Yevamot 62a (סב.) — the Talmud in English

Since it is impossible from the time of Adam, the first man, who did not have the possibility of marrying a woman if Eve had not been created.

for the first man, who would not have been able to marry a woman had Eve not been created.

And we challenge this:

But according to Beit Hillel as well, let them derive it from Moses,

who separated from his wife when he had two male children.

They say to you,

Beit Hillel:

Moses—

he acted on his own initiative!

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

As it was taught in a beraita: Moses did three things on his own initiative, and his reasoning accorded with the reasoning of the Omnipresent:

1.

He separated from his wife

completely after the giving of the Torah. For all Israel separated from conjugal relations for three days before the giving of the Torah and resumed them after the giving of the Torah, whereas Moses did not resume them [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. He had said to him on Wednesday, before the giving of the Torah: “Sanctify them [and prepare them, so that they ready themselves] today and tomorrow,” and the Torah would be given on Friday. Moses, however, said to the Children of Israel: “Be ready for three days,” and the Torah was given only on Shabbat.

The Gemara explains the source for these three actions of Moses, and where we find that the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with him:

1.

He separated from his wife.

What did he derive?

From where did Moses derive that he should do this?

And we explain:

Moses said:

“

If, with regard to Israel, to whom the Divine Presence did not speak—

at the giving of the Torah—

except temporarily, and

also

set a time for them

to speak with them, nevertheless

the Torah said

before the revelation at Mount Sinai:

‘Do not approach a woman.’”

“I, who am designated

I am

to speak at every moment, and for whom no time was set

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

all the more so

must I separate!”

And his reasoning accorded with the reasoning 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 to your tents

[to your wives]

! But

if

you—

stand here with Me!”

2.

He broke the Tablets.

What did he derive?—

Moses said:

“

If

the Passover offering, which is one of the six hundred and thirteen mitzvot,

the Torah said

about it:

‘No foreigner

[an Israelite who has become apostate]

may eat of it,’”

then idolatry, which is considered equivalent to transgressing

the entire Torah, and the apostate Israelites

who made the calf—

all the more so

have no share in the Tablets, and they must be broken.

And his reasoning accorded with the reasoning of the Omnipresent.

As it is written: “And the Lord said to Moses: ‘Carve for yourself two stone Tablets like the first ones, and I shall write upon the Tablets the words that were upon the first Tablets,

which you broke.’”

which you broke.’”

And Reish Lakish said:

Thus

the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘Your strength is affirmed for having broken

the Tablets’!”

3.

He added one day on his own initiative.

What did he derive?—

As it is written: “And the Lord said to Moses [on Wednesday]: ‘Go to the people,

and

sanctify them today and tomorrow.’”

And Moses derived:

Just as ‘tomorrow’

includes its preceding night

[the night and the following day],

so ‘today’

includes its preceding night.

And

behold,

the night of this day

[the night of the day on which the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with him]

has already passed

[has elapsed], for the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with him during the day, after the night of that day had already elapsed.

Learn from this: two days

must be spent preparing themselves,

apart

from

this day

on which He spoke with him.

And his reasoning accorded with the reasoning of the Omnipresent.

4.

Indeed,

the Divine Presence did not rest

at the giving of the Torah

until Shabbat

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

It was taught in a beraita; Rabbi Natan says:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed as to the measure of the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying:

Beit Shammai say:

The mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying is fulfilled 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—

he explained:

What is the reason of Rabbi Natan, according to Beit Shammai?

As it is written

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 occurrence of the word “et” indicates an inclusion.

The verse teaches that Eve bore

Abel and his sister, and

also

Cain and his sister.

And it is written

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

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

The verse teaches that completion was necessary—“another offspring in place of Abel”—in order to fulfill the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying, because Abel had been killed by Cain, despite the fact that she still had one son and two daughters. For the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying is not fulfilled without two sons and two daughters.

And the Rabbis

say to you: Eve did not intend to say that another 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 expressing gratitude—

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

It was taught in another beraita; Rabbi Natan says:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed as follows:

Beit Shammai say: A male and a female

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

And Beit Hillel say: Either a male or a female

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

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan, according to Beit Hillel?

Because

it is stated: ‘He did not create it as chaos

the Holy One, blessed be He, did not create the world as chaos, but

He formed it for habitation.’”

The Holy One, blessed be He, did not create His world to be chaos, without inhabitants, but for habitation, so that human beings would engage in settling the world.

But

this person who fathered a son or daughter has already

fulfilled ‘habitation’ for Him,

having engaged in fulfilling the principle of “habitation” when he fathered one son or one daughter.

It was stated:

A gentile who

had sons while he was an idolater, and

afterward

converted:

Rabbi Yohanan says: He fulfilled

the mitzva of

being fruitful and multiplying

through the sons he fathered.

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

For

a convert who converts

is considered like a newborn child.

The sons he had while he was a gentile are not considered his descendants, and therefore he did not fulfill the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying.

And Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish followed

the same dispute

according to their respective positions:

For it was stated:

For it was stated:

A gentile who

had sons while he was an idolater and converted:

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

If he already had sons while he was a gentile, the first son born to him after his conversion is not considered a “firstborn” entitled to inherit a double portion of his property. He is not considered the firstborn of an Israelite concerning whom the Torah stated: “For he must acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated one, to give him a double portion of all that is found with him, for he is the first fruit of his strength; the birthright is his.”

And the reason for this is:

For

already

there was

for this convert

‘the first fruit of his strength.’

He had already had, while he was a gentile, a firstborn who was the first fruit of his strength and vigor while he was a gentile.

And Reish Lakish said: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

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

a convert who converts is considered like a newborn child.

And it is necessary

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

For had it informed us only of the first case

[their first dispute], concerning being fruitful and multiplying, I would have said:

In that case Rabbi Yohanan said

that he fulfilled the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying

because initially as well,

when they were still Noahides —

they were 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 with regard to inheritance,

to say

that

Noahides

are not subject to the laws of inheritance,

one might say that Rabbi Yohanan agrees

with

Reish Lakish.

And if it were stated

that their dispute concerned only

this,

the matter of a firstborn’s inheritance, I would say: Only

in this did Reish

Lakish say

that he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance, since initially they were not subject to inheritance.

But with regard to that,

the fulfillment of the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying,

one might say:

Since initially as well they were subject to being fruitful and multiplying,

Reish Lakish agrees

with

Rabbi Yohanan

that he fulfilled the mitzva of 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 Berodakh-Baladan, son of Baladan, king of Babylonia, sent".

Thus, even the son of a gentile is called his “son” and is associated with him

! He said to him

Reish Lakish to Rabbi Yohanan:

When they were idol worshippers

indeed

they have lineage

[lineage through their father]. But once 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. If he had sons while he was a slave and was then freed, he has not fulfilled the mitzva of procreation [Tosafot]; and if a son was born to him after his emancipation, that son is his firstborn with regard to inheritance.

As it is written

in the account of the Binding: “Abraham arose early in the morning, 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, had no lineage.

Meytivi:

It is written

“And to Ziba”—

Mephibosheth’s Canaanite slave—

“fifteen sons and twenty slaves.”

Thus, a slave does have lineage

! And we answer:

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said:

His “lineage” is

a

s in

“a bull, the son of cattle”!

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

And we challenge this:

If so, here—

with regard to Berodakh-Baladan, son of Baladan—

too

let us say that he is merely like “a bull, the son of cattle.” Why, then, did Rabbi Yohanan challenge Reish Lakish from this verse?!

And we answer:

There it is different—

with regard to Berodakh-Baladan, son of Baladan—

for Scripture associated them by their names and by their father’s name,

mentioning his name and his father’s name. This indicates that he has lineage through him.

But

if

here—

with regard to the sons of Ziba—

it does not specify

their names.

And if you wish, say instead: It associated them

the gentiles

elsewhere, through their father and their father’s father

[Scripture associated the gentiles elsewhere through their father and their grandfather].

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

That is: The fact that the gentiles are traced through their grandfather proves that they have lineage. But in the case of the slaves’ sons, who are identified only through their father, this does not prove that they have lineage; rather, it is comparable to “a bull, the son of cattle.”

It was stated:

One who

had sons, and they died—

Rav Huna said: He has fulfilled the mitzva of procreation.

Rabbi Yohanan said: He has not fulfilled

the mitzva of procreation.

And we explain their reasoning:

Rav Huna said: He has fulfilled

the mitzva of procreation, because the reason for the mitzva of procreation is

that of Rav Asi—

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

[the repository of souls is called “the body.” From the beginning of creation, all the souls destined to be born were created and placed there. Rashi, Avoda Zara 5a].

As it is stated: “For I will not contend forever [I will not delay the time of redemption], nor will I be angry eternally [without redeeming]—

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

For the spirit is from Me

[the spirit, meaning the souls that still remain before Me in the “body”]—

will be enwrapped!

And the souls that I have made.”

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

“Will be enwrapped” is an expression of delay, as in “And it was the enwrapped—the delayed—ones for Laban”].

Therefore, anyone who “took” souls from the body by fathering sons has thereby fulfilled the mitzva of procreation, even though those souls subsequently died, since he brought them down from the body above into the world.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: He has not fulfilled the mitzva of procreation.

Because

“He created it to be inhabited” is required,

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

But that is not the case,

for the sons died.