Yevamot 107 – Underage wife

People lived short lives, and their next day was uncertain, so early engagement and marriage were critical. The Torah provides legal authority for the father of a girl to give her away in marriage before she reaches maturity. However, if the father was not alive, getting married was a problem: the underage girl lacked legal authority to accept an engagement for herself. In her family, the Torah gave this authority only to her father. Therefore, the Sages instituted for the mother and the girl's brothers to arrange her marriage. Yet, the legal basis for this marriage lay in the authority of the Sages and not in the Torah. It could be dissolved by the girl deciding that she does not like her husband and does not want to continue the marriage. This is called a "miyun" or "refusal." How exactly does this happen?

Beit Shammai says that she can refuse the marriage only after engagement but not after the marriage is complete with the chuppah. Had refusal been allowed when they are already living together, people might make a mistake and say that marriage with an adult woman can be dissolved without a divorce (Get), perhaps if the marriage conditions were not fulfilled. However, Beit Hillel allows her to refuse anytime: people know that a marriage of a minor girl is unique and can be dissolved without a Get.

Another type of logic: Beit Shammai says that if the girl can walk away, the man will not prepare the wedding reception, with all associated expenses, just to see it go to waste. However, Beit Hillel allows her to refuse any time: both the man and the woman want their wedding to be known, so the man will not hesitate to throw a feast to get married.

Art: Wedding Dinner by Jacob Gerritsz by Van Hasselt

Yevamot 106 – Chalitzah in prison

A chalitzah was once performed in prison, with just the brother of the late husband and the wife present, and Rabbi Akiva declared it kosher.

Let's look closer. Granted, there was no "court" in prison, but if there are no witnesses, the event is considered as if it did not happen, so how could it be kosher? – In truth, there were witnesses, but they stood outside.

Who specifically was in prison? – The story happened when the man and the woman were in prison, and Rabbi Akiva was also in prison. More details: Rabbi Yochanan Sandler pretended to be a peddler. He cried, "Who wants needles? Does anyone want knitting knots? What about a chalitzah between only him and her?" Rabbi Akiva heard and answered, "Do you have spindles ("koshin")? do you have kosher?" – and that indicated his decision on the matter.

A mistaken chalitzah is nevertheless valid. How so? One man wanted to do yibum to a woman just because of her money, but she did not want him. The judge told him, "Make a chalitzah, and with this, you will acquire her." The brother did so. Then the judge said, "Really, you are now disqualified from marrying her, so why not give her a real chalitzah?" The brother had to comply.

Art: Tasso in the Prison by Louis Gallait

Yevamot 105 – Rabbinical test

To cut the connection between herself and her late husband's brothers, the widow performs a chalitzah: she reads Torah verses explaining what she is doing, unties and removes his shoe, and spits in his direction. Of these actions, only taking off the shoe is essential; the other two, while important, will not invalidate the chalitzah if they are not done.

Rabbi Yehudah the Prince recommended Levi for a Rabbinical post in a particular village. When Levy arrived, they put him on a platform and asked him the following questions. Can a woman with amputated hands do a chalitzah? If she spits blood instead of saliva, what is the law? Levy did not know. They asked him a non-legal question: when an angel tells Daniel, "I will tell you what is inscribed in truthful wording," can there be untruthful wording in Heaven?

Levy went to ask in the Academy. They told him, "Does it say that she shall remove the shoe with her hand? – No! So she can do it with her teeth. Furthermore, does it say that she spits with a spit? – No, it just says that she spits, in any manner." Regarding the last question, the wording is given the appellation of "truthful" when accompanied by an oath and cannot be changed. The Talmud then discusses when a Heavenly decree can be reversed and when it cannot.

Art: Shoes For Sale by Eugène-Alexis Girardet

Yevamot 104 – Which part of the leg is good for chalitzah?

If a part of one's leg, up until the knee, has been removed, he can still do a valid chalitzah; however, if it was amputated above the knee, this chalitzah is invalid. But this does not seem right! When one goes to Jerusalem on a Festival, such as Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot, which are also called "Regalim," to indicate that one goes on foot, only people who have feet ("regel") have to go to the Temple, and one with prosthetic foot does not. This tells us that "regel" means foot, and chalitzah should not be allowed without it! - No, chalitzah is special: since Torah says, "From above his foot," "Me-al regel," this tells us that the part of the leg above the foot but below the knee is also included. But if so, let's also include the thigh! – No, the thigh would be "above above" the foot, and that's too much.

And yet, there are five places where thighs are also called "regel," such as in the story of Yael. When general Sisera came to her tent, Yael offered him "milk in royal vessels" - from her breasts. He subsequently had intercourse with her seven times, as indicated by the verse "He fell between her feet (regel), bent, fell, lay..." where the variation of "fell" is mentioned seven times. So thighs are also called ("regel")?! – No, in truth, thighs are not called "regel," but here it was done for propriety, out of respect for the righteous Yael and her deed, weakening Sisera and killing him in the end.

Incidentally, why does Yael deserve so much praise? Granted, even though she was a married woman, her transgression was a permitted, and even righteous deed, since she intended to help the whole Jewish people. Still, she derived some pleasure from the act!? At least we should remove the words "More praiseworthy than all women (meaning Matriarchs) is Yael!" – No, since we have a rule that even a minor benefit from the wicked is abhorrent to the righteous, it can be said that Yael derived no pleasure whatsoever.

Art: Yael and Sisera by Artemisia Gentileschi

Yevamot 103 – Did Jews receive chalitzah from God?

A particular argumentative person asked Rabban Gamliel a question. Since Hosea said, "With their sheep and cattle they will come to see God, but won't find, for He has withdrawn ('chalatz') from them." Thus, God has ended His unique relationship with the Jews. Rabban Gamliel answered him, "You are a fool! The words are not 'He has given chalitzah' but 'He has chalitzah from them!' That is, they tried to give a chalitzah to God. But if a woman in this situation removes her shoe, does she remove the bond from her husband's brothers? Certainly not!" Thus, the Jews may have acted incorrectly, but the bond remains.

Additional details of chalitzah: it cannot be done with a sock, but a shoe fit for walking is needed. And, since the woman has to "remove it from his foot," an amputee whose leg was cut off above his knee cannot give a chalitzah. The one whose foot was amputated can walk on it, albeit with difficulty; thus, his chalitzah would be valid.

Art: Mending father's socks by William Baater Collier Fyfe

Yevamot 102 – A shoe used for Chalitzah

Chalitzah is the procedure required to release a widow from her connection to her late husband's brothers and to permit her to marry anyone she wants, rather than one of the brothers (which marriage would be called "yibum").

Chalitzah requires five people: three to act as judges and two – to make the fact well-known. The Kohanim then will know not to marry her, and other people, by contrast, will see that she is available.

Part of the procedure is for her to remove his shoe. The shoe should be proper, made from leather, and fit to be worn. As an enhancement, they add a strap to the shoe, so that that the two actions – untying the strap, and the removing the shoe – leave no doubt in the validity of the procedure.

Rabbi Yannai asked, "What if she tore the shoe off his foot or burned it off his foot? Do we need the foot to become exposed – and that is achieved – or do we need proper removal?" – To this, there was no answer.

Art: The New Shoe by Elizabeth Nourse

Yevamot 101 – Details of paternity

In the previous case of uncertain paternity, what are the circumstances? If both men were Kohanim, one would be marrying a divorcee, and his child would lose his status of a Kohen, so he would be allowed to go to a cemetery. Since the ruling prohibits this, it cannot be talking about not waiting after a regular divorce.

In the same vein, the Talmud excludes all other cases and is left with one: she lived with each man without any legal framework, had a child from one of them, and the term "husband" was not meant literally, only for the clean language. Incidentally, even if this child strikes both husbands, he is not punished because we don't know who the real father is; thus cannot give him a proper warning, and punishment cannot be given without a formal warning.

Now for the mitzvah of chalitzah. The woman recites the verses about the brother not wishing to "establish his brother's house," the man confirms that he does not want to marry her, then she removes his shoe, spits toward him, and recites "so it will be done to a man who will not build his brother's house."

Art: Waiting For Father's Return by Philippe Lodowyck Jacob Sadee

Yevamot 100 – Questionable paternity

If a woman did not wait for three months after her separation from a husband, and married another man and gave birth – then the paternity of the child is in question.

If, in addition, with both men she had more sons, then it is not clear if the child is the brother of the first family or of the second one. Therefore, if he marries and dies childless, there is a question of who should do yibum with his widow. The answer is that both sets of brothers have to give her a chalitzah, because he may have been their full brother, and she is therefore part of the family.

However, nobody can do a yibum with her. That is because he may have been only from the same mother but not from their father, in which case his widow is forbidden as a former wife of their brother, while the mitzvah of yibum does not apply because it is only for paternal brothers.

Art: Dressing The Baby by Jacob Simon Hendrik Kever

Yevamot 97 – Riddles

If one's father violated or seduced a woman (or otherwise had an affair with her), the son could still marry her. The prohibition of marrying the wife of one's father does not apply here. Rabbi Yehudah forbids the son to marry such a woman. The verse talks only about a legal wife, but Rabbi Yehudah derives his additional prohibition from the context. Even the first teacher will agree that the Sages later prohibited such marriage.

