he fears for his life, such as

the converts of Mordecai and Esther,

mentioned in the Scroll of Esther, as it is written: “and all the peoples of the land were becoming Jews, because the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them.”

All these and those like them

are not converts.

Until they convert in this time,

as will be explained immediately.

And the Gemara explains the words of the beraita:

And we raise the difficulty: Is it possible that “until they convert”

in this time—

would it enter your mind

that you might say this!?

Is it possible that all converts who converted until this time are not converts?

Rather, say

until they convert

“as in this time.”

That is, converts are accepted only if they convert without any reason, and do not convert because of authority or anything similar. Rather, they convert despite seeing us subdued, as in this time, when we are in exile and there is no authority or honor among us.

And now there is a difficulty from our Mishna, for this beraita explains that a convert is accepted only when his purpose is for the sake of Judaism alone; and why does our Mishna say that a woman who converts for the sake of a particular man has a valid conversion?

And he answers: it was stated concerning it,

concerning this beraita,

Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the words of the one who says

that all those who converted completely, even though they converted for the sake of a particular reason,

are all converts,

complete

they are.

And therefore, even the convert woman in our Mishna is a complete convert.

And we challenge:

if so,

that she is a complete convert—

even initially

the suspect should be permitted to marry her. And why does our Mishna say that he shall not marry her?

And we answer: Even though she is a convert, he shall not marry her

because of Rav Asi.

For Rav Asi said,

the reason for the Mishna’s ruling that he shall not marry her is because of the gossip of people, as it is written in Proverbs:

“Remove from yourself a crooked mouth, and gossip of lips

keep far from you.”

And if we permit the suspect to marry her, people will spread the allegation that the report that initially went out was indeed true, that she had committed adultery with him. For this is demonstrated by the fact that he ultimately married her.

In any event, if he married her, he shall not divorce her.

The Sages taught: Converts are not accepted in the days of the Messiah.

Similarly, they did not accept converts, neither in the days of David nor in the days of Solomon,

because they came to convert for the sake of authority and honor.

Rabbi Elazar said: What verse

from which we learn this?

For it is written in Isaiah:

“Behold, one who comes to sojourn shall sojourn without Me; whoever sojourns with you, upon you he shall fall.”

And the explanation of the verse is: “Behold, one who comes to sojourn”—one who comes to convert—“shall sojourn,” shall convert, when “without Me”—while I, the Holy One, blessed be He, am not with you. That is, in this time, when we are in exile.

“Whoever sojourns with you, upon you he shall fall”—whoever becomes a convert with you [the people of Israel], in your poverty, during the time of exile, “upon you he shall fall”—he will merit with you your prosperity, in the time of rest in the World to Come.

“Whoever gathers with you shall fall because of you”: whoever becomes a convert together with you, in your poverty, during the time of exile, “shall fall because of you” - he will merit sharing your prosperity, in the time of rest in the World-to-Come.

But the other one—

no!

One who did not convert during Israel’s poverty is not accepted.

And therefore converts are not accepted in the days of the Messiah.

We learned in our Mishna:

One concerning whom there is a report

about whom there is suspicion that he had relations

with a married woman,

and because of this they removed this woman who had committed adultery with him from beneath her husband’s hand, in accordance with the law that a married woman who committed adultery is forbidden to her husband—the adulterer is not permitted to marry her.

And if he married her, he shall divorce her, since a married woman who committed adultery is forbidden both to her husband and to the adulterer.

Rav said:

The statement that if the adulterer married her he shall divorce her applies specifically when she was forbidden

by witnesses.

Witnesses came who testified about actual intercourse, who saw that she had committed adultery with him; in this case the law is that she is forbidden to her husband by Torah law, and just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to the adulterer. Therefore, if the one concerning whom there was a report married her, he shall divorce her.

But if she left her husband only because of a report that she had committed adultery, without witnesses to the intercourse, and the suspect married her, he need not divorce her.

Rav Sheshet said: I say, when Rav was dozing and lying down, he said this teaching

[I think Rav said these words while he was nodding off, as he was going to sleep]: that they remove her from the suspected man who married her only where witnesses came. But the beraita teaches otherwise!

[I believe that Rav said these words while he was drowsing, as he was going to lie down], for he said that only where witnesses came do they remove her from the suspect who married her. But this is not so, as is clear from the beraita! For it was taught: One concerning whom there is a report

about whom there was suspicion that he had relations

with a married woman, and they removed her because of him

from her husband, and afterward another man married her

and she was divorced

also

from beneath the hand of

the

other—

Now,

if

the suspect came and

married

her,

he shall not divorce,

but she shall remain under him. Since the suspect did not marry her immediately when her husband divorced her, this indicates that there is no substance to the report of adultery.

And now this is difficult:

what are the circumstances

of this beraita?

If

it is speaking

where there are witnesses

that she committed adultery, and because of this she became forbidden to her husband,

when another came

and married her,

and thereby cut off

by this

the report—

what has happened!?

This accomplishes nothing with regard to not removing her from beneath the hand of the suspect! For we prohibited her on the basis of witnesses and not on the basis of a report and suspicion. And since there are witnesses in the matter, she is forbidden to the adulterer forever.

Rather, is it not

necessarily speaking

where there are no witnesses

who saw her committing adultery, but her husband divorced her because of a report that went out concerning her that she had committed adultery.

And it is proven that only

because a

certain

other man came and cut off the report,

she does not leave the suspect.

For since the one concerning whom there was a report did not marry her immediately when she was divorced, this indicates that there is no substance to this report.

If not so,

but the suspect married her immediately after she was divorced, without the interruption of another’s marriage in the meantime, and in the manner with which our Mishna is dealing—

we remove her!

They remove her from him.

