Yevamot 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

And it is written

immediately afterward:

“Look to Abraham your father, and to Sarah who bore you”

and this is an explanation of what it says: “Look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the hollow of the pit from which you were quarried.”

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Sarah our mother was an ailonit [a woman incapable of bearing children]

as it is stated: “And Sarai was barren; she had no child.”

Once it had said, “And Sarai was barren,” it need not have said, “she had no child.” Rather, this is stated in order to teach you:

she did not even have a “house of the offspring,”

a womb,

she did not have one,

because she was an ailonit.

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: They taught

in our Mishna that a man may remain with his wife for up to ten years without her giving birth

only in the earlier generations, when

the

years

of people’s lives

were many.

But in the later generations, when their years were few,

he may remain with her

for only two and a half years,

corresponding

to

the period appropriate for

three pregnancies.

Nine months for each pregnancy, making twenty-seven months,

and an additional month for each and every pregnancy, for the days of ritual impurity and purity. For a woman becomes pregnant close to the onset of her menstrual period; therefore, after the period of her pregnancy, one must wait an additional month, during which the days of impurity and purity pass, so that she will become pregnant close to her menstrual period.

This makes thirty months, which are two and a half years [Rashi].

He

said: Rabba said that Rav Naḥman said:

In the later generations, he may remain with her

for three years, corresponding to three occasions on which barren women were remembered

on Rosh HaShana.

For that is the time suited for barren women to be remembered, for their prayers to be heard, and for pregnancy to be decreed for them [Rashi].

As the Master said: On Rosh HaShana, Sarah

our mother,

Rachel

our mother,

and Hannah,

the mother of Samuel the Prophet, were remembered.

Rabba said: These principles do not apply [there is no halakha in accordance with the statements of Rav and Rav Naḥman];

rather, even in the later generations he may remain with her for ten years, because:

After all,

the

Mishna—

who established it?

Who arranged our Mishna?—

Rabbi

was the one who arranged it.

But

already

in the days of David, people’s years had diminished [in his days, people’s years had already become fewer],

as it is written: “The days of our years are seventy years.”

And nevertheless Rabbi included the Mishna stating that he may remain with her for ten years!

Here the Gemara returns to explain the words of the beraita brought at the beginning of the sugya: If one married a woman and remained with her for ten years and she did not give birth, he must divorce her and give her the ketuba, as perhaps he was not privileged to be built up through her:

And we raise an objection:

And this phrase,

“perhaps he was not privileged

to

be built up through her,”

requires explanation!

Why do we say that he must give her the ketuba because the blame rests upon him, since he was not privileged to be built up through her?

But

perhaps

she was the one who was not privileged [perhaps she was the one who was not deserving]?

Since it is possible that the blame rests upon her, why should he give her the ketuba in a case of doubt?

Since it is possible that the responsibility rests upon her, why should he give her the payment stipulated in the marriage contract when there is doubt?

And we answer:

As for her, since she is not commanded concerning procreation,

the woman, since she is not obligated in procreation,

she is not punished

[she is not punished] for not giving birth to children, since she is not concerned about it. If so, the blame rests upon him, and therefore he must give her the ketuba.

The Gemara now raises a difficulty concerning our Mishna, in which we learned: If one married a woman and remained with her for ten years and she did not give birth, he may not refrain from procreation. Rather, he must marry another woman, as perhaps he was not privileged to be built up through the first, but he will be built up through the second:

Is that so? But the Sages said to Rabbi Abba bar Zavda,

who had no children from the first woman whom he married:

“Marry a woman and have children,”

[marry a woman and beget children], in order to fulfill the mitzva of procreation.

And he

answered

them,

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda:

“If I were deserving —

I would have had them from the first one,

[had I been deserving before God that I have children, I would have merited having them from the first woman]; but I am not deserving, and what benefit would marrying another woman provide me?”

And we answer:

There,

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda did not refrain from marrying another woman for that reason, but rather

he was merely dismissing the Sages

[he rejected the Sages’ words without substance].

