## Yevamot Daf 100b

###### Yevamot 100b:1
[Yevamot 100b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:1)

הָיוּ לוֹ אַחִים מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאַחִים מִן הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁלֹּא מֵאוֹתָהּ הָאֵם — הוּא חוֹלֵץ וּמְיַיבֵּם, וְהֵם — אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **he had** half **brothers from the first** husband **and** half **brothers from the second, not from the same mother** but from the same father, **he performs *ḥalitza* or levirate marriage** with their widows. If he is indeed their paternal half brother, then the widows are his *yevamot*; if not, he may marry them like any other man. **And** similarly, with regard to **them** and his wife, **one** half brother from one father **performs *ḥalitza* and one** from the other father **performs levirate marriage.**


###### Yevamot 100b:2
[Yevamot 100b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:2)

הָיָה אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן — נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה רְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן, וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים. וְאִם נִטְמָא — אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאִם אָכַל — אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ. וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק עַל הַגּוֹרֶן. וּמוֹכֵר הַתְּרוּמָה, וְהַדָּמִים שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one** of his two uncertain fathers **was an Israelite and one** was **a priest, he may marry** only **a woman fit to** marry **a priest,** due to the possibility that he is a priest. **And he may not become ritually impure** with impurity imparted **by a corpse** because he might be a priest. **But if he became impure, he does not receive the forty** lashes, as he might be a non-priest. Likewise, **he does not partake of *teruma*,** in case he is a non-priest. **However, if he ate** *teruma* **he does not pay** the **principal and the** additional **fifth,** as he might be a priest. **And he does not receive** *teruma* **at the granary. However, he may sell the *teruma*** of his own produce **and the money is his.** It cannot be taken away from him due to the uncertainty with regard to his status.


###### Yevamot 100b:3
[Yevamot 100b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:3)

וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק בְּקׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. וּפָטוּר מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּיבָה. וּבְכוֹרוֹ יְהֵא רוֹעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב. וְנוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חוּמְרֵי כֹּהֲנִים וְחוּמְרֵי יִשְׂרְאֵלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And he does not receive a share of the sacred of the consecrated** offerings, **and one may not give him the consecrated** offerings to sacrifice. **However,** the hides of **his own** offerings **may not be appropriated from his possession. And he is exempt from** giving a priest **the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw** of his non-consecrated animals. **And the firstling of his** animal **should graze until it becomes unfit** to be sacrificed because it gets a blemish. **And** in general, **we place upon him the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites.**


###### Yevamot 100b:4
[Yevamot 100b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:4)

הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כֹּהֲנִים — הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם, וְהֵם אוֹנְנִים עָלָיו. הוּא אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לָהֶם, וְהֵם אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִים לוֹ. הוּא אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָן, אֲבָל הֵם יוֹרְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **both** uncertain fathers **were priests,** then if they die **he is in** a state of **acute mourning over** each of **them,** in case the deceased is his father. **And** if he dies, **they are** both **in a** state of **acute mourning over him,** as one of them is his father. **He may not become ritually impure to** bury **them,** as each one may not be his relative, **and they may not become ritually impure to** bury **him** for the same reason. **He does not inherit** from **them,** as the heirs of both husbands can reject his claims. **However, they inherit** from **him** if he has no sons and split his inheritance equally.


###### Yevamot 100b:5
[Yevamot 100b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:5)

וּפָטוּר עַל מַכָּתוֹ וְעַל קִלְלָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה. עוֹלֶה בְּמִשְׁמָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּמִשְׁמָר אֶחָד — נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And he is exempt** from capital punishment **for striking and for cursing** both **this** father **and that one.** Although one who strikes or curses his father or mother is liable to receive the death penalty, he cannot be held liable, as it is unknown which of the men is his father. **He must ascend** to the Temple service **with the priestly watch of this** father **and of that one,** as he belongs to one of these watches and is obligated to serve with them. **However, he does not receive a share** of the portion of the offerings that gets eaten, as the members of each watch can claim that he is a member of the other watch. **If both** uncertain fathers **were in one priestly watch, he receives one share,** as he certainly belongs to that watch.


###### Yevamot 100b:6
[Yevamot 100b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:6)

**גְּמָ׳** דַּוְקָא מִיחְלָץ וַהֲדַר יַבּוֹמֵי, אֲבָל יַבּוֹמֵי בְּרֵישָׁא — לָא, דְּקָא פָגַע בִּיבָמָה לַשּׁוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna stated that if the son has paternal half brothers from each of his two uncertain fathers and he dies childless, a half brother from one father performs *ḥalitza* and the other performs levirate marriage. The Gemara comments that ***ḥalitza* is specifically performed** first **and** only **afterward levirate marriage. However, levirate marriage is not** performed **first, as** that **would breach** the prohibition against **a *yevama*** engaging in intercourse **with** a member of **the public** in the event that she is not his *yevama* but rather the *yevama* of the other half brother.


###### Yevamot 100b:7
[Yevamot 100b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:7)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים עוֹמְדִים, וּפֵירַשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶם, וּבָעַל — הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי. מַאי ״שְׁתוּקִי״? אִילֵימָא שֶׁמְּשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִנִּכְסֵי אָבִיו — פְּשִׁיטָא! מִי יָדְעִינַן אֲבוּהּ מַנּוּ? אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִדִּין כְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said** that if **ten priests were standing** in one place, **and one of them,** who is unidentified, **left** the group **and engaged in intercourse** with a woman, and she gave birth, **the child is a silenced one,** i.e., a child whose father’s identity is not known. The Gemara asks: **What is** the meaning of the phrase **silenced one [*shetuki*]** in this regard? **If we say that he is silenced from** any claim to **his father’s property,** this **is obvious; do we know who his father is? Rather,** it means **that he is silenced from the status of priesthood,** as well. Although his father certainly is a priest, he is not given this status.


###### Yevamot 100b:8
[Yevamot 100b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:8)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״, בָּעֵינַן זַרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו, וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? The Gemara answers that the **verse states: “And it shall be to him and to his seed after him,** the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13). It is derived from “and to his seed after him” that **we require** a priest’s **descendants** to be **attributed to his lineage, and** here that is not the case, as **there is no** certain father.


###### Yevamot 100b:9
[Yevamot 100b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה גַּבֵּי אַבְרָהָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ״, הָתָם מַאי קָא מַזְהַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא? הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא תִּנְסַב גּוֹיָה וְשִׁפְחָה, דְּלָא לֵיזִיל זַרְעָךְ בָּתְרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, since** the same phrase **is written with regard to Abraham: “To be a God to you and to your seed after you”** (Genesis 17:7), **what is the Merciful One warning him there?** Can it possibly mean that one who cannot identify his parents is not obligated to serve God as a Jew? The Gemara answers that **this is what He said to him: You may not marry a gentile woman or a maidservant, so that** the status of **your offspring will not follow her** status, as the child of a Jewish man and a gentile woman or maidservant receives the status of his mother.


###### Yevamot 100b:10
[Yevamot 100b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:10)

מֵיתִיבִי: רִאשׁוֹן רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. וְהָא בָּעֵינַן זַרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו, וְלֵיכָּא! זַרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו — דְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא. וְכִי גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן — בִּזְנוּת, בְּנִשּׂוּאִין לָא גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection:** A *baraita* (37a) teaches that if a priest performed levirate marriage with his brother’s wife within three months of his brother’s death, and she gave birth to a son who is either her deceased husband’s son or her brother-in-law’s son, this **first** son born after the levirate marriage **is fit** even **to be a High Priest. But don’t we require his descendants** to be **attributed to his lineage, and that is not so** in this case, as the father’s identity is unknown? The Gemara answers: The requirement that **his descendants** be **attributed to his lineage is rabbinic** law, **and the verse is a mere support,** not the actual source. **And when the Sages decreed** that one whose father’s identity is unknown is not a priest, they did so only **with regard to** a case of **licentious** intercourse. **With regard to** a case of **marriage,** as is the case in the *baraita*, **the Sages did not** apply the **decree.**


###### Yevamot 100b:11
[Yevamot 100b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:11)

וּבִזְנוּת מִי גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן? וְהָתְנַן: מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת וְיָלְדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And with regard to** a case of **licentious** intercourse, **did the Sages** in fact issue **a decree? Didn’t we learn** in the mishna about a woman **who did not wait three months after** separating from **her husband and remarried and gave birth** to a son?


###### Yevamot 100b:12
[Yevamot 100b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:12)

מַאי ״אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ״? אִילֵימָא אַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם, וְהֵם אוֹנְנִים עָלָיו. בִּשְׁלָמָא הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם — מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּנִשּׂוּאִין דְּשֵׁנִי וְלִיקּוּט עֲצָמוֹת דְּקַמָּא. אֶלָּא: הֵם אוֹנְנִים עָלָיו, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? קַמָּא הָא מִית לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the meaning of the phrase: **After** separating from **her husband? If we say** it means **after her husband’s death, say the latter clause** of the mishna: If they die, **he is in a** state of **acute mourning over** each of **them, and** if he dies, **they are** both **in** a state of **acute mourning over him. Granted,** if they die, **he is in** a state of **acute mourning over them. You find** this case **with regard to** his uncertain father from his mother’s **marriage to the second man.** If the second husband dies, the child must mourn for him, **and** he is also in a state of acute mourning following **the gathering of the bones of the first** husband, who died before he was born. When the bones of a person who was buried are dug up for proper burial in his ancestor’s plot, his relatives mourn for him a second time. **But** with regard to the statement that if he dies **they are in** a state of **acute mourning for him, how can you find these** circumstances? **The first** husband **is** already **dead.**


###### Yevamot 100b:13
[Yevamot 100b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:13)

וְאֶלָּא בִּגְרוּשָׁה, וּמַאי ״אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ״ — אַחַר גֵּט בַּעְלָהּ. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הוּא אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהֶם וְהֵם אֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין לוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא הֵן אֵין מִטַּמְּאִין לוֹ — לְחוּמְרָא, דְּכֹל חַד וְחַד דִּלְמָא לָאו בְּרֵיהּ הוּא. אֶלָּא הוּא אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהֶם, אַמַּאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** assume the mishna’s statement is **rather with regard to a divorcée. And** accordingly **what is** the meaning of the phrase: **After** separating from **her husband?** It means: **After** she received **a bill of divorce** from **her husband.** If so, **say the latter clause** of the mishna: **He may not become impure to** bury **them, and they may not become impure to** bury **him. Granted, they may not become impure to** bury **him, as** the ruling is **stringent, as** with regard to **each one** of them **perhaps he is not his son. However, why may he not become impure to** bury **them?**


###### Yevamot 100b:14
[Yevamot 100b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:14)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְשֵׁנִי לָא לִיטַּמֵּי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא לְרִאשׁוֹן לִיטַּמֵּי לֵיהּ מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי בְּרֵיהּ הוּא — שַׁפִּיר קָא מִטַּמֵּא לֵיהּ, וְאִי בַּר בָּתְרָא הוּא — שַׁפִּיר קָא מִטַּמֵּא לֵיהּ, דְּחָלָל הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, for the second one he should not become impure,** as he might not be his son. **However, for the first he should** be allowed to **become impure whichever way you** view it: **If he is his son, it is appropriate for him to become impure to** bury **him,** as even a priest must become ritually impure to bury his father. **And if he is the son of the latter one, it is appropriate for him to become impure to** bury **him, as he,** the son, **is a *ḥalal*.** If his mother is a divorcée, his father, the latter husband, is prohibited as a priest to marry her, and a child born from this relationship is a *ḥalal*, who is unfit for the priesthood. There would then be no prohibition against his becoming ritually impure.


###### Yevamot 100b:15
[Yevamot 100b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:15)

אֶלָּא לָאו, בִּזְנוּת. וּמַאי ״אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ״ — אַחַר בּוֹעֲלָהּ. וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עוֹלֶה בְּמִשְׁמָר שֶׁל זֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה. וּתְיוּבְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is** the mishna’s statement **not with regard to** the **licentious** intercourse of an unmarried woman? **And what is** the meaning of the phrase: **After** she separated from **her husband [*ba’ala*]?** Is it not: **After** separating from **the man with whom she engaged in intercourse [*bo’ala*],** meaning that she engaged in intercourse with a man less than three months before marrying another man, and therefore she does not know the identity of the father? **And it is taught** in **the latter clause** of the mishna that the son **ascends** to the Temple service **with the priestly watch of this one and of that one,** which implies that he is considered a priest, although the identity of his father is uncertain due to the licentious intercourse of his mother. **And** this appears to be **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Shmuel.**


###### Yevamot 100b:16
[Yevamot 100b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:16)

אָמַר רַב שְׁמַעְיָא: בִּמְמָאֶנֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shemaya said:** The mishna’s statement **pertains to a girl who refused** her husband. A minor girl who was orphaned from her father may be married off by her brothers. However, she may subsequently refuse her husband before reaching majority. This nullifies the marriage entirely, so she is not considered a divorcée, for whom it is prohibited to marry a priest. In the case of the mishna, she did not wait three months after her refusal before marrying again, so she does not know who the father of her child is.


###### Yevamot 100b:17
[Yevamot 100b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:17)

מְמָאֶנֶת מִי קָא יָלְדָה? וְהָתָנֵי רַב בִּיבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת בְּמוֹךְ: קְטַנָּה, מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וּמְנִיקָה. קְטַנָּה — שֶׁמָּא תִּתְעַבֵּר וְתָמוּת, מְעוּבֶּרֶת — שֶׁמָּא תַּעֲשֶׂה עוּבָּרָהּ סַנְדָּל, מְנִיקָה — שֶׁמָּא תִּגְמוֹל אֶת בְּנָהּ וְיָמוּת. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא קְטַנָּה — מִבַּת אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד עַד בַּת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד. פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן אוֹ יָתֵר עַל כֵּן — מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְהוֹלֶכֶת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Can a girl who refuses** her husband **give birth? Didn’t Rav Beivai teach before Rav Naḥman** that **women** in **three** situations **may engage in intercourse with** a contraceptive **resorbent,** despite the fact that this practice is generally prohibited: **A minor girl, a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman? A minor girl** may do so **lest she become pregnant and die,** as the fetus might endanger her life. **A pregnant woman** may do so **lest** she get pregnant a second time and **her** previous **fetus becomes a sandal,** i.e., it is squashed by the pressure of the second fetus. **A nursing woman** may do so **lest she wean her child** prematurely, as pregnancy will cause her milk to dry up, **and he will die** of hunger. **And who is** considered **a minor girl** in this context? A girl **from** the **age** of **eleven years and one day until** the **age** of **twelve years and one day.** If she is **younger than this or older than this, she should go ahead and engage in intercourse in her usual manner.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Yevamot 100b:18
[Yevamot 100b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:18)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְהוֹלֶכֶת, וּמִן הַשָּׁמַיִם יְרַחֲמוּ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׁוֹמֵר פְּתָאִים ה׳״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** Both **this one and that one,** i.e., women in any cases, **should go ahead and engage in intercourse in their usual manner, and Heaven will have mercy** and prevent them from getting pregnant, **as it is stated: “The Lord preserves the simple”** (Psalms 116:6). Evidently, a girl who is a minor and therefore young enough to refuse her husband cannot become pregnant without endangering her health.


###### Yevamot 100b:19
[Yevamot 100b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:19)

מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת, וְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **You find** a solution **in** the case of **a mistaken betrothal.** For example, if the first husband betrothed her conditionally and the condition was unfulfilled, the marriage is nullified. This woman may marry a priest. If she did so within three months, the identity of her child’s father is uncertain, which fits the statement in the mishna. **And** this is **in accordance with that** which **Rav Yehuda** said that **Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:** The verse states with regard to a *sota*: **“Neither was she [*hi*] coerced in the act”** (Numbers 5:13). It may be inferred that she is **forbidden** to her husband only if she was not coerced by the adulterer; if **she was coerced she is permitted** to him.


###### Yevamot 100b:20
[Yevamot 100b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/100b:20)

וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּשָׂה, מוּתֶּרֶת. וְאֵי זוֹ — זוֹ שֶׁקִּדּוּשֶׁיהָ קִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּנָהּ מוּרְכָּב לָהּ עַל כְּתֵפָהּ — מְמָאֶנֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the superfluous word “she” indicates that **you have another woman who, although she** engaged in intercourse willingly and **was not coerced, is** nevertheless **permitted** to her husband, as the intercourse is not considered adultery. **And who is this? This** is referring to a woman **whose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal, as even if her child is riding on her shoulders, she may refuse** her husband **and go off** on **her** way. She is considered an unmarried woman, and she is therefore permitted to return to her husband, even if she engaged in intercourse with another man. The mishna may therefore be explained in a way that does not contradict Shmuel.