Yevamot 64b — 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 said: “Look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you were excavated.”

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avahu: Sarah our mother was an aylonit.

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

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

“Even a place of childbirth

the womb,

she did not have

because she was an aylonit.

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

in our Mishna that one may remain with his wife for ten years without her giving birth,

but in the earlier generations, when

the

years of their lives

of the people

were numerous.

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

he remains with her

two and a half years

only,

corresponding to

the time appropriate for

three pregnancies.

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

And an additional month for each pregnancy, for the days of impurity and purity. Since the woman becomes pregnant close to the onset of her menstrual period, she must therefore wait after the time of her pregnancy an additional month, during which the days of impurity and purity pass, and she becomes pregnant close to her period.

Thus you have thirty months, which are two and a half years [Rashi].

He said

Rabbah said, Rav Naḥman said:

In the later generations, he remains with her

three years, corresponding to three visitations

of barren women that occurred on Rosh Hashanah.

For that is the time propitious for the visitation of barren women, to hear their prayer and decree pregnancy for them [Rashi].

For the master said: On Rosh Hashanah Sarah

our mother, and

Rachel

our mother,

and Hannah

the mother of the prophet Samuel, were remembered.

Rabbah said: These principles do not hold [the halakha is not in accordance with the words of Rav and Rav Naḥman],

but even in the later generations he remains with her for ten years, because:

Since

it is

our Mishna—

who established it?

That is, who arranged our Mishna?

Rabbi

was the one who arranged it.

But

already

in the days of David the years had diminished [in his days the years of people had already diminished],

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

And nevertheless Rabbi brought the Mishna that he remains with her for ten years!

Here the Gemara returns to explain the words of the beraita brought at the beginning of the discussion: 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, lest he was not privileged to be built up through her:

And we raise an objection:

And we raise a difficulty:

And this “lest he was not privileged

is

to be built up through her,”

requires explanation!

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

And

yet

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

And 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:

She, since she is not commanded concerning procreation,

the woman, since she is not obligated in procreation,

is not punished

[she is not punished] for not bearing children, since it does not matter to her. Therefore the blame rests upon him, and consequently he should give her the ketuba.

Now the Gemara 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 should marry another woman, lest he was not privileged to be built up through the first, and 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 beget children” [marry a woman and beget children], in order to fulfill the mitzva of procreation.

And he said

he answered

to 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 should have children, I would have merited this from the first one], but I am not deserving, and what will marriage to another woman add for me?

And we answer:

There

, it was not for that reason that Rabbi Abba bar Zavda refrained from marrying another woman, but rather

he was merely dismissing the Sages [he rejected the words of the Sages without substance].

For Rabbi Abba bar Zavda became sterile from Rav Huna’s lecture [he became sterile when he restrained himself from urinating during Rav Huna’s lengthy lecture], and for that reason there would have been no benefit in marrying another woman.

Rav Giddel

he too

became sterile from Rav Huna’s lecture.

Rabbi Ḥelbo

he too

became sterile from Rav Huna’s lecture.

Rav Sheshet

he too

became sterile from Rav Huna’s lecture.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov

who was also among Rav Huna’s students,

became incapable of fathering children because of Rav Huna’s lecture.

was seized by suskinta [he was seized by an illness resulting from retention of urine, from which a person becomes sterile].

They suspended him

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov

on a cedar in the study hall,

on a tall tree,

and it came out of him,

and the urine came out of him

like

the phrase

“Bring out the vegetable.”

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said

about this:

“We were sixty elders” [we were sixty elders],

and all of them became sterile from Rav Huna’s lecture [and all of them became sterile from Rav Huna’s lengthy lecture],

except me, who fulfilled in myself [except me, who fulfilled in myself]:

“Wisdom preserves its possessor,”

for I requested that they suspend me on a tall tree, and thus the urine came out of me.

and all of them became incapable of fathering children because of Rav Huna’s lecture,

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, no

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

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

third husband cannot

marry her, if he has not yet fulfilled the mitzva of procreation, since through both of them she has become established as a woman who cannot bear children.

second husband, not

indeed, she may marry him and he 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

Whose view is our Mishna?—

It is Rabbi’s, who holds that a presumption is established after two occurrences. For it was taught: If a woman circumcised her first

son,

and he died,

from circumcision, and she circumcised also her

second son,

and he died

he too from circumcision, then her

third son—

she should not circumcise,

the words of Rabbi,

since she has become established as one who bears sons who die from circumcision.

third son:

she may not circumcise him, the words of Rabbi,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

She should also circumcise the third. For after two occurrences there is no established presumption; only if the third also dies is an established presumption, and

the fourth she should not circumcise.

