Yevamot 79b (עט:) — the Talmud in English

In the days of Rabbi, they sought

the Sages

to permit

the

Netinim!

Rabbi said to them: We can permit our portion,

but

who will permit the portion of the altar?

And it disagrees—with

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 forever forbidden.

But

the portion of the altar: while 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 obstacle to permitting them in the days of Rabbi on account of the portion of the altar, since this portion does not exist at all when the Temple is not standing.

Mishna:

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard that the eunuch,

although he is incapable of procreation,

performs halitza

with the wife of his brother who died,

and halitza is performed

by healthy brothers

with his wife,

the eunuch’s wife.

And

I also heard:

the eunuch does not perform halitza,

since the entire obligation of yibbum and halitza is in order “to establish a name for his brother in Israel,” whereas a eunuch—who cannot father children—is not capable of establishing a name for his brother; he neither performs yibbum nor halitza.

And I cannot explain

which eunuch they said performs halitza and whose wife undergoes halitza, and which eunuch they said does not perform halitza and whose wife does not undergo halitza.

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 with his wife, because he had a period 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 with his wife, because he did not have

a period of fitness

ever.

Rabbi Eliezer says: No! Rather:

A eunuch from the sun,

he

performs halitza, and halitza is performed with his wife, because he has a remedy.

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

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified concerning the son of Megosat,

a man’s name,

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

And Rabbi Yehoshua testified this way in order

to uphold the words of Rabbi Akiva.

The eunuch—

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

does not perform halitza or yibbum.

Similarly, an aylonit does not perform halitza and does not undergo yibbum,

since the Torah says: “And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears” shall arise—excluding an aylonit, who is incapable of bearing children.

A eunuch

a eunuch from the sun

who performed halitza with his wife

he

does not disqualify her

from marrying a kohen, as other women who underwent halitza are, since the halitza of a eunuch is not halitza.

And if

he had relations with her—

the eunuch with the wife of his brother—he

disqualifies her

from marrying a kohen

because it is licentious intercourse,

and she becomes a zona and is disqualified from marrying a kohen, since she is forbidden to him as his brother’s wife when there is no mitzva, and intercourse in violation of a prohibition is licentious intercourse.

Similarly, when brothers performed halitza for an aylonit, they did not disqualify her

from marrying a kohen, since she does not require halitza; but if

they had relations with her, they

disqualified her, because her intercourse is licentious intercourse,

since she is a brother’s wife when there is no mitzva.

Gemara:

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

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

Now,

we have

heard Rabbi Akiva say that those liable for negative commandments—

like

those liable for the prohibitions of forbidden relations—

are considered like those liable to karet.

And

if so, the difficulty is:

Those liable to karet

who fell to yibbum

are not subject to halitza or yibbum,

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

He said,

in answer,

Rabbi Ami: What are we dealing with here? For example, when his brother

the eunuch’s deceased brother

married a female convert.

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

and one with crushed testicles, who is forbidden to enter “the congregation of the Lord,” is permitted to marry them. Therefore, when this female convert fell before him for yibbum, he performs halitza with her.

And we challenge this:

If so—

that the yevama is permitted to the yavam—

she should also undergo yibbum

as in the version of Tosafot; and why did Rabbi Akiva say “he performs halitza,” implying that he does not perform yibbum?!

And we answer:

Indeed,

if the eunuch wishes, he may also perform yibbum.

Since

once

Rabbi Yehoshua said

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

“performs halitza,”

since according to his view he does not perform yibbum because he is one with crushed testicles,

he

Rabbi Akiva

also said, “he performs halitza.”

Although according to his own view she may also undergo yibbum.

This is also precise

from the body of our Mishna: According to Rabbi Akiva, the eunuch also performs yibbum, since

it states: Rabbi Yehoshua testified concerning the son of Megosat, who was a eunuch by human agency in Jerusalem, and they performed yibbum with his wife in order to uphold the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Thus you learn that according to Rabbi Akiva, yibbum is performed with the wife of a eunuch, even though the wording of the Mishna says only, “halitza is performed with his wife”; and you should say the same regarding Rabbi Akiva’s statement, “he performs halitza.”

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it.

Rava objected: One with crushed testicles or severed organ, a eunuch by human agency

and an old man,

none of whom can father children,

either perform halitza or perform yibbum,

that is, their yibbum is valid, as the beraita proceeds to explain;

This beraita follows Rabbi Akiva, who holds that a eunuch by human agency performs halitza and that halitza is performed with his wife, since he had a period of fitness.

The beraita explains two applications of this law:

The first: when these men were married and their wives fell for yibbum.

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

How so:

a.

These four died,

and

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

or they gave a bill of divorce

a bill of divorce

for their bond,

or performed halitza—their actions are valid—

That is, the maamar they performed with the wife of the brother [with whom betrothal does not take effect] is effective, just as it is effective with a brother’s wife subject to yibbum, and she does not leave the relationship without a bill of divorce.

If they gave a bill of divorce for their bond, they disqualified the yevama from all the brothers, like any bill of divorce given to a yevama; and if they performed halitza, their halitza is valid to disqualify her from yibbum.

And if they had relations with

the eunuch’s wife,

they acquired

her, as with other yevamot.

b.

