Yevamot 97a — the Talmud in English

Master of the world! May it be Your will ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page position")

that

after my death

they will say a teaching reported in my name in this world [

and my lips will move in the grave, and behold, I will be like one who dwells in two worlds].

For Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: Any Torah scholar of whom a teaching is reported in this world—

his lips move in the grave.

Rabbi Yitzhak ben Zeira said, and some say Shimon Nezira: What is the verse?

From where is there support for this from Scripture?

For it is said in the book of Song of Songs [chapter 7]]

“And your palate is like the good wine, going straight to my beloved—

moving the lips of the sleeping.”

The verse compared the words of Torah of Torah scholars, which are

like a heap of grapes,

a heap of grapes placed in a compressed manner, and the heating of the grapes due to the pressure causes wine to flow from them, so that with slight pressure they release wine.

Just as a heap of grapes—

as soon as a person places his finger upon it,

and he does not need to press,

immediately

it

moves,

releasing wine—

so too Torah scholars—

as soon as a teaching is reported from their mouths in this world,

immediately

their lips move in the grave.

We learned in the Mishna:

one who is nine years old

and one who is twenty, if he has not brought forth two pubic hairs, behold, he is like a minor.

And the Gemara assumes that even when he reaches the age of twenty he is a minor, and the yevama must wait for him until he grows up.

And they raise a contradiction

to this from the Mishna in tractate Nida [page 46]:

For we learned:

A twenty-year-old who has not brought forth two pubic hairs—

they shall bring

the relatives of the yevama, who wish to free her because he is not fit to establish a name,

evidence that he is

already

twenty

years old,

and he is the saris,

who

neither performs halitza nor yibbum,

and she is permitted to the marketplace.

And likewise, if the yevama was

a twenty-year-old who had not brought forth two pubic hairs—

they shall bring

her relatives

evidence that she is twenty years old and she is

the aylonit,

who is

neither subject to halitza nor to yibbum!

And it is proven that it is sufficient to wait until he reaches the age of twenty, and then he is considered an adult, even if he has not brought forth two pubic hairs, and behold, he is a saris who does not require yibbum!

And we answer:

This was stated concerning it; Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzhak said that Rav said: And he is so

and on condition

that signs of a saris have appeared in him.

But at the age of twenty alone he is not a saris if he merely has not brought forth two pubic hairs; rather, he is still in the category of a minor in whom the appearance of the hairs, which is a sign of his adulthood, has been delayed.

Rava said: It is also precise, as it teaches: “And he is the saris!”

the meaning of which is that he has manifested signs of

. And we conclude:

derive from it.

And if signs of a saris have not appeared in him—

until when is he considered a minor?

The school of Rabbi Hiyya taught: Until the majority of his years.

Until he reaches the age at which he has completed thirty-five years and one day, which is the majority of the years out of a person’s seventy years.

When they came before Rava

to examine the delay in the appearance of the hairs,

if he was emaciated,

if the one being examined was thin,

he said to them

Rava:

go and make him healthy,

feed him and give him drink,

and if he was corpulent,

if he was fat,

he said to them: Go and make him emaciated.

Since

these signs sometimes fall out

they shed

due to emaciation, and sometimes they fall out

they shed

due to corpulence.

We have returned to you, chapter “The Great Woman.”

One who marries a woman is forbidden to her relatives, which are: her mother, her daughter, and her sister:

As it is stated [Leviticus 20:14]: “And a man who takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall burn him and them in fire, and there shall not be lewdness among you.”

And it is stated [Deuteronomy 27:23]: “Cursed is he who lies with his mother-in-law.”

And it is stated [Leviticus 18:17]: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter you shall not take, to uncover her nakedness. They are her relatives—it is lewdness.”

And it is stated [Leviticus 18:18]: “And a woman to her sister you shall not take, to make her jealous, to uncover her nakedness upon her during her lifetime.”

And one who transgresses and marries a woman and her sister is liable for karet, as it is stated at the end of the section of forbidden relations, in the section of Aharei Mot [Leviticus 18:29]: “For whoever shall do any of all these abominations—the souls who do them shall be cut off from the midst of their people.”

