Yevamot 79b — the Talmud in English

In the days of Rabbi they sought

Sages

to permit

the

Netinim!

Rabbi said to them: Our portion we shall permit,

but

the portion of the altar—who will permit?

And it disagrees—

this statement of Rabbi—

with that of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba!

For Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

The portion of the congregation: it is always forbidden.

But

the portion of the altar: when the Temple is standing,

it is

forbidden,

when

the Temple is not standing,

it is

permitted.

Thus, according to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, there is no impediment to permitting them in the days of Rabbi on account of the portion of the altar, for this portion does not exist at all when the Temple is not standing.

Mishna:

Rabbi Joshua said: I heard that the eunuch,

although he is unfit to beget, he

performs halitza

for the wife of his brother who died,

and halitza is performed

by healthy brothers

for his wife,

the wife of the eunuch.

And

I also heard:

the eunuch does not perform halitza,

for every levirate bond and halitza is in order “to establish a name for his brother in Israel,” whereas a eunuch—who does not beget—is not capable of establishing a name for his brother; and he neither performs levirate marriage nor halitza.

And I have no way to explain

which eunuch they said performs halitza and for whose wife halitza is performed, and which eunuch they said does not perform halitza and for whose wife halitza is not performed.

Rabbi Akiva said: I shall explain:

A eunuch by human agency [

who became a eunuch after he was born ] —he

performs halitza, and halitza is performed for his wife, because he had a time of fitness

from the time he was born until he became a eunuch.

A eunuch from the sun [

a eunuch from his mother’s womb ] —he

does not perform halitza, and halitza is not performed for his wife, because he did not have

a time of fitness

ever.

Rabbi Eliezer says: No! Rather:

A eunuch from the sun,

he

performs halitza, and halitza is performed for his wife, because he has a cure.

A eunuch by human agency does not perform halitza, and halitza is not performed for his wife, because he has no cure.

Rabbi Joshua ben Beteira testified concerning Ben Magosat [

the name of a person

who was in Jerusalem, a eunuch by human agency, and they performed levirate marriage with his wife—

and therefore Rabbi Joshua testified thus, in order

to uphold the words of Rabbi Akiva.

The eunuch—

that is, a eunuch from the sun , and according to the view of Rabbi Akiva [Gemara]—he

does not perform halitza and does not perform levirate marriage.

And likewise an aylonit does not perform halitza and does not enter into levirate marriage,

for so the Torah said: “And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears” shall arise—excluding an aylonit, who is unfit to bear children.

The eunuch [

a eunuch from the sun]

who performed halitza for his wife,

he

does not disqualify her

from the priesthood like other women who underwent halitza, since the halitza of a eunuch is not halitza.

And if

he had intercourse with her—

the eunuch with the wife of his brother—he

disqualifies her

from the priesthood

because it is licentious intercourse,

and she becomes a zonah and disqualified from the priesthood, for she is forbidden to him as the wife of a brother outside the place of a mitzva, and prohibited intercourse is “licentious intercourse.”

And likewise, if brothers performed halitza for an aylonit, they did not disqualify her

from the priesthood, since she does not require halitza; but if

they had intercourse with her,

they disqualified her, because her intercourse is licentious intercourse,

for she is the wife of a brother outside the place of a mitzva.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Akiva said, “I shall explain: a eunuch by human agency performs halitza, and halitza is performed for his wife”:

And we raise an objection to what he said: If a levirate wife fell before a eunuch by human agency—who is included among one with crushed genitals and is forbidden by a negative commandment to have intercourse with his levirate wife—he performs halitza for his levirate wife:

Since,

we have

heard Rabbi Akiva say that those liable for negative commandments—

as

the laws of forbidden relations—

are considered like those liable to excision.

And

since this is so, the difficulty is:

those liable to excision,

who fell for levirate marriage,

are not capable of halitza and levirate marriage,

and according to Rabbi Akiva we should equate the law of a eunuch by human agency—who is “one with crushed genitals” and forbidden by a negative commandment—with those liable to excision!

He said

to resolve it,

Rabbi Ami: Here, with what are we dealing? For example, his brother—

the eunuch’s deceased brother—

married a convert.

And Rabbi Akiva agrees with Rabbi Yosei, who said: The congregation of converts is not called a congregation,

and even one with crushed genitals, who is forbidden to enter “the congregation of the Lord,” is permitted among them; therefore, when the convert’s levirate wife fell before him for levirate marriage, he performs halitza for her.

