Yevamot 99a (צט.) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught:

1.

There is

one who performs halitza with his mother because of uncertainty

.

2. And there is one who performs halitza

with his sister because of uncertainty.

3. And there is one who performs halitza

with his daughter because of uncertainty,

and he proceeds to interpret all of them.

The beraita interprets all three possibilities that were mentioned:

1. There is one who performs halitza with his mother because of uncertainty,

as in what case?

His mother

of the one performing halitza], whose name is Rachel,

and another woman

whose name is Hannah,

and they had

each of whom had]

two certain sons

Joseph to Rachel and Hezron to Hannah—

Rachel and Hannah returned

and

gave birth to two other sons

in secret,

and these two sons became intermingled

with one another—

And the son of one of them came,

Joseph, Rachel’s son—who was the brother of one of the intermingled sons—and

married

Hannah,

the mother of this one [of

Hezron]—

And the son of the other one,

Hezron, Hannah’s son—who was the brother of the second of the intermingled sons—

married

Rachel,

the mother of this one [of

Joseph].

And Joseph and Hezron died

without sons,

and their wives were left without children

and became subject to yibbum; each one was subject to one of the intermingled sons, since he was his brother.

Behold,

this one,

one of the intermingled sons,

performs halitza with both of them,

Rachel and Hannah, because perhaps one of them is his brother’s wife.

And this one,

the second of the intermingled sons,

also performs halitza

as well

with both of them

because of uncertainty.

And

it follows that each and every one

of the intermingled sons

performs halitza with his mother because of uncertainty,

since either Rachel or Hannah is his mother.

2. There is one who performs halitza

with his sister because of uncertainty; as in what case?

His mother

of the one performing halitza], whose name was Rachel—she had married another man after the death of his father, Jacob—

and another woman,

a stranger,

gave birth to two daughters in secret,

and it turned out that one of the daughters was the maternal sister of the one performing halitza.

And the two brothers

of the one performing halitza, whom Jacob had fathered with his wife Leah, and who were his paternal brothers,

from the father

but were unrelated to Rachel’s daughter [who was their sister’s sister; and certainly to the second one]

married

those daughters.

And

the paternal brothers of the one performing halitza

died

without sons, and the two women fell before the one performing halitza for yibbum. However, one of them was his maternal sister and was exempt from yibbum and halitza, while the other was subject to him.

Behold, he

performs halitza with both of them

because of uncertainty, as he does not know which one is subject to him.

And

it follows that he performs halitza

also

with his sister

from his mother

because of uncertainty.

3. There is one who performs halitza

with his daughter because of uncertainty; as in what case?

His wife

of a man named Reuben,

and another woman

of a man named Caleb,

gave birth to two daughters in secret.

And their brothers came,

the brothers of Reuben and Caleb,

and married them. It then turned out that one was Reuben’s daughter and the other was Caleb’s daughter, but it was not known which was which.

And

the brothers

died

without sons, and before Reuben and Caleb there fell for yibbum one woman who was Reuben’s daughter and was exempt from yibbum with him and subject, because of uncertainty, to yibbum with Caleb; and the other was Caleb’s daughter and was exempt from yibbum with him and subject, because of uncertainty, to yibbum with Reuben. However, they were intermingled.

It follows that

this

one,

Reuben,

performs halitza

also

with his daughter because of uncertainty, and this one

Caleb

performs halitza

also

with his daughter because of uncertainty.

It was taught: Rabbi Meir would say:

A man and a woman sometimes produce five nations,

meaning five distinct kinds in terms of their status.

As in what case?

An Israelite who purchased a slave and a maidservant from the marketplace,

meaning from a gentile, who owned the slave and maidservant only for their labor, and they were still complete gentiles,

and they had two sons,

gentiles,

and one of them converted—

It follows

that those man and woman have: one son

who

is

a convert, and

one son

who

is

a gentile;

there are therefore two nations.

He immersed them

the man and woman whom he had purchased from the gentile

for the sake of servitude

to an Israelite, and they became a Canaanite slave and a Canaanite maidservant, whose persons were owned and who bore the designation “slave,”

and they became sexually involved with each other

and bore a slave.

There are here

three nations from that man and woman: 1.

a convert, 2.

and

a gentile, 3.

and

a slave.

The Israelite who had purchased them returned and

freed the maidservant,

and she was thereby an Israelite,

and the slave had relations with her

and she bore a mamzer child [as he proceeds to explain, that when a gentile or slave has relations with an Israelite woman, the child is a mamzer].

There are here

four nations for that man and woman:

1.

a convert, 2.

and

a gentile, 4.

and

a slave, 5.

and

a mamzer.

He freed both of them,

meaning that he returned and freed the slave as well,

and married them to each other,

and they bore a fit Israelite child.

