Yevamot 62a — the Talmud in English

For it is impossible:

from Adam the first, who would not have had the possibility of marrying a woman had Eve not been created.

And we object:

But Beit Hillel, too, should derive it from Moses,

who separated from his wife when he had two males.

Beit Hillel could say

Beit Hillel:

Moses—

he did it of his own accord!

And it was because of the honor of the Divine Presence, which rested with him constantly, that he did this. But it is forbidden for other people to do so.

For it was taught: Moses did three things of his own accord, and his understanding agreed with the understanding of the Omnipresent:

1.

He separated from his wife

completely after the giving of the Torah, for all Israel separated from marital relations for three days before the giving of the Torah and returned to them after the giving of the Torah, whereas Moses did not return [Rashi, Shabbat 87a].

2.

And he broke

the

tablets

when he saw the calf and the dancing.

3.

And he added one day

to the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, who said to him on Wednesday, before the giving of the Torah, “And you shall sanctify [and prepare them, that they should prepare themselves] today and tomorrow,” and the receiving of the Torah would be on Friday; whereas he said to Israel: “Be ready for three days,” and the giving of the Torah was only on Shabbat.

And the Gemara explains the source for Moses’s three things, and where we find that the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with him:

1.

He separated from his wife.

What did he expound,

from where did Moses expound that he should do so?

And we explain:

Moses said

Moses:

And if Israel, with whom the Divine Presence did not speak—

at the giving of the Torah—

except temporarily, and

also

appointed a time for them

to speak with them, nevertheless

the Torah said

before the standing at Mount Sinai,

“Do not approach a woman.”

I, who am designated

I

to speak at every hour, and He did not set a time for speaking with me

to speak with me so that I would know to separate one day beforehand—

all the more so

that I must separate!

And his understanding agreed with the understanding of the Omnipresent.

As it is stated

to them after the giving of the Torah:

“Go, say to them

to the Children of Israel:

“Return, each of you, to your tents [

to your wives]

! And

if

you—

stand here with Me!

2.

He broke the tablets.

What did he expound?—

Moses said

Moses:

And if

a

Passover-offering, which is one of the six hundred thirteen mitzvot, the Torah said

concerning it:

“Any son of a foreigner [

an apostate Israelite]

shall not eat of it.”

Idolatry, which is equivalent to transgressing

the entire Torah, and the apostate Israelites

who made the calf—

all the more so

that they have no portion in the tablets, and it is necessary to break them.

And his understanding agreed with the understanding of the Omnipresent.

As it is written “

And the Lord said to Moses: Carve for yourself two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I shall write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets

that you broke.”

And Reish Lakish said:

thus

the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: “May your strength be firm that you broke”!

“Asher”—it is an expression of “may it be firm.”

3.

He added one day of his own accord.

What did he expound?—

As it is written: “

And the Lord said to Moses [on Wednesday]: Go to the people,

and sanctify them today and tomorrow.”

And Moses expounded:

Just as “tomorrow”

includes its night [

the night and the day following it].

So too, “today”

includes its night.

And

behold

the night of today [

of that day on which the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with him], behold, it has already

passed [

gone by], for the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with him during the day, after the night of this day had already passed.

Conclude from this: two days,

they shall prepare themselves for two days,

apart from

outside

today

that day on which He spoke with him.

And his understanding agreed with the understanding of the Omnipresent.

Indeed

indeed

the Divine Presence did not rest

at the giving of the Torah

until Shabbat [

the Divine Presence rested only on Shabbat], the time that Moses had set.

It was taught: Rabbi Natan says:

this is how Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning the measure of the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying:

Beit Shammai say:

fulfillment of the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying is with

two males and

with

two females.

And not as we learned in our Mishna.

And Beit Hillel say: with

a

male and a female,

as explained in our Mishna.

Rabbi Huna said

explained:

What is Rabbi Natan’s reason, according to Beit Shammai?