And the Gemara asks:

But it was taught oppositely!

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

Which of them was taught later,

which beraita was taught last, so that we may know their final view on the matter!?

Come and hear: For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

There was an incident involving four sisters in Tzippori, in which

the

first

sister circumcised

her son

and he died,

and the

second

sister also circumcised her son

and he died,

and likewise the

third

circumcised her son

and he died.

And 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 had become established as one whose sons die from circumcision.

And this incident certainly occurred before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel at 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, that an established presumption arises after three occurrences.

And we raise an objection to the proof from the beraita:

But perhaps,

also

if the third had come [if the third too had come to ask],

he would likewise have said to her

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: Do not circumcise!

For in his view an established presumption arises after two occurrences. Rather, the incident happened to be such that only the fourth came to ask?!

And we answer:

If so,

as you say,

what is the testimony [his testimony]

of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan?

Surely he intended to testify that an established presumption arises only after three occurrences?!

And we still raise an objection and reject the proof:

Perhaps, this is what he teaches us

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan through his testimony:

that

even

sisters establish a presumption

for one another.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan did not come to teach after how many occurrences an established presumption arises?!

Rava said: Now that you have said, “Sisters establish a presumption,” A person should not marry a woman from the family of epileptics [people who fall because of the severity of the illness, Nimukei Yosef], that is, from a family whose sons have become established as bearing epileptics.

Nor from a family of lepers.

And this is when it has become established three times [provided that the family has become established in this regard three times], through three members of the family who bore epileptics or lepers.

Now, after the Gemara rejected the proof that the beraita stating that, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, an established presumption arises only after three occurrences was the one taught later, we must inquire: What has been decided concerning it? How does one conduct oneself in this question in practice?

Nor from a family of lepers.

And this is the case only when it has been established three times

provided that the family has acquired this presumption three times, through three members of the family who developed epilepsy or leprosy.

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 came who had previously

circumcised

on the

first

occasion,

her first son,

and he died,

and likewise on the

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 the circumcision of her third son, whose circumcision was to take place on that day.

time, she

And

he said to her

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Go and circumcise

him.

Rabbi Yoḥanan

Abaye said

to Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef:

See [see and pay close attention to examine your testimony carefully, Ritva] that

you are permitting a matter involving danger and a prohibition,

for you are permitting a prohibition and danger, since 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 become established as one who dies after two occurrences.

And nevertheless

he relied upon it—

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

Abaye

himself, not to be concerned about danger after two occurrences.

And Abaye went

on this basis and

married Ḥuma [he went and married the woman named Ḥuma],

the daughter

of

Isi, son of Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, whom Rahava of Pumbedita had married, and he died [who had previously been married to Rahava of Pumbedita, and he died].

And she went and married a second time

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rabbah bar bar Ḥana, and he died [he died]

he too.

And

nevertheless

he married her [Abaye],

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

And

but in the end

he died [he died]

Abaye too.

He said

Rava

expressed astonishment at Abaye:

Is there one who performs an act involving himself like this [is there one who acts and endangers his life in such a matter]?

But he himself,

and Abaye himself is the one

who said: “Avin is reliable” [Rabbi Avin is reliable] concerning what he says in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, but

Yitzḥak the red [Yitzḥak the red one, that is, Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef]

is not reliable

to state things in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, since

Avin—

he reviews

[he repeats his learning], but

Yitzḥak the red—

does not review

[does he not review his learning!?]

Rabbi Avin bar reliable is trustworthy concerning what he says in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, whereas

And if so, how did Abaye rely upon him and endanger himself by marrying Ḥuma?!

And furthermore—

it is not to be read

to transmit statements in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, because

Avin—

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

And the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning this:

Say that they disagree—

Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel over whether two occurrences suffice to establish a presumption—

with regard to circumcision;

but with regard to marriage, do they disagree?