The healthy brothers died,

the

four of them arose—

these four men—

and performed maamar with their wives,

the brothers’ wives,

and gave a bill of divorce

or they gave a bill of divorce

or performed halitza—their actions are valid,

since the yevama is subject to them—

And if they had relations, they acquired them, but it is forbidden—

for one with crushed testicles, one with a severed organ, or a eunuch by human agency—

to retain them as wives, because it is stated: “One with crushed testicles or a severed organ shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.”

On the basis of this beraita, Rava challenges Rabbi Ami’s answer, which explained our Mishna—according to Rabbi Akiva—as referring to a female convert, who is permitted to one with crushed testicles because she is not part of the congregation.

For the beraita—which likewise follows Rabbi Akiva’s view— states: “But it is forbidden to retain them as wives, because it is stated: ‘He shall not enter the congregation of the Lord

’—apparently, we are dealing with the congregation

and not with a female convert, who is not part of the congregation?!

Rather, Rava said

to resolve the question of why, according to Rabbi Akiva, the eunuch performs halitza with his yevama even though she is forbidden to him by a negative commandment, and those liable for negative commandments are like those liable to karet:

What are we dealing with here in our Mishna:

For example, she fell before him

for yibbum before he became one with crushed testicles,

and he was subsequently injured.

Since this was so, Rava held that halitza is now required to release the bond [Rashi].

He said,

in objection,

Abaye: Let the prohibition of one with crushed testicles come and override the positive commandment of yibbum,

that is: What difference does it make that she fell before him before he was injured and thereby became subject 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 karet; and with regard to those liable to karet, we find that even when a woman became liable to karet after her husband’s death, she is exempt from halitza and yibbum?!

For

did we not learn

below, in the chapter “Beit Shammai”: “

Two brothers were married to two sisters, one an adult and one a minor [whom her brother or mother married with a marriage of rabbinic status, and who can perform refusal when she comes of age; if she did not perform refusal, her marriage is of Torah status], and the husband of the adult died [and she thereby fell for yibbum before the husband of the minor sister, who is forbidden to his yevama as his wife’s sister; nevertheless, she cannot be exempted without halitza—as is the case with any wife’s sister—since she is forbidden to him only by rabbinic law]”

Rabban Gamliel says: If the minor performed refusal

with her husband,

she has performed refusal,

and her husband may perform yibbum with her sister, since refusal uproots the marriage retroactively, as though she had never been his wife.

And if not,

if the minor did not perform refusal,

the minor shall wait

until she comes of age,

and this one shall leave

her older sister

because she is a wife’s sister.

Since the minor did not perform refusal, once she comes of age her marriage becomes a marriage of Torah status, and her sister becomes forbidden to him by the Torah prohibition of forbidden relations; she is therefore exempt from halitza and yibbum.

Apparently, the prohibition of a wife’s sister comes

after the yevama had already become subject to yibbum,

and overrides

both yibbum and halitza.

So too

in our Mishna,

let the prohibition of one with crushed testicles come

after she fell before him,

and override

both yibbum and halitza?!

Rather, he said

in answer,

Rav Yosef

answered the question: According to Rabbi Akiva—who makes those liable for negative commandments like those liable to karet—we should have exempted a yevama who falls before a eunuch by human agency from both yibbum and halitza:

This tanna,

the tanna of our Mishna who transmitted this teaching in the name of Rabbi Akiva,

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

that among those liable for negative commandments involving kinship

those liable for negative commandments involving forbidden relations

there is a mamzer.

But

those liable only for ordinary negative commandments—

those liable only for negative commandments that do not involve kinship, such as one with crushed testicles—

do not produce a mamzer.

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

Therefore, in our Mishna, since his prohibition against her is not due to kinship, she remains subject to yibbum and halitza even according to Rabbi Akiva.

We still question our Mishna, which teaches according to Rabbi Akiva that a eunuch by human agency performs halitza because he had a period of fitness:

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

it is applicable here—

in the passage concerning yibbum—

“to establish a name for his brother,”

but

the eunuch who is the yavam—when she becomes subject to him for yibbum—

is not capable of this

he cannot father children and cannot establish a name for his brother; if so, he is not subject to the mitzva of yibbum and need not perform halitza?!

He said,

explaining,

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, despite having had a period of fitness—

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

one hour before his death,

because the agony of death weakens his strength; and you would have to say that yibbum and halitza are not performed with the yevamot, as with the wife of a eunuch who is not subject to yibbum or halitza—

But certainly, since he had [the husband] a period of fitness, the case is different; here too, since he [the yavam] had a period of fitness, he performs halitza.

And we challenge this

to Rabbi Eliezer,

who in our Mishna does not distinguish between a eunuch who had a period of fitness and one who did not:

Surely

Rava’s resolution

Rava’s answer and proof for the concept of “a period of fitness”

is a refutation

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

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

there,

when he is dying and his strength is failing, this is not eunuchhood; rather, it is

weakness

that

has begun within him

the wasting that will culminate in death has begun within him, but it is not eunuchhood.

What are the circumstances of a eunuch from the sun

concerning whom our Mishna taught: “He did not have a period of fitness”?