Yevamot 97bיבמות צ״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Yevamot 97b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
97bצ״ז ב

אח מאב ולא מאם והוא בעלה דאם ואנא ברתה דאנתתיה אמר רמי בר חמא דלא כר' יהודה דמתני'

§ The opinion that a man may marry a woman raped or seduced by his father can lead to the existence of an unusual family relationship. A woman says: I have a half brother from my father and not from my mother, and my half brother is the husband of my mother, and I am the daughter of his wife. Rami bar Ḥama said: This state of affairs is not legitimate according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna, who holds that a man may not marry a woman with whom his father engaged in intercourse, even if they were not married. However, according to the Rabbis, a woman whose father was not married to her mother can legitimately have a paternal half brother who is married to her mother.

אח הוא וברי הוא אחתיה אנא דהאי דדרינא אכתפאי משכחת לה בעובד כוכבים הבא על בתו

The Gemara cites another riddle about a bizarre family relationship. A woman says: He is my brother and he is my son; I am the sister of this one, whom I carry on my shoulders. What is the solution? You find it in the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with his daughter, and she bore him a son, who is therefore both her brother and her son. The Gemara is referring to a gentile because it does not wish to entertain the idea that a Jew would act in such a manner.

שלמא לך ברי בת אחתיך אנא משכחת לה בעובד כוכבים הבא על בת בתו

The Gemara cites another riddle: Peace upon you, my son; I am the daughter of your sister. You find the solution in the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with the daughter of his daughter, who bore him a son. This son’s mother is related to him from her mother’s side as well, as she is his sister’s daughter.

דלאי דדלו דוולא ליפול בכו סתר פתר דהאי דדרינא הוא בר ואנא ברת אחוה משכחת לה בעובד כוכבים הבא על בת בנו

The Gemara cites another riddle: Water drawers, who draw water in buckets to irrigate fields, let this cryptic riddle fall among you: This boy whom I carry is my son, and I am the daughter of his brother. You find the solution in the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with the daughter of his son, as their son is also her uncle.

בייא בייא מאח והוא אב והוא בעל והוא בר בעל והוא בעלה דאם ואנא ברתה דאיתתיה ולא יהיב פיתא לאחוה יתמי בני ברתיה משכחת לה בעובד כוכבים הבא על אמו והוליד ממנה בת וחזר ובא על אותה בת וחזר זקן ובא עליה והוליד ממנה בנים

The Gemara cites another riddle: Woe, woe [baya, baya] for my brother, who is my father, and who is my husband, and who is the son of my husband, and who is the husband of my mother, and I am the daughter of his wife; and he does not provide bread for his brothers, who are orphans, the sons of me, his daughter. You find the solution in the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with his mother, and she bore him a daughter. This daughter is both his sister and his daughter. And he engaged in intercourse with that daughter. And then the old man, his father, engaged in intercourse with her, and she bore him sons. This woman is therefore the wife of her father-brother, and he is also the son of her husband, the old man. Her father’s brothers, i.e., the sons she had with the old man, are his daughter’s sons.

אנא ואת אחי אנא ואבוך אחי אנא ואמך אחי משכחת לה בעובד כוכבים הבא על אמו והוליד ממנה שתי בנות וחזר ובא על אחת מהן והוליד ממנה בן וקריא ליה אחתיה דאימא וקאמרה ליה הכי

The Gemara cites another riddle: You and I are siblings; your father and I are siblings; your mother and I are siblings. You find the solution in the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with his mother, and she bore him two daughters, and he then engaged in intercourse with one of them, and she bore him a son. And the sister of the son’s mother calls him and says this statement to him, as she is his sister from his father’s side and his father’s sister from their mother’s side, and she is his mother’s sister from both sides.

אנא ואת בני אחי אנא ואבוך בני אחי אנא ואמך בני אחי הא בהיתירא נמי משכחת לה כגון ראובן שיש לו שתי בנות ואתא שמעון ונסב חדא מינייהו ואתא בר לוי ונסב חד מינייהו וקאמר ליה בריה דשמעון לבר בריה דלוי:

The Gemara cites another riddle: You and I are cousins; your father and I are cousins; your mother and I are cousins. You find the solution to this riddle in a permitted manner as well. For example, Reuven, who has two daughters, and his brother Shimon came and married one of them, and the son of Levi, the third brother, came and married the other one of them. And the son of Shimon says this statement to the grandson of Levi. They are cousins from their mothers’ sides, Shimon’s son and Levi’s son are cousins from their fathers’ sides, and Shimon’s son and the mother of Levi’s grandson are cousins from their fathers’ sides.

מתני׳ הגיורת שנתגיירו בניה עמה לא חולצין ולא מייבמין אפילו הורתו של ראשון שלא בקדושה ולידתו בקדושה והשני הורתו ולידתו בקדושה וכן שפחה שנשתחררו בניה עמה:

MISHNA: With regard to a female convert whose sons converted with her, they do not perform ḥalitza for each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them, as their conversions are considered rebirth, and they are considered unrelated. This is so even if the conception of the first son was not in the sanctity of Israel, i.e., the mother had not yet converted when she conceived of him, but his birth was in the sanctity of Israel, as his mother had converted by the time she gave birth to him, whereas the second son was both conceived and born in sanctity. The first son is considered a convert, who is unrelated to his brother. And this halakha similarly applies to a maidservant whose sons were freed with her, as they too are not considered relatives.

גמ׳ בני יודן אמתא אשתחרור שרא להו רב אחא בר יעקב למינסב נשי דהדדי אמר ליה רבא והא רב ששת אסר א"ל הוא אסר ואנא שרינא

GEMARA: The sons of Yudan the maidservant were freed. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov allowed them to marry each other’s wives after divorce. Rava said to him: Didn’t Rav Sheshet prohibit marriage in that case? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said to him: He prohibited it and I permit it. I disagree with his ruling.

מן האב ולא מן האם כ"ע לא פליגי דשרי מן האם ולא מן האב כ"ע לא פליגי דאסיר

The Gemara explains: If the two freed slaves or converts are half brothers from their father’s side and not from their mother’s side, everyone agrees that the marriage is permitted, as even a gentile and certainly a convert are considered unrelated to their father’s family. If they are half brothers from their mother and not from their father, everyone agrees that it is prohibited.

כי פליגי מן האב ומן האם מאן דשרי בתר אבא שדינן דהא בני פלניא קרו להו ורב ששת קרו להו נמי בני פלונית

When they disagree, it is a case where they are brothers both from their father and from their mother. The one who permits the marriage claims that we trace them after their father. Their paternal lineage is followed, since they are called the sons of so-and-so, their father. Since they are recognized by their paternal lineage, it is well known that they are considered unrelated, and there is no concern that people will infer that a man may marry his sister-in-law. And Rav Sheshet maintains that they are also called the sons of so-and-so, their mother. Therefore, this concern does exist, as it is not common knowledge that a convert is considered reborn and unrelated to his mother’s family.

ואיכא דאמר פליג רב אחא בר יעקב אפילו באחין מן האם ומ"ט גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי

And some say a different version of this dispute: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov disagrees with Rav Sheshet, even with regard to maternal half brothers. And what is the reasoning behind this opinion? The legal status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and all his previous family relationships are disregarded, whether from his father’s side or from his mother’s side.

תנן הגיורת שנתגיירו בניה עמה לא חולצין ולא מייבמין מ"ט לאו משום דאסירי לא דאינה בתורת חליצה וייבום ושריא לעלמא ואינהו נמי שרו

We learned in the mishna: With regard to a female convert whose sons converted with her, they do not perform ḥalitza with each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them. What is the reason that they may not perform levirate marriage? Is it not because they are prohibited from marrying them, contrary to Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s opinion? The Gemara answers: No, the mishna means that these wives are not included in the law of ḥalitza and levirate marriage, as they are considered unrelated, and each wife is therefore permitted to marry anyone. And they, too, are permitted to marry her.

והא קתני אפילו אי אמרת בשלמא אסירי היינו דקתני אפילו דאע"ג דראשון הורתו שלא בקדושה ולידתו בקדושה והשני הורתו ולידתו בקדושה וכשתי אמהות דמו אפילו הכי אסירי אלא אי אמרת שרו מאי אפילו

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the mishna teach that this is so even if the mother converted while pregnant with the first son, and the second converted independently? Granted, if you say that they are prohibited from marrying each other’s wives, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: Even so they are prohibited from marriage. Although the first son was not conceived in sanctity and only his birth was in sanctity, whereas the second was both conceived and born in sanctity, and therefore they are like the sons of two different mothers, even so they are prohibited from performing levirate marriage with their sisters-in-law. But if you say they are permitted to marry each other’s wives, what is the meaning of the word even?

דאע"ג דתרוייהו לידתן בקדושה ואתי לאיחלופי בישראל אפ"ה שרי

The Gemara answers: The mishna means that although both of them were born in sanctity, and people might come to confuse them with Jews from birth, who may not marry their sisters-in-law, nevertheless they are permitted to marry each other’s wives.

איכא דאמרי הכי נמי מסתברא דשרו דקתני אפילו אי אמרת בשלמא שרו היינו דקתני אפילו דאע"ג דתרוייהו לידתן בקדושה דאתי לאיחלופי בישראל אפ"ה שרו אלא אי אמרת אסירי מאי אפי'

There are those who say a different version of this inference: So too, it is reasonable that they are permitted to marry their sisters-in-law, as the mishna teaches: Even if the mother converted while pregnant. Granted, if you say that they are permitted, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: Even so they are permitted. Although both of them were born in sanctity, and people might come to confuse them with Jews from birth, nevertheless, they are permitted. But if you say that they are prohibited, what is the meaning of the word even?

דאע"ג דראשון הורתו שלא בקדושה ולידתו בקדושה והשני הורתו ולידתו בקדושה דכשתי אמהות דמי אפילו הכי אסירי

The Gemara answers: The mishna means that although the first son was not conceived in sanctity and only his birth was in sanctity, whereas the second was both conceived and born in sanctity, so that they are like the sons of two mothers, nevertheless, they are prohibited from marrying each other’s wives.

ת"ש שני אחים תאומים גרים וכן משוחררים לא חולצין ולא מייבמין ואין חייבין משום אשת אח היתה הורתן שלא בקדושה ולידתן בקדושה לא חולצין ולא מייבמין אבל חייבין משום אשת אח היתה הורתן ולידתן בקדושה הרי הן כישראלים לכל דבריהן קתני מיהת אין חייבין משום אשת אח חיובא ליכא

The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear: Two twin brothers who are converts, and similarly twin brothers who are freed slaves, do not perform ḥalitza for each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them, and if they engage in intercourse with them they are not liable to receive karet for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. If they were not conceived in sanctity and only their birth was in sanctity, they do not perform ḥalitza or levirate marriage, but they are liable for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. If they were conceived and born in sanctity, they are like Jews from birth in all of their matters. In any event, the baraita is teaching that regular converts are not liable for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. It can be inferred that while there is no liability by Torah law,