And we wonder about it:

If so—

that the levirate wife is permitted to the levir—

she should also enter into levirate marriage [

the version of Tosafot], and why did Rabbi Akiva say “performs halitza,” implying that he does not perform levirate marriage?!

And we answer:

Indeed so,

if the eunuch wishes, he also performs levirate marriage.

And since

because

Rabbi Joshua said [

who generally holds that “the congregation of converts is called a congregation”]: “I heard that the eunuch

performs halitza,”

for according to his view he does not perform levirate marriage because he is one with crushed genitals,

he said—

Rabbi Akiva—

also, ‘he performs halitza.’”

Although according to his view she also enters into levirate marriage.

It is also precise

from the body of our Mishna—that according to Rabbi Akiva the eunuch also performs levirate marriage with his levirate wife—for

it teaches: Rabbi Joshua testified concerning Ben Magosat, who was in Jerusalem, a eunuch by human agency, and they performed levirate marriage with his wife in order to uphold the words of Rabbi Akiva,

from this you learn: according to Rabbi Akiva, levirate marriage is performed with the wife of a eunuch; and although in the wording of the Mishna it says only, “halitza is performed for his wife,” you should say the same concerning what Rabbi Akiva said: “he performs halitza.”

And we conclude: indeed

infer from it.

Rava objected: One with crushed genitals and one with severed organ, a eunuch by human agency

and an old man,

who all these do not beget,

either perform halitza or perform levirate marriage,

that is, their levirate marriage is valid, as it explains the entire matter and proceeds;

And this beraita is the view of Rabbi Akiva, who holds: a eunuch by human agency performs halitza, and halitza is performed for his wife, since he had a time of fitness.

And the beraita explains two forms of this law:

The first: when these men were married, and their wives fell for levirate marriage.

The second: when the brothers of these men died, and their wives fell before these men for levirate marriage.

How so:

a.

Four of these died

and they had wives and they had brothers; and the brothers arose and performed maamar with their wives, and they gave

a divorce [

or they gave a divorce]

a divorce

for their levirate bond,

or they performed halitza—whatever they did, they did—

That is: the maamar they performed with the wife of a brother [with whom betrothal does not take effect] is effective, just as it is effective with the wife of a brother who is bound for levirate marriage, and she does not leave without a divorce.

And if they gave a divorce for the levirate bond, they disqualified the levirate wife for all, like any divorce given to a levirate wife; and if they performed halitza, their halitza is halitza, to disqualify her from levirate marriage.

And if they had intercourse

the brothers with the eunuch’s wife—they

acquired

her like other levirate wives.

b.

The healthy brothers died,

the healthy ones,

and they arose—

these four—

and performed maamar with their wives,

the wives of the brothers,

and gave a divorce [

or they gave a divorce],

or performed halitza—whatever they did, they did,

since the levirate wife was bound to them—

And if they had intercourse, they acquired her, but it is forbidden—

for one with crushed genitals, one with a severed organ, and a eunuch by human agency—

to retain them, because it is said: ‘One with crushed genitals and one with a severed organ shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.’

And on the basis of this beraita, Rava raises a difficulty against Rabbi Ami’s resolution, in which he explained our Mishna—according to Rabbi Akiva—as referring to a convert, who is permitted to one with crushed genitals since she is not a congregation.

For in the beraita—which is also according to Rabbi Akiva’s view —it says: “And it is forbidden to retain them, because it is said: ‘He shall not enter the congregation of the Lord ’”;

apparently, we are dealing with the congregation

and not with a convert, who is not a congregation?!

Rather, Rava said

to resolve the difficulty: why does the eunuch perform halitza for his levirate wife according to Rabbi Akiva, although she is forbidden to him by a negative commandment, and those liable for negative commandments are considered like those liable to excision:

Here, in our Mishna, with what are we dealing?

For example, she fell before him

the levirate wife for levirate marriage before he became one with crushed genitals,

and afterward he was injured,

and since this is so, Rava reasoned: now halitza is required to remove the levirate bond [Rashi].

