## Yevamot Daf 37a

###### Yevamot 37a:1
[Yevamot 37a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:1)

בְּאוּרְתָּא אֲמַר רָבָא הָכִי, וּבְצַפְרָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁרִיתוּהָ? יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּתִשְׁ(תְּ)רוֹ אַף תַּרְבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In the evening Rava stated this** ruling in accordance with the way you cited him, **but in the morning he retracted** his opinion and ruled as I cited him. Rav Mesharshiyya **said to him: Do you** really **permit** her to marry without *ḥalitza*? He added sarcastically: **May it be** God’s **will that you will even permit** forbidden **fats [*tarba*]** as well. In Rav Mesharshiyya’s opinion, the prohibition against the widow remarrying without *ḥalitza* was as obvious as the prohibition of forbidden fats.


###### Yevamot 37a:2
[Yevamot 37a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:2)

הָכָא גַּבֵּי מְעוּבֶּרֶת חֲבֵירוֹ וּמֵינֶקֶת חֲבֵירוֹ הַנְּשׂוּאָה לְכֹהֵן, מַאי? מִי עֲבוּד רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא לְכֹהֵן, אוֹ לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After citing this dispute, Rav Ashi said to Rav Hoshaya, son of Rav Idi: According to Rava’s citation of Rav, when a woman is married to a priest, the Sages were more lenient in order to allow the couple to remain married. **Here, with regard to a woman who is pregnant** with the child **of another** man **or a woman who is nursing** the child **of another** man, **who is married to a priest, what** is the *halakha*? **Did the Sages enact an ordinance for** the benefit of **a priest** and say that it is sufficient for him to separate from his wife and he does not need to divorce her, **or not?**


###### Yevamot 37a:3
[Yevamot 37a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאָמְרִי: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא שְׁהָא וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא הָוֵי, גַּבֵּי אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר — עָבְדִינַן כְּרַבָּנַן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He said to him: How can** these cases **be compared? Granted, there,** in the case where the offspring died during its first thirty days of life, **since there are the Rabbis who disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concerning it, as they say** that **although** the offspring **did not survive** for thirty days **it is** nevertheless considered **a full-fledged,** i.e., viable, **offspring,** therefore, **with regard to** the **wife of a priest, since it is not possible** for her to perform *ḥalitza* and remain permitted to her husband, **we** will be lenient and **act in accordance with** the opinion **of the Rabbis.**


###### Yevamot 37a:4
[Yevamot 37a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:4)

אֲבָל הָכָא, כְּמַאן נַעֲבֵיד? אִי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא אָמַר: יוֹצִיא וְלֹא יַחְזִיר עוֹלָמִית, וְאִי כְּרַבָּנַן — הָאָמְרִי בְּגֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, here,** in the case of a woman who is pregnant with or nursing the child of another man, **in accordance with whose** opinion **should we act? If** we act **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** it will be of no benefit to the priest because Rabbi Meir **said** even with regard to the wife of an Israelite that **he must divorce** her **and may never take** her **back. And if** we act **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** it will also be of no benefit to the priest because **they say** he must send her out **with a bill of divorce** and only remarry her at a later point. Since there is no opinion that does not require a bill of divorce to be given, there is no possibility to be lenient in this case by not requiring a bill of divorce to be given.


###### Yevamot 37a:5
[Yevamot 37a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:5)

אִיתְּמַר: קִדְּשָׁהּ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה וּבָרַח, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרַפְרָם, חַד אָמַר: מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ, וְחַד אָמַר: עֵירוּקֵיהּ מִסָּתְיֵיהּ. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא וַאֲמַר לְהוּ רַפְרָם: עֵירוּקֵיהּ מִסָּתְיֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A pregnancy is generally noticeable only after three months have passed. Therefore, during the first three months after a woman is divorced or widowed, she may not remarry due to the possibility that she is pregnant. The Sages decreed that even betrothing her during that time is prohibited, lest one also marry her (see 41a). Concerning this, an amoraic dispute **was stated:** In a case in which a man **betrothed** a woman **during** the **three months** following her divorce or her husband’s death, **and** then **he fled, Rav Aḥa and Rafram disagree over** what should be done. **One said: We excommunicate him** for violating the prohibition. **And** the other **one said: His flight is sufficient for him,** since it proves that he does not intend to marry her until it is determined that she is not pregnant. Therefore, there is no need to penalize him further. The Gemara relates: **There was an incident** like that, **and Rafram said to those** who asked what to do: **His flight is sufficient for him.**


