Yevamot 99a — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught:

A.

There is

one who

performs chalitza with his mother because of uncertainty.

B. And there is one who performs chalitza

with his sister because of uncertainty.

C. And there is one who performs chalitza

with his daughter because of uncertainty,

and he explains all of them as he proceeds.

And the beraita explains all three possibilities that were mentioned:

A. There is one who performs chalitza with his mother because of uncertainty,

how so:

His mother

[the one performing chalitza’s mother], whose name was Rachel,

and another woman,

whose name was Hannah,

and they had

[who had]

two certain males,

Joseph for Rachel and Hezron for Hannah—

and Rachel and Hannah returned

Rachel and Hannah

and gave birth to two other males

other

in hiding,

and these two males became mixed up—

and the son of this one came,

Joseph, the son of Rachel—for he was the brother of one of the mixed-up ones—

and married

Hannah,

the mother of this one

[of Hezron]—

and the son of this one,

Hezron, the son of Hannah—for he was the brother of the second of the mixed-up ones—

married

Rachel,

the mother of this one

[of Joseph].

And

Joseph and Hezron

died without sons,

and their wives became subject to yibum, each one to one of the mixed-up sons, for he was his brother.

Behold,

this,

one of the mixed-up ones,

performs chalitza with both of them,

with Rachel and Hannah, because perhaps she is the wife of his brother.

And this one,

the second of the mixed-up ones,

performs chalitza

also

with both of them,

because of uncertainty.

And

it is found that each and every one

of the mixed-up ones

performs chalitza with his mother because of uncertainty,

for either Rachel or Hannah is his mother.

B. There is one who performs chalitza

with his sister because of uncertainty, how so:

His mother

[the one performing chalitza’s mother], whose name was Rachel—who had married another man after the death of his father Jacob—

and another woman,

a stranger,

gave birth to two females in hiding,

and it turned out that one of the females was the one performing chalitza’s maternal sister.

And two brothers stood,

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

on the father’s side,

and distant from Rachel’s daughter, the female [who was the sister of their brother; and all the more so from the second one],

and they married them,

those females.

And

the one performing chalitza’s paternal brothers

died without sons,

and the two women fell before the one performing chalitza for yibum, except that one of them was his maternal sister and exempt from yibum and chalitza, while the other was subject to him.

Behold, he

performs chalitza with both of them

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

And

it is found that he performs chalitza

also

with his sister

on the mother’s side

because of uncertainty.

C. There is one who performs chalitza

with his daughter because of uncertainty, how so:

His wife,

of a man whose name was Reuben,

and another woman,

of a man whose name was Caleb,

gave birth to two females in hiding.

And their brothers came,

the brothers of Reuben and Caleb,

and married them,

and it turned out that one was Reuben’s daughter and one was Caleb’s daughter, but it was not known which they were.

And

the brothers

died without sons,

and before Reuben and Caleb there fell for yibum one who was Reuben’s daughter and exempt from his yibum and subject because of uncertainty to Caleb’s yibum, and the second was Caleb’s daughter and exempt from his yibum and subject because of uncertainty to Reuben’s yibum—but they were mixed up.

It is found that

this

Reuben

performs chalitza

also

with his daughter because of uncertainty, and this

Caleb

performs chalitza

also

with his daughter because of uncertainty.

It was taught: Rabbi Meir would say:

A man and a woman sometimes produce five nations,

that is: five kinds differentiated from one another in status.

How so:

An Israelite who took a male slave and a female slave from the marketplace

that is, from a gentile, for the male slave and the female slave were not acquired by him except for their labor alone, and they were still complete gentiles,

and they had two sons

gentiles,

and one of them converted—

It is found

that those man and woman have: one

son

who is

a convert and

one son

son

who is

a gentile;

there are therefore two nations.

He immersed them

for the man and woman who had taken them from the gentile

for the sake of slavery

belonging to an Israelite, and they became a Canaanite male slave and a Canaanite female slave, whose bodies were acquired and for whom the name “slave” applied,

and they had relations with one another

and gave birth to a slave.

Here there are

three nations from those man and woman: A.

a convert, B.

and

a gentile, C.

and

a slave.

The Israelite who had acquired them returned and

freed the female slave,

and she was an Israelite woman,

and the male slave had relations with her

and she gave birth to a mamzer [as he explains and proceeds, that a gentile or a slave who has relations with an Israelite woman produces a mamzer].