For Rabbi Abba bar Zavda became sterile because of Rav Huna’s lecture

[he became sterile when he restrained himself from urinating during Rav Huna’s lengthy lecture], and therefore there would have been no benefit in his marrying another woman.

Rav Giddel

also

became sterile because of Rav Huna’s lecture.

Rabbi Ḥelbo

also

became sterile because of Rav Huna’s lecture.

Rav Sheshet

also

became sterile because of Rav Huna’s lecture.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov,

who was also among Rav Huna’s disciples,

was afflicted by a disease called suskinta

[he was seized by an illness caused by retaining urine, from which a person becomes sterile].

They suspended

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov

from a cedar in the house of the Master,

on a tall tree,

and urine emerged from him,

and it came out of him

like

the

“expulsion of a vegetable.”

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said

about this:

“We were sixty elders,

[we were sixty elders],

and all of them became sterile because of Rav Huna’s lecture,

[and all of them became sterile as a result of Rav Huna’s lengthy lecture],

except for me, who fulfilled in myself

[except for me, who fulfilled in myself]:

‘Wisdom preserves the life of its possessor,’”

as I asked them to suspend me from a tall tree, and thus urine came out of me.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If he divorced her, she is permitted

to marry another,” and the second husband may remain with her for ten years. And we infer: Only the

second husband, not

indeed, he is permitted to marry her and may remain with her for ten years.

But if she remained for ten years with the second husband as well and did not give birth, the

third husband may not

marry her, if he has not yet fulfilled the mitzva of procreation, since the fact that she has been married to both of them establishes her as a woman incapable of bearing children.

Who is the tanna of the Mishna?—

It is Rabbi,

who holds that an established presumption is established after two occurrences.

As it was taught: If a woman

circumcised

her

first son

and he died,

as a result of circumcision, and she circumcised her

second son, and he died

as well as a result of circumcision, then her

third son—

she should not circumcise him, the statement of Rabbi,

since she has been established as one whose sons die as a result of circumcision.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

She should circumcise even her

third son.

For an established presumption is not established after two occurrences; only if the third also dies is an established presumption established, and she should not circumcise the

fourth.

The Gemara asks:

But was it not taught otherwise?

We find a beraita in which the statements of Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel are reversed: Rabbi says that an established presumption is established after three occurrences, while Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that it is established after two occurrences. That is, they retracted their earlier positions and exchanged their views. We must now determine:

which of them is the later one,

which beraita was taught later, so that we will know their final position on the matter!?

Come and hear: As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

There was an incident involving four sisters in Sepphoris. The

first

sister

circumcised her son,

and he died;

the

second

circumcised her son as well,

and he died;

and likewise the

third

circumcised her son,

and he died.

When the

fourth

sister gave birth to her son,

she came

before

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

He said to her: “Do not circumcise”

your son, because the family has been established as one whose sons die as a result of circumcision.

This incident certainly occurred before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel toward the end of his life, for otherwise Rabbi Yoḥanan, who was an amora and lived at the end of the period of the tannaim, could not have testified that he had seen the incident.

You have therefore learned that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s view in his old age was as in the first beraita: an established presumption is established after three occurrences.

The Gemara raises an objection to the proof from the beraita:

But perhaps

even

if the third had come

[if the third sister had also come to ask],

he would likewise have said to her

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: Do not circumcise!

For in his view an established presumption is established after two occurrences. Rather, the incident simply happened to involve only the fourth sister coming to ask?!

And we answer:

If so,

according to your words,

what is the testimony

[testimony]

of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan?

He certainly intended to testify that an established presumption is established only after three occurrences?!

The Gemara still raises an objection and rejects the proof:

But perhaps Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba is teaching us this

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan through his testimony:

that

even

sisters establish a presumption

for one another. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, did not come to teach after how many occurrences an established presumption is established?!

Rava said: Now that you have said, “Sisters establish a presumption,” -

a person should not marry a woman from a family of epileptics

[people who fall because of the severity of the illness, Nimukei Yosef], that is, from a family whose sons have been established as having epilepsy.

