Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Yevamot 5:1

התורה ריבתה בחליצה. רבי בון בר חייה בעא קומי רבי זעורה אלמנה לכהן גדול מהו שתהא צריכה חליצה. אמר לא איפשר לומר קידושין תופסין בה ואת אומר אינה צריכה חליצה. א"ל הרי איילונית קידושין תופסין בה ואת אומר אינה צריכה חליצה. א"ל הרי איילונית מטעם אחר הוצאתה (דברים כה) אשר תלד יצתה זו שאינה יולדת. עד שאת למד כל העריות מאחות אשתו לאיסור למד כל העריות מאשת אחיו להיתר. א"ר מנא למידין שני איסורין משני איסורין. ואין למידין שני איסורין מאיסור אחד. ר' לעזר בשם ר' אבון כל דבר שהוא בא מחמת הגורם בטל הגורם בטל האיסור ודבר שאינו בא מחמת הגורם אף על פי שבטל הגורם האיסור במקומו. ומה אית לך אמר רבי יוסי בי ר' בון כגון אילו חמש עשרה נשים שלא תאמר בתו עד שלא נישאת לאחיו אסורה לו נישאת לאחיו מותרת לו. לוי בר סוסיי בעא קומי רבי ניתני שש עשרה נשים אמו אנוסת אביו נשואה לאחיו מאביו אמר ליה ניכר אותו האיש שאין לו מוח בקדקדו ולמה אמר ליה בגין דר' יודה דר' יודה אוסר באנוסת אביו ובמפותת אביו ולא מודי ר' יודה שאם קידש שתפסו בה קידושין אלא בגין דתנינן שש עריות חמורות מאילו מפני שהן נשואות לאחרים צרותיהן מותרות. ותני ר' חייה כן אם יכולות להינשא לאחיו שלא בעבירה צרותיהן פטורות מן החליצה ומן הייבום ומכולם אין לך אלא אמו אנוסת אביו נשואה לאחיו מאביו. למה לא תניתה. בגין דתניתה ר' חייה לא ניתנינה כל שכן ניתנינה. אלא בגין דתנינן אחותה שהיא יבמתה או חולצת או מתייבמת ואת משכח בכלהון

R. Hanina says: The sun must have gone down and the moon have commenced to rise. In effect R. Samuel says: The moon cannot shine as long as the sun still lightens, neither can the moon shine after the sun has darted his (morning) beams. R. Samuel bar-Hiya, in the name of R. Hanina, says: If a man, when the sun has begun to set, descends from the summit of Mount Carmel to bathe in the sea, and re-ascends to partake of the oblations, he has certainly bathed during the daytime. It is, however, only a certainty in the case of one taking cross-roads to shorten the route; but not in the case of one who follows the high road (Strata). What is meant by "the intermediate period "? R. Tanhooma says: It resembles the delay of a drop of blood placed on the edge of a sword, i.e. the time required for the drop of blood to divide and run down on either side of the blade, is equivalent to the period of transition. According to R. Nehemiah, it means the time it would require for a man to run half a mile, after sunset. R. Yosse says: This twilight lasts no longer than the twinkling of an eye, and not even the men of science could measure it. Whilst the R. Yosse and R. Aha were together, the former said to the latter: Does it not seem to you that the passage of this half a mile (twilight) lasts but a second? It is certainly my opinion, said R. Aha. However, R. Hiya does not say so, but each twinkling of an eye, measured by the duration of the passage of half a mile (as R. Nehemiah), is doubtful. R. Mena says : I have made an objection in the presence of R. Aha: Have we not learnt elsewhere, that if an impurity is seen, once during the day and again during the intermediate period, or once in the twilight and again on the morrow, when the certainty exists that the impurity dates partly from this day and partly from the next day, there is a certainty as to the circumstances of the impurity, and the sacrifice is obligatory.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

“If he gave a bill of divorce, and ḥalîṣah, nothing is valid after ḥalîṣah,” etc. Did we not state already60Mishnah 1. “there is nothing after ḥalîṣah”? Because we stated after that, “whether there is one sister-in-law or two sisters-in-law61From Mishnah 1 it is not clear that after ḥalîṣah of one widow all actions with regard to the other are also as if nonexistent.”. If somebody gave qiddushin to the one with whom he performed ḥalîṣah, would they not lay hold on her62Since it was established in Chapter 1 that the widow is at most forbidden by a simple prohibition, not threatened by divine extirpation, it is clear that qiddushin by one of the brothers will be illegal but valid.? Explain it either following Rebbi if he did not intend it or according to everybody if he intended to acquire as “bespeaking” of a sister-in-law but she was not his sister-in-law63While “bespeaking” has the external form of qiddushin, their rules are quite different. After ḥalîṣah, any “bespeaking” is impossible; an action of “bespeaking” is null and void but the same action with the intent of qiddushin in valid. The same position is taken in the Babli, 52b.. Rebbi Abba said, this was stated64A different but parallel formulation in Babli, 19b.: “ ‘Bespeaking’ acquires whether intentional or not intentional, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages say, it acquires only with intention65For them, “bespeaking” follows the rules of qiddushin as closely as possible.. Rebbi agrees that qiddushin acquire only with intention.” What is Rebbi’s reason? Intercourse acquires, “bespeaking” acquires. Just as intercourse acquires whether intentional or not intentional66Mishnah 6:1., so “bespeaking” acquires whether intentional or not intentional. And just as Rebbi says, “bespeaking” acquires whether intentional or not intentional, so he says the bill of divorce67The divorce document for “bespeaking”, which cannot exist without the groom’s initiative, can be delivered without getting the widow’s attention. Nothing is implied for divorce of an original marriage. frees whether intentional or not intentional. And why does Rebbi say that “bespeaking” acquires whether intentional or not intentional? Since intercourse of an adult68But not of a minor. Since a minor can act in practice but not in law, “bespeaking”, qiddushin, and divorce are not applicable to minors. acquires whether intentional or not intentional. Even if the bill of divorce would free even if not intentional, ḥalîṣah can free only if it is intentional69Ḥalîṣah is enacted by both parties; it cannot happen without conscious participation of both parties..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gave qiddushin to one of two sisters but he does not know to which one of them, he gives a bill of divorce to each. If he died and has one brother, that one has to perform ḥalîṣah with both sisters.” Everywhere else you say152Mishnah 5:1. “there cannot be ḥalîṣah after ḥalîṣah” but here you say so? There if it is certain, here one is in doubt153It is impossible to do otherwise.. “If he had two [brothers], one performs ḥalîṣah and one may marry in levirate.” Everywhere else you say, in any case one asks him to perform the levirate one does not say perform ḥalîṣah; but here you say so? There if it is certain, here one is in doubt. “If both married without asking, one does not remove [the women] from them.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Full Chapter