Mishna:

They may marry

relatives

of the woman who was raped and of the woman who was seduced,

One who rapes or seduces a woman is permitted to her relatives.

But

one who rapes or seduces

the relatives

of a married woman,

who married a woman and afterward raped or seduced her relatives, is

liable.

A. It is stated in the section of Aharei Mot [Leviticus 18:8]: “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness.”

And it is further stated in the section of Kedoshim [Leviticus 20:11]: “And a man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them [by stoning].”

B. It is stated in the section of Aharei Mot [Leviticus 18:15]: “The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not uncover; she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness.”

And it is further stated in the section of Kedoshim [Leviticus 20:12]: “And a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed a perversion; their blood is upon them [by stoning].”

Although the Torah forbade his father’s wife, the Torah forbade only one who was married or betrothed to his father, but

a man may marry his father’s raped woman and his father’s seduced woman.

And likewise a man may marry

his son’s raped woman and his son’s seduced woman,

for the Torah forbade only his daughter-in-law who was married or betrothed to his son.

Rabbi Yehuda forbids his father’s raped woman and his father’s seduced woman.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: They may marry the woman who was raped and the woman who was seduced; one who rapes or seduces a married woman is liable:

And the Gemara explains:

We learned

in our Mishna

that which the Sages taught

in a beraita:

One who raped a woman is permitted to marry her daughter,

one who married a woman is forbidden to marry her daughter.

And we raise a contradiction

from that which we learned:

One who was rumored [

suspected]

because of a woman,

against whom a voice went out that he had committed a transgression with a woman, is

forbidden to her mother, her daughter, and her sister.

And it is proven that even one who rapes or seduces a woman is forbidden to her relatives!?

And we answer: By Torah law he is not forbidden to marry the relatives of the woman he raped; and this that we learned: “One who was rumored because of a woman is forbidden to her daughter, her mother, and her sister”—this is

rabbinic,

and for another reason: the Sages forbade him to marry her relatives, lest after the marriage he again commit a transgression with the first woman, who is now his wife’s relative and is forbidden to him by a Torah prohibition.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

why

whenever there is a rabbinic prohibition do they teach “They may marry” initially!?

But “They may marry” implies that it is permitted initially; how then do you say that there is nevertheless a rabbinic prohibition?

And we answer:

When the Mishna teaches

that one “may marry” a woman initially over the woman who was raped or seduced, this is

after the death

of the first woman, because there is no longer any concern at all.

Here the Gemara returns to explain the law of our Mishna:

From where are these words

that the Torah forbade the relatives only when he married the first woman?

For the Sages taught:

With all of them,

with all the forbidden relations,

it is stated

the expression of

lying [

in the section of Kedoshim, with his daughter-in-law and aunt, with a male and with an animal, the expression “lying” is stated]

but here,

with the relatives of the woman,

taking is stated [

“And a man who takes a woman and her mother,” and “And a woman to her sister you shall not take”].

In order

to tell you: the Torah forbade by the manner of taking,

if he took the first woman, he may not have intercourse with the second; but if he had intercourse and did not take the first woman, he is not forbidden to the second.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

If that is so, concerning his sister, about whom it is written:

“A man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother”—does

so too

the verse say that because the expression “take” is stated, only

the manner of taking is forbidden,

that he takes her and has intercourse with her, whereas

the manner of lying,

without taking, is

permitted!?

He said to him,

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

“Taking” is written in the Torah generically.

“Taking”

that is fit for

interpreting with regard to

taking

itself, we indeed interpret the expression

taking,

for otherwise the Torah would have said it in the expression of lying. Therefore, concerning the relatives of the woman, we interpret it this way.

But the expression “taking”

that is fit for

interpreting only as the expression of

lying

and not as the expression of taking, and because betrothal does not take effect with her, we necessarily interpret the expression “taking” as the expression of

lying; therefore concerning his sister we interpret it as the expression of lying.