Here there are

four nations for those man and woman:

A.

a convert,

B.

and

D.

a slave,

E.

and a mamzer.

He freed both of them,

that is: he returned and freed the male slave as well,

and married them to one another,

and they gave birth to a fit Israelite.

Here there are

five nations for those man and woman: A.

a convert,

B.

and

C.

and a slave,

D.

and a mamzer,

E.

and an Israelite.

What does it teach us?

A gentile or a slave who has relations with an Israelite woman—the offspring

is

a mamzer, and not according to the one who says: the offspring 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

marriage contract.

How so: an Israelite

who

took a male slave and a female slave from the marketplace

that is, from an Israelite who had immersed them for the sake of slavery,

and they

had

a son

at the time he took his father and mother.

And he freed

the acquirer

the female slave and married her,

and became obligated to her for a marriage contract like any Israelite woman.

And

that acquirer

wrote

all

all his property to the son,

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

It is found that this

son

sells his father

in order

to collect for his mother

her

marriage contract,

for all the acquirer’s property had been liened for his wife’s marriage contract, and when he gave it to the son of the female slave, the woman collects her marriage contract from this property, including the slave who is the father of the recipient of the gift.

What does it teach us?

And we explain:

the whole

of this

beraita is Rabbi Meir,

and just as the opening is stated by Rabbi Meir,

and a slave is considered like movable property

is considered,

and movable property is subject to a lien for a marriage contract.

That is: it is Rabbi Meir, who holds that movable property is subject to a lien for a marriage contract,

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

And if you wish, say:

it is according to the Sages, who hold that movable property is not subject to a lien for a marriage contract and nothing is collected from it, and

this teaches us

that

a slave is considered like land,

and therefore they collect from the slave.

Mishna:

A woman whose offspring became mixed up with the offspring of her daughter-in-law,

whom she bore to her son, and

the mixed-up ones grew up, and married

women, and died

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

Behold,

the sons of the daughter-in-law,

the certain ones,

perform chalitza

with both of them because of uncertainty.

But they do not perform yibum

with either of them,

for

the yibum of each of the women with regard to the sons of the daughter-in-law

is

a doubtful

yibum of

the wife of his brother,

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

a doubtful “

yibum” of

the wife of his father’s brother,

which is forbidden—if she is the wife of the son of the old woman.

But

the sons of the old woman either perform chalitza or perform yibum

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

For

the yibum of each of the sons of the old woman

is a doubtful

yibum of

the wife of his brother,

and it is a mitzva, and a doubtful “yibum

of the wife of his brother’s son

is permitted, because she is not a forbidden relation to her uncle:

If the certain ones die,

that is, the certain sons of the daughter-in-law or the old woman:

Behold,

the mixed-up ones, for the sons of the old woman: perform chalitza,

that is: if the certain sons of the old woman die and their wives fall before the mixed-up ones for yibum, the mixed-up ones perform chalitza with them because of uncertainty.

But they do not perform yibum, for

the yibum of each of the mixed-up ones

is a doubt,

whether the yibum of

the wife of his brother,

which is permitted—if the mixed-up son is also a son of the old woman;

or

a doubt whether the “yibum” of

the wife of his father’s brother,

which is forbidden—if the mixed-up son is the son of the daughter-in-law.

But the mixed-up ones

for the sons of the daughter-in-law: one performs chalitza and one performs yibum.

If the certain sons of the daughter-in-law die, one of the mixed-up ones performs chalitza first, and afterward the second performs yibum, for if he is the levir, all is well; and even if he is not the levir, she is permitted to him after she has performed chalitza with the other mixed-up son.

Maimonides wrote in his Commentary on the Mishna: all these laws [explained later in the Mishna] are explained on the basis of three principles:

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

And the second: the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

And the third: we do not impose upon any person a punishment from among the punishments because of uncertainty.

The

daughter of a priest

[the wife of a priest who died and left her pregnant]

whose offspring became mixed up

the priest’s

with the offspring of her female slave,

and it turns out that each of them is a doubtful slave of a priest and a doubtful priest:

These

mixed-up ones

eat teruma,

for whether he is a priest or he is the slave of a priest, he eats teruma.

And they divide one portion at the threshing floor,

the Gemara explains it.