Nor from a family of lepers.

And this is so only when it has been established three times

[provided that the family has been established as such three times], through three members of the family who gave birth to epileptics or lepers.

Now, after the Gemara rejected the proof that the beraita stating Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s view—that an established presumption is established only after three occurrences—is the one taught later,

it remains uncertain:

What conclusion was reached?

How should this question be applied as a practical matter?

When Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came, he said: There was an incident before Rabbi Yoḥanan

in

the synagogue of Maon, on Yom Kippur that occurred on Shabbat, and

a woman who had already

circumcised

once in the past,

the first

her first son,

and he died;

and likewise, on a

second

occasion, she had previously circumcised her second son,

and he died.

And now, on the

third

occasion, she

came before him

to ask about circumcising her third son, whose circumcision was to take place that day.

And

he said to her,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

“Go and circumcise

him.”

Abaye said

to Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef:

“See

[see and pay close attention to the accuracy of your testimony, Ritva]

that

you have

combined danger and prohibition

[for you are permitting both a prohibition and danger], for besides the danger to the infant’s life, you are permitting the violation of Shabbat and Yom Kippur for the circumcision of an infant who had been established as destined to die after two occurrences.

Even so,

Abaye relied upon it

—upon the statement of Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that an established presumption is not established after two occurrences—

Abaye

himself, and did not fear danger after two occurrences.

And Abaye went

relying on this, and

married Ḥuma

[he went and married a woman named Ḥuma],

the daughter

of

Isi, son of Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, who had been married to Raḥava of Pum####edita and he died

[she had previously been married to Raḥava of Pum####edita, and he died].

She then married

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and he died

[he too died].

And

nevertheless

he married her

[Abaye did], because he relied on Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef that Ḥuma had not been established as a woman whose husbands die after only two occurrences.

And

however, ultimately

he died

[Abaye too died].

Rava

expressed astonishment

at

Abaye:

“Is there anyone who performs an act that endangers himself in such a manner

[is there anyone who performs an act and endangers himself in such a case]?

But he himself,

Abaye himself,

said: ‘Avin is reliable’

[Rabbi Avin bar is reliable] when transmitting a statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, whereas

Yitzḥak the Red

[Yitzḥak the Red, that is, Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef]

is not reliable

to transmit statements in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, since

Avin—

reviews

[he reviews his learning], whereas

Yitzḥak the Red—

does not review it!

with regard to circumcision;

If so, how could Abaye rely upon him and endanger himself by marrying Ḥuma?!

And furthermore—

we do not read this

The Gemara now returns to the beginning of the discussion: Who is the tannaitic sage who holds, with regard to marriage, that two occurrences establish a presumption? We had established that it was Rabbi, who said with regard to circumcision that two occurrences establish a presumption.

Here the Gemara returns to the beginning of the sugya: Who is the tanna of our Mishna, who holds that with regard to marriage an established presumption is established after two occurrences? We established that it is Rabbi, who said with regard to circumcision that an established presumption is established after two occurrences.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

You can say that they disagree—

with regard to circumcision

Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as to whether two occurrences suffice to establish an established presumption—

but with regard to marriage, do they disagree?

It is possible that even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees with Rabbi that, with regard to marriage, an established presumption is established after two occurrences.

And we answer:

No,

they indeed disagree even with regard to marriage.

But it was taught

[by way of affirmation, and indeed this is what we learned]: If a woman

married

a

first

husband

and he died,

and she married

a

second

husband,

and he too died—then

a

third

she may not marry, the statement of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Even

she may marry a third,

and only

she may not marry a fourth

if the third also dies.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning both Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

Granted, with regard to circumcision

this is understandable, since once the family has been established as one whose sons die as a result of circumcision, we attribute the deaths of its sons to circumcision.

Since

there is a family whose blood is loose,

whose blood is thin and does not clot, creating a danger that the infant will die from the bleeding caused by circumcision,

and there is a family whose blood coagulates,

whose blood is thick and clots, so that there is no danger in circumcising him.