As it is written concerning Eve: “

concerning Eve, ‘And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain.

And she continued to bear his brother, Abel.’”

And every et is an expression of inclusion.

The verse teaches that Eve bore

Abel and his sister,

and

Cain and his sister.

And it is written after Cain killed Abel: “

after Cain killed Abel, ‘And Adam again knew his wife, and she bore a son, and she called his name Seth,

for God has appointed for me other offspring in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.’”

The verse teaches that completion was needed, “other offspring in place of Abel,” for the fulfillment of the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying because of Abel’s being killed by Cain, even though she had a son and two daughters remaining. For the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying was not fulfilled without two sons and two daughters.

But the Rabbis

say to you: Eve did not intend to say that other offspring had been given to her in place of Abel so that she could fulfill the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying.

Rather,

she was merely giving thanks,

Eve was giving thanks to the Holy One, blessed be He, for having given her other offspring in place of Abel.

Another [teaching] was taught: Rabbi Natan says:

this is how Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed:

Beit Shammai say: a male and a female [

and not as explained in our Mishna and in the preceding beraita].

And Beit Hillel say: either a male or a female [

and not as explained in our Mishna and in the preceding beraita].

Rava said: What is Rabbi Natan’s reason, according to Beit Hillel?

Because

it is stated: “He did not create it for void”

the Holy One, blessed be He, [created] the world, but rather

“He formed it for settlement.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, did not create His world to be void, without an inhabitant, but for settlement, so that human beings would engage in settling the world.

But this,

this person who fathered a son or daughter has already

fulfilled “settlement” for him,

engaged in fulfilling “settlement” when he fathered one son or one daughter.

It was stated:

a gentile who

had sons when he was an idolater, and

afterward

converted:

Rabbi Yohanan says: he fulfilled

the mitzva of

being fruitful and multiplying

through those sons whom he fathered.

And Reish Lakish said: he did not fulfill the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying.

For

a convert who converted—

is considered like a newborn child.

And the sons whom he had in his gentile state are not attributed to him; therefore he did not fulfill the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying.

And Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish followed

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish in their dispute

according to their own positions [

according to their positions]:

For it was stated:

a gentile who

had sons when he was an idolater and converted:

Rabbi Yohanan says: he has no firstborn with regard to inheritance.

If he already had earlier sons in his gentile state, then the first son who will be born to him after he converts will not be considered a “firstborn” to inherit a double portion of his property. For he is not considered the firstborn of an Israelite, concerning whom the Torah said: “For the firstborn son of the hated one he shall recognize, to give him a double portion of all that is found with him, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.”

And the reason for the matter is:

for behold

already

he had

this convert

“the beginning of his strength”.

He already had, in his gentile state, a firstborn, who was the beginning of his strength and power while he was in his gentile state.

And Reish Lakish said: he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

The “firstborn,” that is, the first son born to him after his conversion, is considered a firstborn to take a double portion of his inheritance, because

a convert who converted is considered like a newborn child.

And it is necessary

for the Gemara to inform us of their dispute both concerning being fruitful and multiplying and concerning a firstborn with regard to inheritance:

For if it had informed us of the first case [

in the first dispute], concerning being fruitful and multiplying, I would have said:

In that case Rabbi Yohanan said

that he fulfilled being fruitful and multiplying,

because from the outset, too,

when they were still descendants of Noah —

they are subject to being fruitful and multiplying.

For it is stated: “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: Be fruitful and multiply.”

But concerning inheritance,

to say

that

the descendants of Noah

are not subject to inheritance,

let us say that Rabbi Yohanan agrees

Rabbi Yohanan

with Reish Lakish.

And if their dispute had been stated

only their dispute

in this,

concerning a firstborn with regard to inheritance, I would have said: only

in this did Reish

Lakish say

that he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance, since from the outset they are not subject to inheritance.

