Yevamot 87 – Marriages, births, deaths

A Jewish woman who marries a Kohen becomes part of his family and, since she is his "acquisition" as a wife, can eat the priest's portion of the crop, or "terumah." Let's look at the possible metamorphoses that she can later go through.

If her husband the Kohen dies, but she has a child from him, she can continue to eat terumah, as if her husband was still alive. If she then marries a Levi, she may eat Levi's due from the crop – that is, first tithe (“maasar”) but she can't eat terumah any longer.

Here was can note that the author of this ruling is Rabbi Meir, who forbids the first tithe to a non-Levi.

If her husband the Levi dies but she has a child from him, she can still eat maaser. If then she marries a regular Israel, she may not eat either maaser or terumah. If her husband the Israel dies but she has a child from him, she still cannot eat either maaser or terumah.

If her son from Israel dies, she can again eat maaser because of her son, a Levi. If her son from a Levi dies, she can now eat terumah because of her son, who is a Kohen. And if that son dies, she again cannot eat either maaser or terumah.

Art: Portrait of the Artist's Wife by Tadeusz Pruszkowski

Yevamot 86 – Who gets the tithe?

The priestly portion (terumah) goes to the Kohanim, and the tithe (maaser rishon) goes to the Levites – these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. What is his logic? – The Torah said, "Speak to the Levites and say to them, 'When you take … tithe.'"

However, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says that the tithe goes to the Kohanim. How could he exclude the Levites altogether? – He didn't; he meant "Also to the Kohanim." And what is his logic? – There are twenty-four places where the Kohanim are called Levites because they, in fact, come from the same family: Aaron, the progenitor of all the Kohanim, comes from the tribe of Levy.

If so, how can Rabbi Akiva argue that the tithe should not be given to the Kohanim? – He says that the tithe is unique because one can eat it "anywhere," whereas the Kohen cannot eat it in a cemetery – because he cannot go to the cemetery at all! What would Rabbi Elazar answer now? – He says this teaches a different law, namely, that the tithe can be eaten in any state, even being ritually impure.

Later, when the Second Temple was being built, the Sages penalized the Levites, took the tithe away from them, and gave it to the Kohanim – because the Levites did not come back to build the Temple; some say it was done for the benefit of poor Kohanim.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah had a garden from which he collected the tithe. Rabbi Akiva turned the garden's entrance into a cemetery so that Rabbi Elazar (who was a Kohen) would be prevented from taking the tithe. Rabbi Elazar said, "Akiva is with his shepherd's sack, but I will survive anyway." (He was very wealthy).

Art: Old Cemetery Tower At Nuenen by Vincent Van Gogh

Yevamot 84 – All possible cases of yibum

Based on previous discussions, Talmud formulates a rule: a woman may be permitted to her husband but forbidden to her brother-in-law, a.k.a. yavam; she may be permitted to the yavam but not to the husband; she may be permitted to both; she may be forbidden to both. How?

For example, consider if a woman was a widow and a regular Kohen married her, but his brother was a High Priest. The brother would not be allowed to do a yibum – since a High Priest should not marry a widow – and thus, she is permitted to her husband but not to the yavam.

A non-trivial example of the second category is this. A regular Israel married an illegitimate woman (mamzeret). He has a brother who is himself a mamzer. An ordinary Israel cannot marry a mamzeret, but a mamzer can. Thus, we have a case of a woman who is forbidden to her husband but is permitted to her yavam.

A new example: a High Priest married a widow. This was a prohibited marriage, so the woman became disqualified (chalalah). Now she cannot marry any Kohen, not because she is a widow, but because she is a chalalah. This is a situation where she is forbidden both to her husband and her yavam.

The fourth category includes all other combinations, even though the Talmud finds cases that are not listed in the first three categories and do not belong to the fourth, which means that the examples lists are not exhaustive.

Art: The Widower by James Jacques Joseph Tissot

Yevamot 83 – The laws of Rabbi Yose

Rabbi Yose did not say much, but when he did, the law usually followed him. Rav mentioned two such cases: androgyne and grafting, and Shmuel mentioned another two: a woman in labor and rendering unfit. Let's look at some of them.

Earlier, we saw that an androgyne has the status of a male for the purpose of another male marrying him – the disagreement was whether one is liable for relations with him only through his male orifice (anus) or also his female orifice. However, Rabbi Yose states that an androgyne is considered a separate creature, and the Sages were not sure whether to give him the status of a male. As a result, none of the laws requiring definite proof of him being a male can be applied.

Grafting: one may not plant a tree or graft a branch to a tree on a Shmita year, and even some time before it. Rabbi Yose said that this “some time” was two weeks, and another period of thirty days was already implied, so that total according to him was thirty days and two weeks.

Rendering unfit: one should not plant wheat in a vineyard, so if one spreads his vines over someone else's grain, he has created a prohibition, and the crop from the overhanging must be burned. One who does it is liable to compensate the owner. However, Rabbi Yose (together with Rabbi Shimon) says that one cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him. Thus, no prohibition is created, and there is no need to burn and repay.

Art: Hay And Wheat Stooks Before The Rain by Edward Duncan

Yevamot 82 – Things that are always counted

Earlier we saw that an androgynous Kohen is considered a male, to the point that his marriage to a woman qualifies her to eat the priest's portion of grain. Rabbi Yochanan says that this designation of him as a male is definite, because otherwise he would not be giving his wife the right to eat the priest's portion, for which a regular person is liable to death by the hand of Heaven. This logic is valid, because the laws of priest's portion (terumah) are valid even today, when there is diaspora.

However, Resh Lakish disagrees about precisely this point: the priest's portion is just a reminder that the Sages have established for the future time, when it will be reinstated, at the in-gathering of the exiles. Then how is the wife of an androgynous Kohen allowed to eat terumah? – Because the terumah itself is only a decree of the Sages. As part of their enactment, they allowed her to eat terumah. Resh Lakish then regards the designation of an androgyne as a male as only a possibility.

This disagreement is rooted in another, about the wording in the "things that are counted" rule. What is this rule? Some versions say that "all things that are counted" are included in the laws of nullification – that is, things that are sometimes counted and sometimes weighted, like a sliver of meat. Other versions insist on "only things that are counted," including only such things as cabbage stalks. In Israel, they grew as big as small trees and were always counted, never weighed. This disagreement is the root of the laws of nullification of terumah and for the controversies listed above.

Art: Still-life with Quince, Cabbage, Melon, and Cucumber by Juan Sanchez Cotan

Yevamot 81 – A sterile Kohen

A Kohen who is sterile, either from birth or due to an illness, can nevertheless marry a woman, and this marriage entitles her to eat the priest's portion (terumah). By contrast, if he is sterile because of physical damage to his reproductive organs, he is prohibited from marrying into the congregation of Israel. Therefore, if he was previously married, he now needs to divorce, and if, in the interim, he has a cohabitation with his wife, she would lose the right to eat the priest's portion – even if she had it because she was a daughter of a Kohen.

A Kohen who is an androgyne can marry a woman, and that marriage entitles her to eat the priest's portion. That is because an androgyne is classified as a definite male – this is the opinion of Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon. However, they did not clarify if they were entirely sure of a "definite male" designation or if it was an "also a definite male." Accordingly, this leads to a disagreement about whether the priest's portion law is active nowadays or is it only a law that the Sages left as a reminder for the future when the priest's portion will return.

Art: Married Couple in a Garden by Frans Hals

Yevamot 77 – Was David legitimate?

We mentioned that a female convert from the nation of Moav may marry into the congregation of Israel. This had direct relevance to King David's provenance.

When Shaul offered his armor to David to fight Goliath, he noticed how it miraculously shrank to fit David's size. He then ordered Avner to ask who David's father was. But everyone knew David's father because he had six hundred thousand people (students) at his command! Instead, he was asking if David was from Peretz, fit to be a king, or from Zerach – just a noble.

