Yevamot 78 - Can a mamzer survive?

A mamzer (bastard) is a child born from a union where the man and the woman were prohibited to each other and where the prohibition led to being spiritually cut off from the people. An example of this could be another man's wife or one's own sister. Once a man is a mamzer, he cannot marry a Jewish woman. That prohibition extends to all generations and applies equally to men and women.

From here, we start having divergent opinions. "Even until the tenth generation" is interpreted as "forever," but Resh Lakish says it literally means the tenth generation. They asked Rabbi Eliezer's opinion on this, but he answered, "Who can give me even the third generation mamzer, and I will purify him." He meant that Heaven watches over him and causes him to die before he produces the third generation - so that the Jews would not unknowingly intermarry.

That rule only applies to a mamzer who was not known publicly. But if he is known, people would not intermarry anyway. To support this, here is a story. There was one mamzer whose status was not known. Rabbi Ami announced his status to the public. The man went about crying. Rabbi Ami consoled him, "I gave you life!"

Rabbi Tarfon tells us how a mamzer can purify himself. Today, it is hard to prove that anyone is a mamzer.

Art: Two Sisters and a Brother of the Artist by Sofonisba Anguissola

Yevamot 31 - Did I really marry you?

Several times, we have seen that if a man dies, his brother needs to marry the deceased man's wife or let her free. If he marries her, it is called a yibum, and if he lets her free, it is called a chalitzah.

The first complication may arise if the now-deceased had two wives, one of which happens to be forbidden to the live brother. For example, she could be the brother's daughter, the dead man's niece. The brother cannot marry his daughter, and the other wife is automatically released from either yibum or chalitzah.

The second complication may arise when we are in doubt whether the deceased man married his niece or not. This doubtful marriage is the focus of our investigation here. How could it happen? Here is how. Instead of giving his bride the betrothal document, he threw it at her, and it fell to the ground. Now, if it fell closer to her, she would be married. If it fell closer to him, she is not. If it fell in the middle, we have a doubt. 

The solution? The alive brother should release both wives and cannot marry either. Thus, he does the halitzah to both but cannot do a yibum.

Art: The Brothers Konrad und Franz Eberhard by Johann Anton Ramboux

Yevamot 4 - Looking for a permission to marry one's daughter

The logic about not marrying one's daughter could be completely reversed. Here is what a man trying to find the permission to do so could argue.

He will marry his daughter off to his brother (the Torah law allows marriage with the niece.) Then, when his brother dies, he gets to marry his daughter as his brother's wife or a "yevamah." True, there is a prohibition against marrying one's daughter, but it is overwritten by a positive commandment to marry a yevamah.

His source? Two verses: "You should not wear wool and linen together" and next to it, "You shall fringes on your garment." For your fringes (tzitzit), you can use wool and linen together. In fact, that is what they did in the Temple, making the priests' belts. This teaches us that "do" overwrites "don't do." 

He seems to have built his case? We answer that "do" overwrite "don't do" only for relatively light prohibitions, such as wearing wool and linen together. Marrying one's daughter - or any other similar ban - is more strict. So even the mitzvah of yibum does not help him turn the forbidden into permitted.

Art: Henri Rouart and his Daughter Helene by Edgar Degas

Yevamot 3 - Sleeping with one's daughter

Most people would agree that a man should not sleep with his daughter. However, this is not mentioned in the Torah directly. Instead, this prohibition is derived by connecting with another ban in two steps.

We are not talking about his legitimate daughter because she is "his wife's daughter," and it is indeed prohibited. Instead, we are talking about his out-of-the-wedlock daughter from his lover who is not his wife. Why can't he sleep with her? 

First, one should not marry a woman and her daughter because they are close relatives,  and it is a shame. Second, one should not sleep with his son or daughter's daughter because it is a shame. Since these two phrases include a similar word, "shame" or "heinnah" in Hebrew, we can combine the prohibitions and derive that sleeping with one's daughter, even born out of wedlock, is incest.

The teacher (Tanna) who taught this law loved involved logic. Since this law is a perfect example, the teacher has put one's daughter as the first in the list of the fifteen women who are automatically released from yibum or chalitzah.

Father and Daughter by Charles H. Moreau

Yevamot 122 – Hearsay about death

If one heard women discussing that so-and-so died, he can later testify about it in court so that the wife of so-and-so can re-marry. Even the talk of minors, who are not considered legally competent, suffices for this.

But perhaps those minor children were just playing funerals and eulogies, as they are wont to do? – We mean a case when they return from a funeral and mention people who were present there.

An idolater's statement is also sufficient to testify – provided he was just relating the events without any self-interest.

Rabbi Akiva told a story: once, he had to go to Nahardea in Babylon to establish a leap year. While there, he encountered Nechemyah from Beit Deli. Nehemiah told him that, contrary to the prevailing opinion at that time, he had a tradition from Rabban Gamliel that one witness of the husband's death was enough to allow the wife to re-marry. Since the country was full of ravaging troops, he appointed Rabbi Akiva as his messenger to relate this back to Israel. When Rabban Gamliel the grandson heard it, he rejoiced because they now found corroboration for this opinion, already espoused by Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava, and the law was established – thus allowing many widows to re-marry.

Art: Children Playing with Hoops in a Street by Milly Childers

Yevamot 121 – A man fell into water

If one fell into a water reservoir, whether a small one, such that all of it can be observed, or one larger than that – he might still be saved, and his wife cannot re-marry based on this testimony alone. Rabbi Meir quotes an incident to support this ruling: a man fell into a large water cistern and emerged after three days. This proves that even in such situations, there is a possibility that the construction of a cistern or a pond will allow him to survive. Certainly, in a large body of water, he could have been saved by waves, for example, and emerged far away, out of the sight of observers.

However, Rabbi Yose and other Sages disagree. Rabbi Yose quotes a different incident and even a ruling: one blind person went into a cave to immerse himself for ritual purity but fell in. His assistant descended after him and also fell in. After the period of time that it would take for them to surely die, the court allowed their wives to re-marry, even though the bodies were never recovered.

What do the Sages answer to Rabbi Meir's incident? – They say it was a miracle anyway and cannot serve as a basis for legal rulings. Why do they call it a miracle? If it is because he did not eat for three days - Esther and the whole Jewish people fasted for three days and survived. Instead, it is because he did not sleep for three days, which is impossible. And Rabbi Meir? – He leaned upon the arches that were inside the cistern and slept. And the Sages? – The arches were of marble, and he would have slipped and fallen. And Rabbi Meir? – He would wake up before falling. Thus, each can defend his point of view.

Art: Found Drowned by George Frederick Watts

Yevamot 120 – When to testify about the husband's death

If witnesses saw a man die, and they knew and recognized him, they can testify that he died for the benefit of his wife, to permit her to re-marry. They must, however, be confident that it is indeed the right man. Therefore, they only do it if they see the dead man's head with the nose, although the eyes and the mouth need not be intact. They cannot make an identification based on the man's body or his garments.

Furthermore, they must be sure that he indeed died. For example, if they saw him suffer from a deadly wound, hanging from the gallows, or being devoured by a wild beast, they may not testify. He might have received medical help and recovered, the rope might have been cut, or the beast might stop before reaching a vital organ.

As a rule, they may also not testify if the man died more than three days ago – although there are exceptions where he can be recognized long afterward.

A story to illustrate that the face and the nose are crucial for recognition. Abba bar Marta owed money to the family of the Exilarch. He took wax, attached it to a rag, and put the rag on his forehead. He then passed in front of his creditors, who did not recognize him.

Art: Landscapes with Wild Beasts by Roelandt Jacobsz Savery

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 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

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