And this is difficult for Rav, who said that only if she was forbidden to her husband by witnesses that she had committed adultery and the suspect married her, he shall divorce her. But if her husband removed her because of a report, the suspect need not divorce her.

And we answer:

Rav can say to you:

The fact that the beraita mentioned that another man married her before the suspect married her is not at all relevant to the question of whether the suspect must divorce her.

Rather,

the same law applies: even though another man did not come

and marry her,

and cut it off

by this

the report,

nevertheless, if the suspect married her, he need not divorce her.

For only

if there are witnesses

that she committed adultery

we remove [

remove] her from beneath the hand of the suspect, since the adulterer is forbidden to her forever.

But

if there are no witnesses

that she committed adultery, but only a report went out that she had committed adultery,

we do not remove

her from beneath his hand.

And the fact that the beraita mentioned that another man interrupted the report by his marriage comes only to teach us that initially the suspect should not marry her, even though she had already married another!

And this is what it says: Even though another man came and cut off the report—

initially, he shall not marry her!

But our Mishna, which deals with the law after the fact, that he must divorce her, is speaking only where witnesses came and testified that she had committed adultery, as Rav established it.

He raises an objection

to Rav from that which is taught later in the beraita:

When is this statement said,

that if the suspect married her he shall divorce her from beneath him? Specifically

when she has no sons

from her first husband.

But

if

she has sons

from her first husband, and the suspect married her—

she shall not leave

him!

For by removing her from him in this way, we strengthen the report that initially went out, that she had committed adultery with the suspect, and it follows that by doing so we cause her sons born from her previous husband to be established as mamzerim.

And we must not do this as long as we do not rely upon clear testimony that she committed adultery, but upon a report alone.

But

if witnesses of defilement came

who testified that she committed adultery, then

even if she has several sons

from the first husband,

she shall leave

the adulterer who married her. And we need not be concerned for her sons, since the adulterer is forbidden to her by Torah law.

And it is proven from the beraita that if she has no sons, they remove her from the suspect by rabbinic decree even without witnesses having come to testify that she committed adultery.

And this is difficult for Rav, who said that only if witnesses came and testified that she committed adultery does she leave the adulterer?

And we answer: Indeed, Rav concedes that even without witnesses she is forbidden to him by rabbinic decree, and he must divorce her if she has no sons from the first husband.

But

Rav establishes the Mishna

[interprets our Mishna]

[establishes our Mishna] as referring to a case where she has sons.

And therefore he had to say that

she also has witnesses,

that witnesses came. For where she has sons, they remove her only if witnesses came.

And we ask:

And what difficulty did Rav have in establishing the Mishna

[why did Rav have to interpret our Mishna]

[why did Rav find it necessary to establish our Mishna] as referring to a case where she has sons and has witnesses

that she committed adultery?

And the reason is that there are witnesses

that she committed adultery; then

we remove her.

But if there are no witnesses, we do not remove her.

Let him establish it

[let Rav establish] the Mishna simply

as referring to a case where she has no sons

from the first husband, and therefore he shall divorce her

even though there are no witnesses

that she committed adultery?

And we answer:

Rava said:

Rav had to establish our Mishna in this manner because

the Mishna was difficult for him

[our Mishna presented a difficulty to him].

For the Mishna teaches: One concerning whom there is a report about a married woman, “and they removed her” from beneath his hand; even though he married her, he shall divorce her.

And it is difficult:

Why specifically did it teach “they removed her”,

which implies that others removed her?

Let it teach “he removed her”!

For it was her first husband who removed her by a bill of divorce from beneath his hand.

Rather,

necessarily

every “they removed her”,

that is

in court,

for they compelled him to remove her, and he did not remove her on his own.

And necessarily, our Mishna is speaking in a case where witnesses came and testified that she committed adultery. For

the court,

only

on the basis of witnesses does it remove

[removes] a woman from her husband when there are witnesses, since a woman does not become forbidden to her husband merely because of a report that she committed adultery.

[remove] a woman from her husband, since a woman does not become forbidden to her husband through a report that she committed adultery. And since our Mishna necessarily speaks of a case where witnesses came, Rav came and said that this law—that the suspect shall divorce her—applies specifically because there are witnesses that she committed adultery; but without witnesses, if the husband removed her willingly and the suspect married her, he shall not divorce her, since she has sons.

Indeed, where she has no sons, the Rabbis penalized him that he should divorce her.

And if you wish, say:

Actually, the law is as we initially thought: Rav came to teach us that even where she has no sons, as long as there are no witnesses that she committed adultery, the suspect need not divorce her.

And as for the Gemara’s objection from the beraita, in which it is explained that even without witnesses he shall divorce her whenever she has no sons,

this beraita

[this beraita] is stated according to the view of

Rabbi

.

For Rabbi’s opinion is that even through a report they remove a woman from her husband.

For it was taught:

If the husband saw a

perfume seller,

who sells kinds of perfumes and ornaments to women,

leaving

his house,

and a woman girded with an apron,

such that the husband found his wife, who was in the house, girding

herself with an apron

[it was a type of trousers with which women girded themselves for modesty]—

Rabbi said: Since the matter is disgraceful,

and it indicates that she removed the apron for the purpose of adultery, and now, after the adultery, she is girding herself with it,

she shall leave

her husband!

For such proof is sufficient to prohibit her to her husband, even though there are no witnesses who saw that she actually committed adultery.

And likewise, if the husband saw a perfume seller leaving the house, and the husband found

spittle above the canopy,

on the roof of the canopy over his bed—

Rabbi said: Since the matter is disgraceful,

and it indicates that she committed adultery with the perfume seller, for it is plausible that the spittle reached above by her lying with her face upward and spitting during intercourse—

she shall leave

her husband, since there is circumstantial evidence that she committed adultery.