Here Doeg intervened and said that they should rather inquire about David's legitimacy altogether, for he came from Ruth, the princess of the people of Moav. Avner defended David: only male converts from Amon have a problem. Doeg countered: then only a male mamzer has a problem, but not female! They kept analyzing the reasons, but Doeg, who was very smart, cornered Avner, who then went to a central yeshiva for support. There, too, Doeg was victorious with his logic.

At this point, Yeter intervened. He girded himself with a sword and said that whoever does not accept the law of female converts from Moav being legitimate would be killed with this sword. However, he also added that he has heard this law from Shmuel the Prophet. He was believed. But why? Wasn't he in the heat of the argument and therefore suspect of lying? – Because Shmuel and his court were alive, and this rule could have been easily verified.

Art: The Cavalier's Sword by William A. Breakspeare

Yevamot 76 – The congregation of Israel

We mentioned earlier that one who has his testicles wounded or crushed and one whose member is severed cannot "enter the congregation of Israel," He cannot marry a Jewish woman born as a Jew. However, he can marry a convert. Although converts are Jewish in every respect, they are not encompassed by the term "congregation." Their children, however, will be called "congregation."

Rabbi Yehudah has another view, according to which converts are also included in the "congregation," and accordingly, our man discussed above cannot marry anyone. The source for this law is found in the Torah here.

Similarly, a convert from the people of Amon or Moav is prohibited from marrying into the congregation. This was only true when these peoples lived as separate nations. After king Sennacherib expanded his empire and resettled entire peoples, they all got mixed, and the law stopped being applicable. Even when relevant, only male converts had the prohibition, but not females, since the Torah formulated the ban in terms of "Moavi" - which implies the male, but not "Moaviyah," which would indicate a woman.

Art: The Dead Sea with the mountains of Moab by Gustave Bauernfeind

Yevamot 70 – An uncircumcised Kohen

Generally, a Kohen and his family can eat the priestly portion of the grain (terumah), separated by Jews in the Land of Israel. This is also true for slaves that he acquires. However, if this Kohen is uncircumcised or ritually impure, he cannot eat terumah. This does not change his family's status, and they can continue to eat terumah just as they did before - because they are still his family and did not change in any way.

When a Kohen is uncircumcised, we are not talking about a willful violator because the Talmud usually does not speak about violators. Instead, his two older brothers have previously died due to circumcision, which left him with the presumption that circumcision is dangerous to his health and should not be done. Still, when he becomes healthy, and experts assess this, the mitzvah of circumcision is again incumbent on him.

The situation is reversed for a Kohen who has wounded or crushed testicles or whose member is severed. He is prohibited from marrying and cohabiting with a Jewish woman, but this does not take away his status as a Kohen. Therefore, he may still eat terumah. However, his wife is different: once he cohabits with her, she loses the right to terumah because she had cohabitation with someone unfit for her.

Art: Self Portrait with Father and Brother by John Hamilton Mortimer

Yevamot 65 – Claiming a refund

If a woman was married to someone for ten years and divorced because she had no children, then she is entitled to the full Ketubah (divorce settlement) because it is presumed that it is the husband's fault, as we learned before. If that happens the second time, then on the third time, the presumption changes, and, since three times is considered an established rule, she is established as not being able to have children. The third husband can divorce her without a Ketubah payment. Can the previous husband now claim a refund of his earlier Ketubah payment? No, for she can claim, “It is only now that I have grown weak, but it was your fault before.”

If she was then married the fourth time and had children, can she claim the Ketubah from the third husband? – Here, we apply the rule, “Your silence is better than your speech.” He can counterclaim and say, “Had I known that you were fertile, I would never divorce you. So it was not a divorce, and you are still married to me, and your new children are mamzerim.” However, the court can say, “Even if she is silent if that is the truth, then we must act!” Instead, the correct claim is that it is only now that she became healthy and fertile, but at the time of divorce, she was unable to conceive, and therefore the third husband is not liable to pay.