He said

in astonishment,

Abaye to him: Let the prohibition of one with crushed genitals come and reject the positive commandment of levirate marriage,

that is: what difference does it make that she fell before him before he was injured and was already bound to him? In the end, she is now forbidden to him by a negative commandment, which according to Rabbi Akiva is like those liable to excision; and concerning those liable to excision we find that even a woman who became liable to excision after her husband’s death is exempt from halitza and levirate marriage?!

For

did we not learn

below, in Perek Beit Shammai: “

Two brothers married two sisters, one an adult and one a minor [whom her brother or mother married with rabbinic marriage, and she can perform refusal when she grows up; and if she did not perform refusal, she is married by Torah law], and the husband of the adult died [and she fell for levirate marriage before the husband of the minor sister, who is forbidden to his levirate wife because she is the sister of his wife; nevertheless, it is impossible to exempt her without halitza—as in the case of any wife’s sister—since she is forbidden to him only rabbinically]”

Rabban Gamaliel says: If she performed refusal,

the minor with her husband—

she has performed refusal,

and her husband performs levirate marriage with her sister, for refusal uproots the marriage retroactively, as though she had never been his wife.

And if not,

if the minor did not perform refusal,

she shall wait

the minor

until she grows up, and this one shall leave [

her elder sister]

because of the sister of a wife.

For since the minor did not perform refusal, once she grew up her marriage became a marriage by Torah law, and her sister became forbidden to him by the Torah prohibition of forbidden relations, and she became exempt from halitza and levirate marriage.

Apparently, the prohibition of the sister of a wife comes

which came upon the levirate wife after she became bound for levirate marriage

and rejects

the levirate marriage and the halitza.

So too

in our Mishna,

let the prohibition of one with crushed genitals come

which came after the falling,

and reject

the levirate marriage and the halitza?!

Rather, he said—

Rabbi Yosef

said—

to resolve the difficulty: according to Rabbi Akiva, who makes those liable for negative commandments like those liable to excision, we should have exempted a levirate wife who falls before a eunuch by human agency from levirate marriage and halitza:

This tanna

of our Mishna in the name of Rabbi Akiva,

is that tanna of the school of Rabbi Akiva who said that

from those liable for negative commandments of kinship [

those liable for negative commandments forbidden because of kinship] only

there is a mamzer.

But

from those liable for mere negative commandments—

those liable only for negative commandments that are not of kinship, such as one with crushed genitals—

there is not a mamzer.

Rather, the law of these persons liable for negative commandments is like that of all persons liable for negative commandments according to the Sages, and she requires halitza—

Therefore, in our Mishna, since his prohibition against her is not because of kinship, she is bound for levirate marriage and halitza even according to Rabbi Akiva.

And we still wonder about our Mishna, which we learned according to Rabbi Akiva: a eunuch by human agency performs halitza, since he had a time of fitness:

What difference does it make that he had a time of fitness? In the end,

it is stated here—

in the section of levirate marriage—

“to establish a name for his brother”,

and this

the eunuch levir—at the time she is bound to him for levirate marriage—

is not capable of this [

he is not capable of begetting children and cannot establish a name for his brother]; and if so, he is not subject to the mitzva of levirate marriage and does not need to perform halitza?!

He said

he explained,

Rava: If so,

as you wish to say: since at the time of death he is not capable of establishing a name, he does not perform halitza, even though he had a time of fitness—

There is no woman fit for levirate marriage whose husband did not become a eunuch from the sun

one hour before his death,

because the suffering of death weakens his strength; and you would have to say: levirate marriage and halitza are not performed with the levirate wives, as in the case of the wife of a eunuch who is not bound for levirate marriage and halitza—

Rather, certainly: since he had [the husband] a time of fitness—that is different; here too, since he had [the levir] a time of fitness, he performs halitza.

And we raise a difficulty

against Rabbi Eliezer

in our Mishna, who does not distinguish between a eunuch who had a time of fitness and a eunuch who did not have a time of fitness:

Here is

Rava’s resolution—

the resolution of Rava and his proof for the reasoning of “a time of fitness”—

a refutation

of Rabbi Eliezer, who does not hold this reasoning?!

And we answer: Rava’s proof is not a proof, because

there

when he is going to die and his strength has weakened, this is not eunuchhood, but

emaciation

it

is what began in him [

the emaciation whose end is death began in him, and not eunuchhood].

What are the circumstances of a eunuch from the sun

about whom we learned in our Mishna: “He did not have a time of fitness”?