Rava said: “One who raped a woman,

who is

permitted to marry her daughter—

from here

it is learned.”

For on the one hand

it is written: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover,”

and I learn from this:

but her son’s daughter [

of the woman]

and her daughter’s daughter—

uncover! [

it is permitted for him to uncover].

And

on the other hand

it is written: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter you shall not take,”

so the Torah forbade even his wife’s son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter.

How

are these two verses to be reconciled?

Here—

where the Torah permitted his wife’s son’s daughter and daughter’s daughter, and the same law applies to his wife’s daughter—

in rape,

when he did not marry a woman but only raped her; then the Torah permitted her daughter and granddaughter.

Here—

where the Torah forbade his wife’s daughter and granddaughter—

in marriage,

when he married a woman, he is forbidden to her daughter and granddaughter.

And we raise a difficulty:

Perhaps reverse it,

and say:

One who raped a woman and transgressed the prohibition of “the land would be filled with lewdness” is forbidden to her relatives!?

One who married a woman and transgressed nothing is permitted to her relatives.

And we answer: You cannot say this, because

with forbidden relations “kinship” [

relationship]

is written concerning them,

as it is stated: “Each man shall not approach any relative of his flesh to uncover nakedness”; and behold:

In marriage there is kinship; in rape there is no kinship.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda forbids his father’s raped woman

and his father’s seduced woman:

Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda,

who forbids even his father’s raped woman, when the verse says, “A man shall not take his father’s wife”!?

Because

it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor uncover his father’s wing,”

to teach you:

the wing

of a woman

that his father saw,

that

he shall not uncover

his son.

The Gemara asks:

And from where is it known that it is written concerning a raped woman [

from where is it known that the verse speaks of a wing that his father saw without marriage]?

And we explain:

From the preceding part of the verse [

from the upper part of the verse], from the verse preceding it.

For it is written

in the preceding verse: “[When a man finds a virgin girl who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her],”

“the man who lies with her shall give the girl’s father fifty silver [shekels].” [

“A man shall not take his father’s wife.”]

And the Rabbis—

who do not interpret it as Rabbi Yehuda does—say to you:

If it had been adjacent to it,

if the section of rape had indeed been adjacent to “nor uncover his father’s wing,” we too would have said

as you say [

as you said], that the verse comes to teach concerning his father’s raped woman!

However,

now that it is not adjacent,

since they are not completely adjacent, for “A man shall not take his father’s wife” interrupts between them,

it is needed

the verse is needed

for Rav Anan’s teaching.

For Rav Anan said in the name of Shmuel: The verse speaks

of his father’s shomeret yavam—“nor uncover his father’s wing”—

and it speaks

to forbid her to his son.

And what is “his father’s wing”?

The wing

of a woman

that is fit

to be uncovered

by his father,

for he must perform yibbum with her—this

he shall not uncover

his son.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

And let him derive it

that his father’s shomeret yavam, who is his father’s brother’s wife, is forbidden

because of his aunt,

as he is forbidden to her; why was the verse needed to forbid her!?

And we answer:

To transgress concerning her—

concerning his father’s shomeret yavam—

two prohibitions,

the prohibition of his aunt and the prohibition of his father’s wing.

And we still raise a difficulty:

And let him derive it—

that his father’s shomeret yavam is forbidden—

because of a yevama to the market,

for she is subject to a prohibition.

And we answer:

To transgress concerning her—

concerning his father’s shomeret yavam—

three prohibitions,

the prohibition of his aunt, of a yevama to the market, and of his father’s wing.

And if you wish, say

that you can resolve the second difficulty: “And let him derive it because of a yevama to the market”—

The verse “nor uncover his father’s wing” was not needed to forbid his father’s shomeret yavam during the father’s lifetime, for she is already forbidden because of a yevama to the market. Rather, this additional prohibition was needed to forbid her with a prohibition

after the death

of the father who must perform yibbum. For she is no longer subject to the prohibition of a yevama to the market, but nevertheless she is forbidden because she was fit for his father.