We implied that it is the man's obligation to procreate. Why? The Torah said, “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and conquer it,” talking to men who, in general, engage in battles and conquer. Another opinion is that both men and women have this mitzvah because the word “Be fruitful (p'ru)” is plural imperative. What does the first one answer? The term “conquer” is missing a letter “u” in the way it is written and can be read in the singular.

Art: A Family Resting Before A House, With A Mother Silencing Her Husband Sleeps by Abraham Willemsens

Yevamot 64 – Ten years without children

If a man was married to a woman for ten years and did not have any children, in the times of the Talmud, he would have to divorce her or marry another wife to fulfill the mitzvah of procreation. This is only true if he did not have children before. It also assumes that they don't know who is at fault. However, if the man is sterile, there is no point in him divorcing her since he cannot have children with anybody else anyway. After he divorces her, she has no presumption of not being able to have children, and when she marries another man, the new husband needs to also count ten years before applying the rule above.

In deciding whether she gets the payment of Ketubah, the question of whose fault it was coming up again. Here the blame is assigned to the man: since the mitzvah of procreation is on him, it is assumed that not being to have children is his fault – in the absence of any other indicators – and therefore, she, not being at fault, is entitled to full payment of her Ketubah.

Art: Family with a Bird by Bartolome Esteban Murillo

Yevamot 63 – Man must have children

A few teachings of Rabbi Elazar about a man and his wife: one who does not have a wife is not a whole man because "God created them male and female, and called their name Man;" a wife is called "helper against him" – if he deserves, she is a helper, if not – she is against him; "God brought her to Adam, and Adam said, "this time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" teaches that Adam has approached every animal, but his mind was pacified only with Eve.

As Rav was leaving Rabbi Chiya, Rabbi Chiya asked him, "What is worse than death?" Rav searched for the answer and found it, "I found – bitter than death – a bad wife." Rabbi Chiya intended to save Rav from a bad wife, but his prayer was unsuccessful, and Rav's wife used to aggravate him, cooking the opposite of what he asked. Rav's son, Chiya, started reversing Rav's requests so that when the wife cooked a different dish, Rav would get precisely what he wanted. Rav said, "Your mother has improved her ways!" Chiya confessed that he was reversing orders. Rav said, "I could have learned from you! And yet, it is not good to say a lie."

A teaching of Ben Sira: "A beautiful wife – happy is her husband, the number of his days is doubled."

The Messiah will only come when all the souls initially present in Adam will have a chance to be born. Accordingly, one who does not engage in procreation is considered as spilling blood and diminishing God's image.

Art: A Portrait Of Nobleman With His Wife And Two Children by Johann Hulsman

Yevamot 62 – How many children must a man have?

A man is obligated to fulfill the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. How many children are sufficient? – Two sons – these are the words of Beit Shammai. What is their logic? Moses had two sons, and after that, he abstained from having relations with his wife. However, Beit Hillel says that a man must have a son and a daughter. Why? – Just like God created a male and a female, so is this mitzvah. Incidentally, all agree that it is not proper for a man to be without a wife, even if he has fulfilled the obligation to be fruitful, because the Torah said, "It's not good for a man to be alone."

Why don't Beit Shammai learn from the world's creation, just as Beit Hillel does? – They answer that there it was impossible to do otherwise: Eve had to be created so that Adam could have a wife; however, in our context, if a man has two sons, there are many women in the world that they can marry.

Then why don't Beit Hillel learn from the life of Moses, as Beit Shammai does? – They answer that Moses' situation was unique, and he separated from his wife of the accord. What was his logic? He reasoned thus: if the children of Israel, with whom God spoke only one time while giving the Torah, had to stay away from their wives, then I (Moses), with whom God speaks at all times, how much more so I have to stay away from my wife? – and God later agreed with him, saying, "Tell them to go back to their houses (wives)," which we understand to imply, "But you are correct in staying here with Me."

