Yevamot 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

And the Sages decreed

that one must wait in the case of intercourse with a

minor because of

intercourse with an

adult.

But in the case of intercourse with a minor convert they did not decree this, because intercourse with a minor convert is uncommon.

And we challenged this:

Do we decree

in the case of a

minor because of an adult?

But didn’t we learn

above [33b], with regard to two men who betrothed women and, at the time of their weddings, their wives were exchanged:

If they were minors who were not yet capable of bearing children—

they are returned immediately,

and there is no need to wait?!

Rav Giddel said that Rav said:

What is stated in this Mishna

was an exceptional ruling,

and one cannot derive from it a permanent rule.

And the Gemara wonders:

Does this imply that it was

an exceptional ruling?!

In other words, is it possible to say that our Mishna is merely relating an incident that occurred, and that an exceptional ruling was issued in that case permitting the women to marry immediately, but that this ruling does not apply permanently? Yet the wording of the Mishna indicates that this is what must always be done!

Rather,

this is what should be said:

It was like an exceptional ruling,

in that no decree was issued requiring waiting, since

the exchange

of wives at the time of their weddings is an event

that is uncommon.

Alternatively, some say

as follows:

Shmuel said: All of them must wait three months, except for an adult convert and an adult freedwoman.

And from the fact that Shmuel said “except for an adult convert,” it is clear that all those who must wait are adults;

but a Jewish minor—

does not need to wait three months,

according to Shmuel.

With regard to what?

If it is with regard to refusal—

you already stated this once!

If it is with regard to a bill of divorce—

Shmuel already said that she requires

waiting.

For Shmuel said: If she refused him—

she does not need to wait three months.

If he gave her a bill of divorce—

she must wait three months.

Rather, it is referring to intercourse, and intercourse with a minor is uncommon.

And we considered this problem:

With regard to a convert and a freedwoman, with whom intercourse is common—

let us decree

that they must wait in order to distinguish between seed deposited before conversion and seed deposited after conversion!

And we answered:

He,

Shmuel,

follows Rabbi Yosei,

who did not issue such a decree, for the reason the Gemara explains: a woman who engages in intercourse turns over and expels the seed so that she will not become pregnant from the intercourse.

As it was taught in a baraita: A female convert, a captive woman, and a slave woman who were redeemed, converted, or freed—

must wait three months; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei permits them to become betrothed and to marry immediately.

Rabba said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei?

He holds

that Rabbi Yosei holds:

A woman who engages in intercourse—

uses a barrier, so that she will not become pregnant.

Abaye said to him: Granted, with regard to a convert,

she uses a barrier and does not become pregnant,

since she intends to convert, she guards herself,

guarding herself against becoming pregnant

in order to distinguish between seed deposited after conversion and seed deposited before conversion.

A captive woman and a slave woman as well, since they hear from their masters

that they are about to be freed,

and they guard themselves.

But

a slave woman who

is freed

through

the

loss of

a tooth or an eye,

who does not know that she is destined to be freed—

how can you find

that she will guard herself against becoming pregnant?

And if you would say

to answer that, indeed,

everyone who

is freed

automatically, Rabbi Yosei concedes

with regard to

her

that she must wait.

It is impossible to answer in this manner. For:

But didn’t we learn: A raped woman and a seduced woman—

must wait three months; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda;

Rabbi Yosei permits them to become betrothed and to marry immediately!

Rather, Abaye said

to answer:

Every

woman who engages in intercourse turns over

after intercourse and expels the seed of the man who had intercourse with her, so that she will

not become pregnant.

And this woman who is freed through the loss of a tooth or an eye also turns over.

But the other

view, that she must wait, holds that

we are concerned that perhaps she did not turn over thoroughly.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if they were daughters of kohanim

they are disqualified from the priesthood.

And we wondered: Does this mean that only

daughters of kohanim, yes,

are disqualified, whereas an

Israelite woman

married to a kohen

is not

disqualified?!

And we answered:

Say instead: If they were wives of kohanim,

they are disqualified for them, as is the law regarding the wife of a kohen who was raped, who is disqualified from the priesthood.

The Gemara still wonders: Does this mean that only

wives of kohanim, yes,

are disqualified from the priesthood, whereas

wives of Israelites,

who were violated while married to their husbands,

are not

disqualified from the priesthood, so that if their Israelite husbands die they would be disqualified from marrying into the priesthood?!

But didn’t Rav Amram say: Rav Sheshet told us this matter, and illuminated our eyes

by bringing us proof of his words

from a Mishna

below [56b]:

An Israelite’s wife who was raped, although she is permitted to her husband—

is disqualified

she

from the priesthood

if her husband dies!

Rava said: This is what it means: If they were daughters of kohanim married to Israelites—

they are disqualified from teruma in their husbands’ households.

Since they had intercourse while married to their husbands, even if it was under duress, they are disqualified from the priesthood and from eating teruma.

Thus, if their Israelite husbands die and they have no offspring from them, they do not return to their kohen fathers’ households to eat teruma, as do the other daughters of kohanim who married Israelites and whose husbands died without leaving offspring. This is because they were disqualified on the grounds of being a zonah, despite having been violated under duress.

We have completed the study of you, chapter “Four Brothers.”

Introduction to the Chapter “The One Who Performs Ḥalitza”

Until now, we have learned about the exemption of a yevama who has no children when she is an erva to the yavam, or when she has children—in which case she does not fall to yibbum at all.

The subject at the beginning of this chapter, however, is the status of the yevama when she is pregnant, which is an “intermediate status.”

On the one hand, she still does not have the exemption from yibbum and ḥalitza that applies to the wife of a brother who has children, since as long as the child has not been born she is forbidden to marry a stranger, like a yevama forbidden to the market, because “the child does not exempt her from ḥalitza and yibbum until it emerges into the air of the world.”

On the other hand, it is impossible to perform yibbum with her, since if she gives birth to a viable child, it will become clear that she is the wife of a brother who has children, and therefore is not subject to yibbum.

This intermediate status raises several questions:

a. Will ḥalitza performed while she is pregnant be effective in permitting her to marry outside the levirate bond, in the event that she miscarries?

b. If the yavam has relations with her while she is pregnant, and she ultimately miscarries, did the yavam acquire her through this intercourse?

These questions will be clarified in the following Mishna and in the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish in the Gemara below: