Yevamot 35a — the Talmud in English

And the Sages decreed

to wait in the case of the fornication of a

minor because of

the fornication of an

adult.

But in the case of the fornication of a minor convert they did not decree, because the fornication of a minor convert is not common.

And we challenge this:

Do we decree

in the case of a

minor because of an adult?

But did we not learn

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

If they were minors who were not fit to give birth—

they are returned immediately,

and there is no need to wait!?

Rav Giddel said that Rav said:

The matter stated in this Mishna—

it was a temporary ruling,

and one cannot learn from it for all time.

And the Gemara wonders:

By implication, was it

a temporary ruling!?

That is to say, is it possible to say that our Mishna comes to relate an incident that occurred, and that in it they issued a temporary ruling permitting her to marry immediately, and that it is not a ruling for all time? But the wording of the Mishna indicates that this is what one must do always!

Rather,

this is what one should say:

It was like a temporary ruling,

in that they do not decree that she must wait, since

the exchange

of women at the time of their wedding canopy is an occurrence

that is not common.

Alternatively, some say

as follows:

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

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

but a minor who is a daughter of Israel—

does not need to wait three months

according to Shmuel.

What is the case?

If it is in the case of refusal—

did he not say it once already!

If it is in the case of a bill of divorce—

did Shmuel not say that she requires it,

that she must wait?

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 in the case of fornication, and fornication involving a minor is not common.

And we considered this:

A convert and an emancipated maidservant, in whom fornication is common—

let us decree

that they must wait, in order to distinguish between seed sown not in sanctity and seed sown in sanctity!

And we answer:

He,

Shmuel,

who said in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who did not decree; and as the Gemara explains his reason, it is because a woman who engages in fornication turns over and expels the seed so that she will not become pregnant from the fornication.

For it was taught in a beraita: A female convert, a captive woman, and a maidservant who were redeemed, converted, and emancipated—

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

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

Rabba said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei?

He holds

Rabbi Yosei

that a woman who engages in fornication—

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

Abaye said to him: Granted, in the case of a convert,

she uses a cloth and does not become pregnant,

since her mind is set on converting, she guards herself,

she guards herself from becoming pregnant,

in order to distinguish between seed sown in sanctity and seed sown not in sanctity.

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

that they are about to be emancipated,

and they guard themselves.

But

a maidservant who

goes out

to freedom

through

the removal of

a tooth or an eye,

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

how can you find it

that she guards herself from becoming pregnant?

And if you should say,

to answer that indeed

whenever she

is emancipated

automatically, he concedes

in her case

Rabbi Yosei

that she must wait.

It is impossible to answer this way. For:

But did we not learn: A woman who was raped or seduced—

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

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

Rather, Abaye said

to answer:

Every

woman who engages in fornication turns over

after intercourse, and expels the seed of the one who had intercourse with her, so that

she will not become pregnant.

And this one who goes out through a tooth or an eye also turns over.

But the other one,

the one who says that she must wait, holds that

we are concerned lest she did not turn over thoroughly.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if they were women of kohanim,

they become disqualified from the priesthood.

And we wonder: Is it only

women of kohanim—yes,

they become disqualified, whereas

an Israelite woman

who is married to a kohen

does not

become disqualified!?

And we answer:

Say: If they were wives of kohanim,

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

The Gemara still wonders: Is it only

wives of kohanim—yes,

they become disqualified from the priesthood, whereas

wives of Israelites,

who had intercourse under duress while married to their husbands,

do not

become disqualified from the priesthood, so that if their Israelite husbands die, they will be disqualified from the priesthood!?

But Rav Amram said: Rav Sheshet told us this matter, and illuminated our eyes

by bringing us proof for his words

from a Mishna

below [56b]:

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

is disqualified

she

from the priesthood,

if her husband dies!

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

they become disqualified from teruma, in the households of their husbands.

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

Thus, if their Israelite husbands die and leave them without offspring from them, they do not return to their father’s house, to their kohen father, to eat teruma, as the other women of kohanim who married Israelites and whose husbands died without leaving offspring return to their father’s house, since they became disqualified on account of being a “promiscuous woman,” despite having had intercourse under duress.

We have returned to you, chapter “Four Brothers.”

Introduction to the chapter “The One Who Removes the Shoe”

Until now we learned 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.

But the subject at the beginning of this chapter is the situation of the yevama when she is pregnant, which is an “intermediate situation.”

On the one hand, she still does not have the exemption from yibbum and chalitza of a brother’s wife who has children, since as long as the child has not been born, she is forbidden to marry an unrelated man, according to the law of a yevama forbidden to the market, because “the child does not exempt her from chalitza and yibbum until it emerges into the air of the world.”

But, 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, who is not subject to yibbum.

This intermediate situation raises several questions:

a. Will chalitza be effective for her while she is pregnant, to permit her to marry in the market, in the event that she miscarries?

b. If the yavam comes upon her while she is pregnant, and in the end she miscarries her child, has the yavam acquired her through this intercourse?

These questions will be clarified in the following Mishna, and in the words of Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish in the Gemara below: