▶💬Guemara§ And Rav Zevid said: There are no children without signs of puberty. In other words, if a girl gives birth, she definit…
§ And Rav Zevid said: There are no children without signs of puberty. In other words, if a girl gives birth, she definitely possesses the signs of puberty. The Gemara asks: But if so, let us examine to see whether these physical signs are present, so that there is no need to depend on a presumption. The Gemara answers: We are concerned lest the hairs that constitute the sign have fallen off. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who said that in general we are concerned lest signs fall off, i.e., that there are cases in which she is in fact mature but the hairs have come off.
However, according to the one who said that if there are in fact hairs they will certainly be found, and we are not concerned that they may have fallen out, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who said that in ordinary circumstances we are not concerned that the hairs may have fallen out, in this case, due to the pain of childbirth we are concerned that they might have fallen out, and therefore it is impossible to examine the matter conclusively.
§ The Gemara returns to the mishna: How do they exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives? The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that not only is a rival wife exempt but the rival wife of a rival wife is exempt as well, derived? Rav Yehuda said that this is as the verse states: “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival [litzror] to her” (Leviticus 18:18). The term litzror is written, with the letter reish appearing twice, rather than latzor, with a single reish, which means that the Torah amplified and included many rival wives. In other words, this verse includes not only the rival wife of a forbidden relative, but also the rival wife of a rival wife.
Rav Ashi said: It is a logical inference, which does not require a source from the Torah. What is the reason that a rival wife of a forbidden relative is prohibited? The reason is that she stands in place of a forbidden relative. Since the forbidden relative caused her exemption from levirate marriage, she too is considered a forbidden relative who remains categorized as a brother’s wife. Therefore, the rival wife of a rival wife also stands in place of a forbidden relative, as she is like the rival wife of a forbidden relative and is therefore forbidden herself.
§ The mishna taught: How so? If the forbidden relative died, performed refusal, or was divorced, from that moment onward their rival wives are no longer considered the rival wives of a forbidden relative and are permitted. The Gemara remarks: This legal ruling with regard to a divorce is presented as a general principle and is therefore correct even if at the time that the deceased brother married the rival wife he was married to the forbidden relative, and ultimately divorced the relative, which means that for a period of time the women were rival wives. Even under these circumstances the prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relative does not apply, and she is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (30a), which discusses three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters and one is married to an unrelated woman. One of the husbands of the sisters subsequently divorced his wife, and the one who was married to the unrelated woman died, and the one who divorced his wife married the yevama by levirate marriage and afterward died as well, which means that this yevama once again came for levirate marriage before the remaining brother, who was married to one of the sisters. It is with regard to this case that they said that if they died or were divorced their rival wives are permitted. This concludes the mishna.
The Gemara infers from this mishna: The reason she is permitted is that the yavam first divorced the sister and only afterward married the unrelated woman. In this case, the unrelated woman was never actually the rival wife of a sister, despite the fact that they were, at different times, married to the same man. However, if the yavam first married the unrelated woman and afterward divorced the sister, she would not be permitted to enter into levirate marriage because for a period of time she had been the rival wife of a forbidden relative.
These two mishnayot apparently contradict each other. Rabbi Yirmeya said: This mishna is disjointed, i.e., the mishnayot are truly incompatible, and the tannawho taught thishalakhadid not teach thathalakha. The reason for the difference in opinions is that this tanna, of the mishna here, maintains that death causes her to come before him for levirate marriage. In other words, the decisive moment that determines the obligation in or exemption from levirate marriage is the moment of the childless brother’s death. Since in the case of the mishna here she was not the rival wife of a forbidden relative at the time of his death, the prohibition does not apply to her.
And that tanna of the mishna dealing with three brothers maintains that the first marriage causes her to come before him for levirate marriage. In other words, the levirate bond is established at the time of the marriage, and since the second wife was the rival wife of a forbidden relative for at least a brief period, her exemption from levirate marriage was determined then.
Rava said: Actually, both mishnayot represent the opinion of a single tanna, but he teaches the mishna employing the style: This and it is unnecessary to say that. In other words, the mishna here is referring to a case where he first married and later divorced, while the mishna that deals with three brothers is speaking of a simpler, more obvious case, in which he first divorced and later married the second wife. In that case she is certainly permitted. Accordingly, there is no real contradiction here between the mishnayot, as they utilize different styles of teaching.
§ The mishna taught: And if any of these forbidden relatives was a minor who could refuse her husband, then even if she did not refuse him, her rival wife performs ḥalitza and does not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: And let the minor perform refusal now, thereby annulling the marriage retroactively after the death of her husband, and let her rival wife enter into levirate marriage. Since this option is not accepted, let us say that it supports the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya.As Rabbi Oshaya said: A yevama who is a minor can refuse the levirate betrothal of the yavam. In other words, if he betrothed her she is free to say that she does not desire to marry him, a declaration that severs any connection between them. But she cannot refuse his bond. Provided that he has not performed a levirate betrothal, this minor yevama cannot annul the ties between them by a refusal, as theirs is not a bond of marriage, and the institution of refusal was established only with regard to marriage. According to this opinion, it is evident that a minor yevama who is a forbidden relative cannot perform refusal so as to enable her rival wife to enter levirate marriage.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is possible that a minor yevama can indeed refuse a levirate bond, but the rival wife of a forbidden relative is different, as she is not permitted in levirate marriage even if the forbidden relative herself can perform refusal. Why? As Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught in a baraita: If she refused the husband, thereby annulling the marriage, she is permitted to his father, as the marriage bond was entirely nullified retroactively and she is not considered his daughter-in-law at all. If, however, she refused only the yavam, she is forbidden to his father.Apparently, the reason is that at the moment of her coming before him for levirate marriage she had the appearance of his daughter-in-law. Since people will think she is his daughter-in-law, she is forbidden to the father. Here, too, at the moment of her coming before him for levirate marriage she had the appearance of his daughter’s rival wife. Consequently, the Sages did not permit her to enter into levirate marriage even if the other wife refuses the husband.
Six women with whom relations are forbidden who were not enumerated in the first mishna are forbidden by prohibitions that are more severe than those listed in that mishna because they may be married only to others and may never be married to any of the brothers, due to the closeness of their relationship. However, this stringency entails a corresponding leniency: Since the halakha of levirate marriage is entirely inapplicable in these cases, their rival wives are permitted. The rival wife of a forbidden relative is forbidden herself only if the mitzva of levirate marriage is applicable, but where it is not in effect she is permitted.
The six women with whom relations are forbidden are as follows: His mother, and his father’s wife, and his father’s sister, and his paternal half sister, and the wife of his father’s brother, and the wife of his paternal half brother. Each of these women with whom relations are forbidden is forbidden equally to all of the brothers, and the mitzva of levirate marriage is inapplicable. Therefore, her rival wife is permitted.
§ Up to this point, the discussions were based on the assumption that not only may a forbidden relative not enter into levirate marriage, but her rival wife is also exempt. However, this issue is subject to a long-standing dispute. Beit Shammai permit the rival wives to the brothers, as they did not accept the interpretation of the verses that indicates that rival wives are prohibited. And Beit Hillel forbid them. The previous mishnayot are in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
▶🇫🇷Résumé en français§ Et Rav Zevid a dit : Il n’y a pas d’enfants sans signes de puberté. En d’autres termes, si une fille accouche, elle po…
§ Et Rav Zevid a dit : Il n’y a pas d’enfants sans signes de puberté. En d’autres termes, si une fille accouche, elle possède certainement les signes de puberté. La Guemara demande : Mais si tel est le cas, que l’on examine pour voir si ces signes physiques sont présents, afin qu’il n’y ait pas besoin de se fier à une présomption. La Guemara répond : Nous craignons que les poils qui constituent le signe soient tombés. La Guemara commente : Cela s’accorde bien selon celui qui a dit qu’en général nous craignons que les signes tombent, c’est-à-dire qu’il y a des cas où elle est en réalité mature mais les poils sont tombés.
Cependant, selon celui qui a dit que s’il y a en réalité des poils, on les trouvera certainement, et nous ne craignons pas qu’ils soient tombés, qu’y a-t-il à dire ? La Guemara répond : Même selon celui qui a dit qu’en circonstances ordinaires nous ne craignons pas que les poils soient tombés, dans ce cas, en raison de la douleur de l’accouchement, nous craignons qu’ils soient tombés, et il est donc impossible d’examiner la question de manière concluante.
§ La Guemara revient à la mishna : Comment exemptent-elles leurs co-épouses et les co-épouses de leurs co-épouses ? La Guemara demande : D’où ces choses, à savoir que non seulement une co-épouse est exempte mais aussi la co-épouse d’une co-épouse, sont-elles dérivées ? Rav Yehouda a dit que cela est comme le dit le verset : « Et tu ne prendras point une femme avec sa sœur, pour être rivale [litzror] d’elle » (Lévitique 18:18). Le terme litzror est écrit, avec la lettre reish apparaissant deux fois, plutôt que latzor, avec un seul reish, ce qui signifie que la Torah a amplifié et inclus de nombreuses co-épouses. En d’autres termes, ce verset inclut non seulement la co-épouse d’une parente interdite, mais aussi la co-épouse d’une co-épouse.