Now a few riddles. Who can say about a man that he is "my paternal brother but not a maternal one, he is my mother's husband, and I am his wife's daughter?" This can happen legally following the first teacher, but not Rabbi Yehudah. A man (Jacob) violated a woman and had a daughter with her. Reuven (Jacob's son from another woman) married the woman whom his father violated. Reuven's daughter can say that Reuven, her paternal brother, married her mother.

Another one. A woman says: he is my brother, and he is my son. I am the sister of this child of mine whom I carry on my shoulders. Answer: a man had relations with his daughter and fathered a son with her. The child is at once her son and her paternal brother.

Yet another one: a woman says, “Peace to you, my son; I am your sister's daughter.” Answer: one had relations with his daughter's daughter and fathered a son. She is at once the child's mother and its paternal sister's daughter.

Why do we need such riddles? Some say – to sharpen the minds of the Torah scholars, while others – that Queen Sheba posed these riddles to King Solomon to test his wisdom.

Art: Sisters In The Sewing Room by Fritz von Uhde

Yevamot 90 – Can the Sages change the Torah?

On the previous page, we saw a situation where the Sages declared a woman's child a mamzer. How can this be done? Not only it is a punishment, for he now cannot marry a regular Jewish woman, but that perhaps even means that as a mamzer, he can marry a woman who is a mamzer. If in truth, he is kosher, and only the Sages declared him a mamzer as a penalty, then by this punishment, they allowed him to transgress the law of the Torah. If that is so, the Sages would be allowed to change the law for policy reasons. Is that possible?

Consider all the situations where the Sages take away a person's property as a penalty. Are they changing the property laws of the Torah? – No, since the Torah itself gave the Court the authority to declare someone's property ownerless.

Another situation: the shofar is not blown on Shabbat of Rosh Hashanah. Did the Sages change the Torah here? – Not really, they told not to do something (literally, to sit and do nothing), and this is different from actively transgressing.

Yet another attempt: if a husband gives a Get to his wife but then annuls it, the annulment is valid – even though this creates terrible consequences for his divorcee, who may not be aware of it. Rabbi Shimon says that the annulment is not good - due to the power of the Court. So to strengthen the ability of the Court, the Sages changed the Torah law and permitted a married woman to another man? Not true either, since every marriage contract has the phrase "with the agreement of the Sages," and if they later disagree, they annul the marriage retroactively so that the Get is not even needed. But tell me, this is where there was a marriage contract. What if one performed engagement by cohabitation – which is valid?! – Here the Sages changed the meaning of his cohabitation from engagement to pure pleasure.

The conclusion is that the Sages cannot change the Torah.

Art: Portrait Of A Married Couple By Sir Anthony Van Dyck

Yevamot 89 – The logic of the divorce

In the previous case, where a witness told a woman that her husband died, the court allowed her to remarry, assuming that she would thoroughly investigate first, and when the husband returned, she had to obtain a divorce (Get) from both. What is the logic?

We understand that she needs a Get from the first husband, since, as is turned out, she is still married to him. But the second one – technically their betrothal did not even take effect! – This was instituted by the Sages to prevent a mistake: the onlookers might think she was properly married to the second husband, and now leaves him without a Get – and therefore conclude that the Get is generally unnecessary.

But take a similar case where she only got engaged, not married to the second husband – there she can return to the first husband, and the Get from the second one is not required. Why not!? – People might also make a mistake and think that one can remarry his wife after she was divorced and married to someone in the interim. That, actually, is a reasonable objection. However, the fine distinction is that where she was only engaged – no transgression took place – and although people might make a mistake, the Sages did not penalize her; where she got married, they lived together unlawfully, and they did impose a penalty.

Moreover, any child she has from one of the two husbands is considered illegitimate (mamzer). Again, we understand this about the second husband, but the first? – The Talmud then discussed if the Sages really have the power to declare a kosher child a mamzer as a penalty.

Art: The Engaged Couple by Giuseppe Tominz

Yevamot 88 – Her husband died

A woman's husband went overseas. Subsequently, a man came back and told her that her husband had died and that he had witnessed this. If he is willing to testify in court, then ordinarily, this is not sufficient for her to remarry because the rule is that there must be two witnesses to establish any event.

However, since often there won't be two witnesses, the Sages have established a new rule: that one witness is sufficient in this situation and that after the court questions him and issues a ruling permitting her to remarry, she can do so.

This is based on the assumption that the woman does not take the matter lightly, but will rather investigate on her own. And yet, in abrogating the law of two witnesses, she is taking the matter into her own hands. If it later happens that the husband was really alive, and he comes back, then she – due to her lack of sufficient investigation – will face a penalty: she will have to leave her new husband (to whom she was never legally married, as it turns out, because she was still married to the first one), and she will also have to be divorced from the first husband, all as a deterrent.

Art: Dead men tell no tales by Howard Pyle