But in that case,

concerning fulfillment of the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying,

let us say:

since from the outset, too, they are subject to being fruitful and multiplying,

Reish Lakish agrees

Reish Lakish

with Rabbi Yohanan

that he fulfilled being fruitful and multiplying.

Therefore:

it is necessary

to inform us of their dispute in both matters.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

For it is written

“At that time Berodach-baladan, son of Baladan, king of Babylonia, sent”.

Thus, even the son of a gentile is called “his son” and is traced after him

! He said to him

Reish Lakish to Rabbi Yohanan:

When they were idolaters

indeed

they have lineage

[lineage to their father]. But when they

converted—

they have no lineage.

Rav said: Everyone—

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish—

agrees regarding a slave that he has no lineage

while he is a slave, for if he had sons while he was a slave and was then emancipated, he has not thereby fulfilled the mitzva of procreation [Tosafot]; and if a son was born to him after his emancipation, he is a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

For it is written

in the section of the Binding: “And Abraham rose early in the morning, and saddled his donkey, and took his two young men with him. And Abraham said to his young men:

‘Remain here for yourselves with the donkey’.”

A people resembling a donkey,

which has no lineage; thus, Eliezer, Abraham’s slave, has no lineage.

He raised an objection:

For it is written

“And to Ziba—

the Canaanite slave of Mephibosheth—

fifteen ‘sons’ and twenty slaves.”

Thus, a slave does have lineage

! And we answer:

Rav Acha bar Yaakov said:

His lineage is

as

in

“a bull, son of cattle”!

That is to say, not everyone who is called “son” necessarily has lineage, for even a bull is called “son of cattle,” since it is its offspring.

And we ask:

If so, here—

regarding Berodach-baladan, son of Baladan—

also

let us say that it is only like “a bull, son of cattle”; and what did Rabbi Yohanan object to Reish Lakish from this verse?!

And we answer:

There it is different—

regarding Berodach-baladan, son of Baladan—

for it traced them by their names and by the name of their father,

for the verse mentioned his name and his father’s name. And this indicates that he has lineage with him.

And

if

here—

among the sons of Ziba—

it did not specify

their names.

And if you wish, say: It traced them

the gentiles

elsewhere, by their father and by their father’s father

[the verse traced the gentiles elsewhere by their father and by their grandfather].

For it is written: “And King Asa sent them to Ben-hadad, son of Tabrimmon, son of Hezion, king of Aram, who dwelt in Damascus, saying”.

That is to say: Gentiles whom it traces up to their grandfather—this proves that they have lineage; but the sons of slaves, whom it traces only to their father, this does not prove lineage, but is similar to “a bull, son of cattle.”

It was stated:

Concerning one who

had sons, and they died—

Rav Huna said: He fulfilled the obligation of procreation.

Rabbi Yohanan said: He did not fulfill

the obligation of procreation.

And we explain their reasons:

Rav Huna said: He fulfilled

the obligation of procreation, because the reason for procreation is

because of Rav Asi—

for Rav Asi said: The son of David will not come until all the souls in the guf have been exhausted

[the treasury of souls is called the guf, and from the beginning all the souls destined to be born were created and placed there. Rashi, Avodah Zarah 5a].

As it is stated: “

For I will not contend forever [delay the time of the redemption], nor will I be angry eternally [from redeeming]—

for the spirit that is before Me

[the spirit, the souls that are still found before Him in the guf]—

will be delayed!

And the souls that I have made.”

The souls that have not yet descended into the world, and that are still in this place called the guf, are the reason for the delay of the time of the redemption. [“

The word ‘will be delayed’ is an expression of delay, as in ‘and the delayed ones—the ones late—were for Laban’”].

Therefore, every person who “took” souls from the guf by fathering sons has thereby fulfilled the obligation of procreation, even though those souls died, for he had already brought them down from the supernal guf into the world.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: He did not fulfill the obligation of procreation.

For

“for inhabiting it He formed it” we require,

that they too father sons, in order to settle the world.

But this is absent,

for the sons died.