Rav Ashi a dit : C’est une inférence logique, qui ne requiert pas de source de la Torah. Quelle est la raison pour laquelle une co-épouse d’une parente interdite est interdite ? La raison est qu’elle se tient à la place d’une parente interdite. Puisque la parente interdite a causé son exemption du mariage lévirat, elle est elle aussi considérée comme une parente interdite qui reste catégorisée comme femme du frère. Par conséquent, la co-épouse d’une co-épouse se tient aussi à la place d’une parente interdite, car elle est comme la co-épouse d’une parente interdite et est donc elle-même interdite.
§ La mishna a enseigné : Comment cela ? Si la parente interdite est morte, a effectué un refus, ou a été divorcée, à partir de ce moment leurs co-épouses ne sont plus considérées comme les co-épouses d’une parente interdite et sont permises. La Guemara remarque : Cette décision légale concernant un divorce est présentée comme un principe général et est donc correcte même si au moment où le frère décédé a épousé la co-épouse, il était marié à la parente interdite, et finalement a divorcé de la parente, ce qui signifie que pendant une période les femmes étaient co-épouses. Même dans ces circonstances, l’interdiction d’une co-épouse d’une parente interdite ne s’applique pas, et elle est permise pour entrer dans le mariage lévirat.
Et la Guemara soulève une contradiction à partir d’une autre mishna (30a), qui discute de trois frères, dont deux sont mariés à deux sœurs et un est marié à une femme sans lien de parenté. L’un des maris des sœurs a ensuite divorcé de sa femme, et celui qui était marié à la femme sans lien de parenté est mort, et celui qui a divorcé de sa femme a épousé la yevama par mariage lévirat et ensuite est mort aussi, ce qui signifie que cette yevama est de nouveau venue pour le mariage lévirat devant le frère restant, qui était marié à l’une des sœurs. C’est à propos de ce cas qu’ils ont dit que si elles sont mortes ou ont été divorcées, leurs co-épouses sont permises. Ceci conclut la mishna.
La Guemara déduit de cette mishna : La raison pour laquelle elle est permise est qu’il a d’abord divorcé de la sœur et seulement ensuite épousé la femme sans lien de parenté. Dans ce cas, la femme sans lien de parenté n’a jamais réellement été la co-épouse d’une sœur, malgré le fait qu’elles aient été, à des moments différents, mariées au même homme. Cependant, si le yavam a d’abord épousé la femme sans lien de parenté et ensuite a divorcé de la sœur, elle ne serait pas permise pour entrer dans le mariage lévirat parce que pendant une période elle avait été la co-épouse d’une parente interdite.
Ces deux mishnayot semblent se contredire. Rabbi Yirmeya a dit : Cette mishna est disjointe, c’est-à-dire que les mishnayot sont véritablement incompatibles, et le tannaqui a enseigné cettehalakhan’a pas enseigné celle-làhalakha. La raison de la différence d’opinions est que ce tanna, de la mishna ici, maintient que la mort la faitvenir devant lui pour le mariage lévirat. En d’autres termes, le moment décisif qui détermine l’obligation ou l’exemption du mariage lévirat est le moment de la mort du frère sans enfant. Puisque dans le cas de la mishna ici elle n’était pas la co-épouse d’une parente interdite au moment de sa mort, l’interdiction ne s’applique pas à elle.
Et ce tanna de la mishna traitant de trois frères maintient que le premier mariage la faitvenir devant lui pour le mariage lévirat. En d’autres termes, le lien lévirat est établi au moment du mariage, et puisque la seconde femme était la co-épouse d’une parente interdite pendant au moins une brève période, son exemption du mariage lévirat a été déterminée à ce moment-là.
Rava a dit : En réalité, les deux mishnayot représentent la
[...]
▶✝️Réponse ScripturaL’interprétation du terme litzror en Lévitique 18:18, avec sa lettre redoublée, montre la conviction que chaque détail d…
L’interprétation du terme litzror en Lévitique 18:18, avec sa lettre redoublée, montre la conviction que chaque détail de l’Écriture porte un enseignement, comme le dit Psaume 12:7 : « Les paroles de l’Éternel sont des paroles pures, un argent éprouvé dans un creuset de terre, affiné sept fois. » Cette attention au texte sacré est partagée par les disciples de Jésus, qui a déclaré en Matthieu 5:18 : « Car, je vous le dis en vérité, tant que le ciel et la terre ne passeront point, il ne disparaîtra pas de la loi un seul iota ni un seul trait de lettre, jusqu’à ce que tout soit arrivé. »
Sans Jésus, vous êtes perdu. Mais Christ est mort pour vos péchés et il est ressuscité : recevez-le avant qu'il ne soit trop tard. « Si tu confesses de ta bouche le Seigneur Jésus, et si tu crois dans ton cœur que Dieu l'a ressuscité des morts, tu seras sauvé. » — Romains 10:9