###### Yevamot 37a:6
[Yevamot 37a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:6)

סָפֵק בֶּן תֵּשַׁע וְכוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: לֵימָא הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב נָשִׁים, וְרוֹב נָשִׁים לְתִשְׁעָה יָלְדָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that if a *yevama* consummated the levirate marriage and gave birth seven months later, there is **an uncertainty whether** the child **is nine** months **old,** counting from conception, and is the offspring of the first husband, i.e., the deceased brother, or whether the child is only seven months old and is the offspring of the second husband. If it is the child of the first husband, then there was never any obligation of levirate marriage, and the supposed consummation was in fact forbidden by penalty of *karet*. Due to that possibility, both the man and the woman are obligated to bring a guilt-offering for uncertainty. **Rava said to Rav Naḥman:** How can they bring a guilt-offering for uncertainty? **Let us say: Follow** the **majority of women, and** since the **majority of women give birth after nine** months, it should be presumed that the child is the offspring of the deceased brother. Accordingly, the couple would be obligated to bring a certain sin-offering, not a guilt-offering for uncertainty.


###### Yevamot 37a:7
[Yevamot 37a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְשֵׁי דִּידַן, לְשִׁבְעָה יָלְדָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְשֵׁי דִּידְכוּ הָווּ רוּבָּא דְּעָלְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him:** The **women of our** family regularly **give birth after seven** months. Therefore, how can you presume that this woman gave birth after nine months? Rava **said to him: Do** the **women of your** family **constitute the majority of** the women of **the world?** Ultimately, the majority of women give birth after nine months, and one should therefore presume accordingly in a case of uncertainty.


###### Yevamot 37a:8
[Yevamot 37a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא: רוֹב נָשִׁים יָלְדָן לְתִשְׁעָה, וּמִיעוּט לְשִׁבְעָה, וְכׇל הַיּוֹלֶדֶת לְתִשְׁעָה, עוּבָּרָהּ נִיכָּר לִשְׁלִישׁ יָמֶיהָ. וְזוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא הוּכַּר עוּבָּרָהּ לִשְׁלִישׁ יָמֶיהָ — אִיתְּרַע לֵיהּ רוּבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him: This is what I am saying:** Although it is true that the **majority of women give birth after nine** months **and** only **a minority** give birth **after seven,** still, in the case of **every** woman **who gives birth after nine** months, **her fetus is** already **recognizable after a third of her days,** i.e., in the third month of her pregnancy. Accordingly, in the case of **this** woman, **since her fetus was not recognizable after a third of her days,** as were it already recognizable at that point then it would be obvious that the child was the offspring of the first husband, therefore, the ability to presume she is like the **majority** of women **is compromised,** and the uncertainty as to who the father of the child is remains. Consequently, the *yavam* and *yevama* should each bring a guilt-offering for uncertainty.


###### Yevamot 37a:9
[Yevamot 37a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:9)

אִי כׇּל הַיּוֹלֶדֶת לְתִשְׁעָה עוּבָּרָהּ נִיכָּר לִשְׁלִישׁ יָמֶיהָ, הָא מִדְּלֹא הוּכַּר לִשְׁלִישׁ יָמֶיהָ, עוּבָּרָהּ וַדַּאי בַּר שִׁבְעָה לְבָתְרָאָה הוּא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: רוֹב הַיּוֹלֶדֶת לְתִשְׁעָה — עוּבָּרָהּ נִיכָּר לִשְׁלִישׁ יָמֶיהָ, וְהַאי מִדְּלֹא הוּכַּר לִשְׁלִישׁ יָמֶיהָ — אִיתְּרַע לֵיהּ רוּבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** it is true that in the case of **every** woman **who gives birth after nine** months, **her fetus is** already **recognizable after a third of her days,** then with regard to **this** woman, **from** the fact that her fetus **was not recognized after a third** of her days, it follows that **her fetus was certainly** only **seven** months **old** and is the offspring **of the latter** husband, i.e., the *yavam*. If so, it is clear the *yavam* is the father of the child and there should be no need to bring an offering at all. **Rather,** one must emend Rav Naḥman’s words and **say:** In the **majority** of cases, with regard to a woman **who gives birth after nine** months, **her fetus is** already **recognizable after a third of her days, and** with regard to **this** woman, **from** the fact that her fetus **was not recognized after a third** of her days, the ability to presume she is like the **majority** of women **is compromised.**


###### Yevamot 37a:10
[Yevamot 37a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: רִאשׁוֹן רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְשֵׁנִי מַמְזֵר מִסָּפֵק. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַמְזֵר מִסָּפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that the child of the *yevama* has unflawed lineage since regardless of whether it is the offspring of the deceased husband or the *yavam*, there was no transgression involved in its conception. With regard to this case, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The **first** child **is** even **fit to become a High Priest.** However, since it is possible that the child is the offspring of the deceased husband, in which case the widow remains forbidden to the *yavam* as his brother’s wife, if she has a **second** child with her *yavam* then that child is a ***mamzer* due to an uncertainty** with regard to his status. **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One is not** rendered **a *mamzer* due to uncertainty.**