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

And we answer: No,

indeed they disagreed also with regard to marriage.

But it was taught [agreeably, and indeed so we learned]: If

she married

a woman

a

first husband,

and he died,

and she married

a second husband,

and he too died—then

a

third husband

she should not marry, the words of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

She may

also marry a third,

and only

a fourth she should not marry,

if the third also died.

And we raise a difficulty both against Rabbi and against Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

Granted, with regard to circumcision,

it is understandable, for since the family has become established as one whose members die because of circumcision, we attribute it to the fact that their sons will die because of circumcision.

Since

there is a family whose blood is loose,

whose blood is loose, thin, and does not clot, and there is danger that the bleeding from circumcision will cause the infant’s death,

and there is a family whose blood thickens,

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

even

a third she may marry,

and only

a fourth she may not marry,

if the third husband also died.

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

Granted, with regard to circumcision

this is understandable, because once the family has acquired an established presumption that its children die because of circumcision, we assume that their children will die because of circumcision.

Since

there is a family whose blood is thin,

whose blood is loose and watery and does not clot, making the bleeding from circumcision dangerous and potentially fatal for the infant,

and there is a family whose blood thickens,

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

And since it has been established, we attribute that this family has weak blood, and their sons die because of circumcision.

Rather, marriage [

the marriage of a woman who has been established as a killer]

what is the reason

that is to say: how is it possible to decide regarding a woman whose husbands die—and is the matter dependent upon her?!

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Thus said Avimi of Hagrוניא in the name of Rav Huna:

The source,

the source of the woman, is the

cause

for the men who have relations with her, that they die.

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 a place

where she betrothed

the third one ,

and he died

he died before he married her.

For you cannot say “the source causes,” since he still has not had relations with her; and according to the one who holds “the source causes,” she is permitted to marry a fourth one.

Alternatively,

for example,

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 source caused him to fall from the palm tree, since he did not die from an illness.

Rav Yosef son of Rava said to Rava:

Once

I asked

I asked

Rav Yosef:

whether

is the halakha according to Rabbi?

And he said to me

Rav Yosef:

Yes,

indeed, the halakha is according to Rabbi.

And another time I asked him whether

is the halakha according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

And he said to me

Rav Yosef:

Yes,

indeed, the halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And it seems to me that

he was mocking me [

Rav Yosef was jesting with me].

He said to him

Rava to his son, Rav Yosef:

No,

Rav Yosef was not jesting with you; rather, indeed, at times the halakha is according to Rabbi, who holds that after two times it is an established presumption, and at times the halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that after three times it is an established presumption [as he explains and proceeds]. For

they are anonymous ones,

there are anonymous Mishnayot, at times according to Rabbi and at times according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the halakha was ruled accordingly.

And

thus

Rav Yosef made it clear to you

Rav Yosef:

With regard to

marriage

of a killer woman, and of a woman who has been established as a woman who is not capable of bearing children ,

and

likewise with regard to

lashes [

he explains it and proceeds]—

The halakha is

according to Rabbi,

that after two times it is an established presumption.

But with regard to

menstrual cycles and an ox accustomed to gore [

he explains them and proceeds]—

the halakha is

according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

that after three times it is an established presumption.

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

Marriage:

This is what we said

at the beginning of the discussion, to infer from our Mishna that after two times it is an established presumption. And the reason is that we proceed stringently .

Lashes:

For we learned in a Mishna: One who was flogged and repeated

twice for the very same transgression, and it is a prohibition whose violation carries karet [Gemara Sanhedrin 81b], if he sinned with that transgression a third time:

the court brings him into a cell [

an enclosed place],

and feeds him barley, until his belly bursts.

For through the two times that he was flogged, we establish him as wicked; and since this transgression carries karet, we bring his death closer .

Menstrual cycles:

a. With regard to a woman who sees niddah blood, the Sages were concerned lest the blood emerged from her source even before she saw it, except that “the walls of the womb” held it back from emerging outside; and therefore she renders impure all the pure things that she touched, retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, counting backward from the time of her seeing.

b. However, with regard to a woman who sees blood at the time of her established menstrual cycle, we do not render the pure things impure retroactively; rather, it is enough for her to render the pure things impure at the time of seeing the blood, for it is an established presumption that the menstrual flow comes at its time.

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