Actually, there were three cases where Moses did things on his own accord, and God later agreed. Another one was breaking the Tablets. Moses reasoned: if the Passover offerings – which is only one commandment in the Torah – are forbidden to one who is “estranged” from the Torah, then the whole Torah is, of course, forbidden to the Jews who worship a Golden Calf. God later agreed, saying, "Tablets, which you broke." The word "which," "asher," can be understood as "yasher koach" – correct that you did it.

Art: Mrs. Arthur Knowles and her Two Sons by John Singer Sargent

Yevamot 61 – Whom the High Priest can marry

A Kohen may not marry a woman who converted to Judaism. However, Rabbi Shimon, who usually understands and ascribes reasons for the laws of the Torah, says that the logic here is that a convert may have had relations with someone prohibited to her. Therefore, if a girl converts before the age of three, her cohabitation - even if she is violated - does not carry the disqualification power of an adult, and she can marry a Kohen.

Another lenient law from Rabbi Shimon: an idolater's grave does not spread ritual impurity under a roof, so that a person in this situation remains pure. Why? – The Torah said, “Man (Adam), when he dies under a roof...transmits impurity.” And only Jews are called “Adam,” because their souls all come from reincarnations of Adam's soul – which is not true for idolaters.

If a Kohen betrothed a widow (whom he is allowed to marry) and was appointed a High Priest, he could fully marry her (which would not be allowed for a regular High Priest). This is learned from the words “... only a virgin shall he take,” where the words “shall he take” are extra, alluding to a particular case where he marries a widow.

This situation happened with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed a widow, Martha, daughter of Baitos, who was then appointed High Priest but proceeded with marriage. In fact, Martha was influential in his appointment: she bought High Priest's place for her husband with many, many pounds of gold coins. But in the end, Yehoshua restored Torah study and is remembered for good, as we have learned elsewhere.

Art: A Marriage Portrait by Pieter de Grebber

Yevamot 59 – Wife for a High Priest

A High Priest has stricter requirements in the choice of this wife than a regular Kohen: not only he cannot marry a divorcee, but he can also not marry a widow, whether she was only engaged or actually married, or a mature girl. The Torah said, “He will take a wife in her virginity.” This is to emphasize initial virginity, at the age between twelve to twelve-and-half. However, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon allow him to marry a girl older that that.

What is their respective logic? The first teacher (Rabbi Meir) interprets “her virginity” to strictly emphasize this initial maturity. However, the extra word “in” relaxes the law and tells us that only natural cohabitation makes her ineligible for the High Priest, but unnatural (anal) does not disqualify her.

On the other hand, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon understand “virginity” as already denoting complete virginity. Then the next word “her virginity” relaxes the law and allows more mature age. Therefore, the third word, “in,” again makes the law stricter and requires all her virginity to be extant, excluding unnatural (anal) intercourse, which accordingly disqualifies her.

Today, when there is no Temple and no High Priest, this discussion is largely theoretical.

Art: The Widow by Ramon Casas

Yevamot 58 – What does chuppah accomplish?

Usually, people get engaged and then marry under the chuppah. However, what happens when they do the chuppah without prior engagement and when they really should not get married, such as when a High Priest is marrying a widow. After this forbidden marriage, she would lose the privileges of a Kohen's daughter (if she had them). Rav says: this chuppah is not legally significant since there is a possibility that they will realize the wrongdoing and stop themselves. However, Shmuel says that the chuppah is too close to the transgression, and she has lost the privileges already.

Rav Sheshet elucidated this disagreement from a seemingly unrelated ruling about a suspected wife. When she says, “Amen, amen,” she tells the truth now and has never lied in other situations. But what different situation could the rule mean? After a few trials, we suggest that she was engaged, then hid with another man, then had a chuppah with the first one. But that is similar to our situation: he is forbidden to live with her until the case is cleared, and they had a chuppah but did not live together. It could have been a brilliant resolution, but the Talmud asserts that the ruling itself is transmitted incorrectly and cannot serve as any proof. The question remains unresolved.

Art: The Wedding Dress by George Goodwin Kilburne