There are here

five nations for that man and woman: 1.

a convert, 2.

and

a gentile, 3.

and

a slave, 4.

and

a mamzer, 5.

and

an Israelite.

What does this teach us?

When a gentile or slave has relations with an Israelite woman, the child

is

a mamzer, and it is not in accordance with the one who says that the child is fit.

The Sages taught

this is the conclusion of the preceding beraita]:

There is one who sells his father

in order

to collect

for

his mother

her

her

ketuba and its additional amount.

As in what case: an Israelite

who

purchased a slave and a maidservant from the marketplace,

meaning from an Israelite who had immersed them for the sake of servitude,

and they had

a

son

when he purchased his father and mother.

And

the purchaser

freed the maidservant and married her,

and became obligated to her for a ketuba like any other Israelite woman.

And that purchaser stood

and

wrote

all

his property to the son,

and included among his property was the slave who was the father of the recipient of the gift.

It follows that this one,

the son,

sells his father

in order

to collect for his mother

her

ketuba,

since all the purchaser’s property had been liened for his wife’s ketuba. When he gave it to the slave’s son, the woman collected her ketuba from this property, including the slave who was the father of the recipient of the gift.

What does this teach us?

And we explain:

The entire

aforementioned beraita

is the opinion of Rabbi Meir,

just as the first part was stated by Rabbi Meir,

and a slave is considered like movable property

and therefore

movable property is subject to a lien for a ketuba.

That is, it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that movable property is subject to a lien for a ketuba,

and therefore the slave is subject to the lien, since his legal status is only that of movable property.

And if you wish, say:

It is the opinion of the Sages, who maintain that movable property is not subject to a lien for a ketuba and nothing is collected from it, and

this teaches us

that

a slave is considered like real property,

and therefore they collect from the slave.

Mishna:

A woman whose child became intermingled with the child of her daughter-in-law,

whom she had borne to her son,

and the intermingled children grew up and married

women, and died

without sons; it turned out that one woman was subject to yibbum before the sons of the daughter-in-law, and the other before the sons of the older woman, but it was not known which was subject to whom.

Behold,

the certain sons of the daughter-in-law

perform

halitza

with both of them because of uncertainty.

But they do not perform yibbum

with either of them,

as

the yibbum of either woman with the sons of the daughter-in-law

is

a case of uncertainty

as to whether it is yibbum with

the wife of his brother,

which is permitted—if she is the wife of the daughter-in-law’s son;

or a case of uncertainty as to whether it is “yibbum” with

a

the wife of his father’s brother,

which is prohibited—if she is the wife of the older woman’s son.

Whereas

the sons of the older woman either perform halitza or perform yibbum

after the sons of the daughter-in-law perform halitza with them.

As

the yibbum performed by each of the sons of the older woman is

possibly

yibbum with

his brother’s wife,

which is a mitzva, or possibly “yibbum”

with his nephew’s wife,

which is permitted, since she is not forbidden to her paternal uncle:

If the certain ones die,

meaning either the certain sons of the daughter-in-law or the certain sons of the older woman:

Behold,

the intermingled sons, with regard to the sons of the older woman: they perform halitza,

that is, if the certain sons of the older woman die and their wives fall before the intermingled sons for yibbum, the intermingled sons perform halitza with them because of uncertainty.

But they do not perform yibbum, as

the yibbum of each of the intermingled sons

is uncertain,

whether it is yibbum with

his brother’s wife,

which is permitted—if the intermingled son is also a son of the older woman;

or

whether it is “yibbum” with

his father’s brother’s wife,

which is prohibited—if the intermingled son is the son of the daughter-in-law.

Whereas the intermingled sons, with regard to

the sons of the daughter-in-law: one performs halitza and one performs yibbum.

If the certain sons of the daughter-in-law die, one of the intermingled sons first performs halitza, and afterward the second performs yibbum. If he is the yavam, all is well; and even if he is not the yavam, she is permitted to him after she has undergone halitza with the other intermingled son.

Maimonides wrote in his Commentary on the Mishna: All these laws [explained later in the Mishna] are based on three principles:

One of them: in a case of uncertainty concerning a prohibition, one rules stringently.

The second: the burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks to extract property from his fellow.

The third: one does not impose any punishment upon a person on the basis of uncertainty.

5.

A daughter of a kohein

the wife of a kohein who died and left her pregnant]

whose child became intermingled

the kohein’s child

with the child of her maidservant,

and it turned out that each of them was possibly the slave of a kohein and possibly a kohein:

These

intermingled children

eat teruma,

because whether he is a kohein or the slave of a kohein, he may eat teruma.

And they divide one portion at the threshing floor,

as the Gemara explains it.