And since it has become established, we attribute this to the fact that the blood of this family is weak, and their sons will die because of circumcision.

Rather, marriage Marriage to a woman who has become established as a katlanit, a woman whose husbands die]

the marriage of a woman who has been established as one whose husbands die]

What is the reason—

that is, how is it possible to decide that a woman’s husbands die, and that the matter depends on her?[]

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Avimi of Hagrונya said in the name of Rav Huna:

The spring—

the woman’s source—is the

cause

of the men who have relations with her dying.

And Rav Ashi

himself

said: The fortune

of the woman

causes

her husbands to die.

What is the difference between them?

There is a difference between them

in the case

where she became betrothed

to the third man and

he died

before he married her.

For you cannot say that “the spring causes it,” since he had not yet had relations with her; and according to the one who holds that “the spring causes it,” she is permitted to marry a fourth man.

Alternatively,

it could be

that he fell from a palm tree and died The husband fell from the palm tree and died], for you cannot say that the woman’s spring caused him to fall from the palm tree, since he did not die from an illness.

the husband fell from the palm tree and died], since you cannot say that the woman’s source caused him to fall from the palm tree, as he did not die from an illness.

Rav Yosef, son of Rava, said to Rava:

Once

I asked

him,

Rav Yosef:

whether

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi?

And he said to me,

Rav Yosef:

Yes,

indeed, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi.

And on another occasion I asked him whether

the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

And he said to me,

Rav Yosef:

Yes,

indeed, the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And it seems to me that

he was mocking me Rav Yosef was joking with me].

Rav Yosef was joking with me].

He said to him,

Rava to Rav Yosef’s son:

No,

Rav Yosef was not mocking you. Rather, indeed, sometimes the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi, who holds that two occurrences establish a presumption, and sometimes the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that three occurrences establish a presumption [as the Gemara proceeds to explain]. For

they are anonymous—

there are anonymous Mishnayot that follow Rabbi, and others that follow Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the halakha was ruled accordingly.

And

so

Rav Yosef made it clear to you

as follows:

With regard to

marriage

to a katlanit, and to a woman who has become established as one who cannot bear children,

and

likewise with regard to

lashes the Gemara proceeds to explain]:

the Gemara explains this below]—

The halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi,

who holds that two occurrences establish a presumption.

But with regard to

vesetot and an ox that has been forewarned The Gemara proceeds to explain them]:

the Gemara explains these below]—

the halakha is

in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

who holds that three occurrences establish a presumption.

And the Gemara explains which anonymous Mishnayot these are, as we said:

Marriage:

This is what we said

at the beginning of the sugya, to infer from our Mishna that two occurrences establish a presumption. The reason is that we proceed stringently.

Lashes:

As we learned in a Mishna: One who was flogged and repeated the offense

twice for the very same transgression, which is a prohibition carrying karet [Gemara, Sanhedrin 81b], if he commits that same transgression a third time:

the court places him in a cell an enclosed place],

an enclosed place],

and feeds him barley until his belly bursts.

For, since he was flogged twice, we establish him as wicked; and since this transgression carries karet, we hasten his death.

Vesetot:

a. With regard to a woman who sees menstrual blood, the Sages were concerned that perhaps the blood emerged from her source even before she saw it, but that the “walls of the womb” held it back from emerging externally. Therefore, she renders impure all ritually pure items that she touched retroactively, for the preceding twenty-four hours, counting backward from the time she saw the blood.

b. However, with regard to a woman who sees blood at the time of her established veset, we do not render the ritually pure items impure retroactively. It is sufficient for her to render the items impure from the time she sees the blood, because there is a presumption that her menstrual flow arrives at its appointed time.

c. A woman who has an established veset, who has become accustomed to seeing blood at a fixed interval, and who did not examine herself at the time of her veset to determine whether she was pure, is impure], because we attribute it to the fact that her menstrual flow arrived at its appointed time.