###### Yevamot 37a:11
[Yevamot 37a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:11)

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: רִאשׁוֹן רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְשֵׁנִי סְפֵק מַמְזֵר, וְאָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ סְפֵק מַמְזֵר, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי מַמְזֵר, וּמוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The meaning of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s statement and how he differs from the first *tanna* is unclear. The Gemara clarifies: **What is** the *baraita* **saying? Abaye said: This is what it is saying:** The **first** child **is** even **fit to become a High Priest. And** if she has **a second** child, his status as **a *mamzer*** is **uncertain and** therefore he is both prohibited from marrying an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage, since he might actually be a *mamzer*, **and he is** also **prohibited from** marrying **a *mamzeret*,** since he might not be a *mamzer*. **Rabbi Eliezer** ben Ya’akov **says: He is not** treated like one whose status as **a *mamzer*** is **uncertain; rather,** due to the uncertainty concerning his status **he is** treated like one who is **definitely a *mamzer*, and he is permitted to** marry **a *mamzeret*.** In other words, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that even one whose status as a *mamzer* is uncertain is permitted to marry one who is definitely a *mamzeret*.


###### Yevamot 37a:12
[Yevamot 37a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:12)

רָבָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: רִאשׁוֹן רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְשֵׁנִי מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי מִסָּפֵק וּמוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֵין וַדַּאי מַמְזֵר מִסָּפֵק. אֶלָּא סְפֵק מַמְזֵר, וְאָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: This is what** the *baraita* **is saying:** The **first** child **is** even **fit to become a High Priest. And** if she has **a second** child, he is treated as though he **is definitely a *mamzer* due to** the **uncertainty** concerning his status, **and** therefore **he is permitted to** marry a ***mamzeret*,** i.e., this *tanna* holds that even one whose status as a *mamzer* is uncertain is permitted to marry one who is definitely a *mamzeret*. **And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: He** is **not** treated as though he is **definitely a *mamzer* due to an uncertainty** concerning his status; **rather,** his status as **a *mamzer*** is **uncertain** and he is treated accordingly, **and** therefore he is both prohibited from marrying an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage since he might be a *mamzer*, **and he is** also **prohibited from** marrying **a *mamzeret*** since he might not be a *mamzer*.


###### Yevamot 37a:13
[Yevamot 37a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:13)

וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: וַדָּאָן בְּוַדָּאָן — מוּתָּר, וַדָּאָן בִּסְפֵקָן, וּסְפֵקָן בְּוַדָּאָן, וּסְפֵקָן בִּסְפֵקָן — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And** Abaye and Rava **disagree with regard to** whether the *halakha* is decided in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar. As we learned** in a mishna (*Kiddushin* 74a): With regard to the prohibition against marrying people with certain types of flawed lineage, **Rabbi Elazar said:** The marriage of **those** people whose flawed lineage status is **certain to those** whose status is **certain is permitted,** but the marriage of **those** whose status is **certain to those** whose status is **uncertain, and** the marriage of **those** whose status is **uncertain to those** whose status is **certain, and** even the marriage of **those** whose status is **uncertain to those** whose status is **uncertain, is prohibited.**


###### Yevamot 37a:14
[Yevamot 37a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:14)

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן סְפֵקָן: שְׁתוּקִי וַאֲסוּפִי וְכוּתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna concludes: **And these are those** who are considered to have an **uncertain** status: **A child of unknown paternity** [***shetuki***], although his mother’s identity is known; **and a foundling** who was found abandoned in the streets; **and a Samaritan [*Kuti*],** who is possibly a *mamzer* since the Samaritans do not accept and abide by the *halakhot* of marriage.


###### Yevamot 37a:15
[Yevamot 37a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:15)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לִי: הִלֵּל שָׁנָה — עֲשָׂרָה יוּחֲסִין עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל: כָּהֲנֵי, לְוִיֵּי, וְיִשְׂרְאֵלֵי, חֲלָלֵי, גֵּירֵי, חֲרוֹרֵי, מַמְזֵרֵי, נְתִינֵי, שְׁתוּקֵי וַאֲסוּפֵי. וְכוּלָּן מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to this mishna **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar.** But **when I said this** *halakha* of Rav’s **in** the **presence of Shmuel, he said to me: Hillel taught** in a *baraita* that **ten** categories of **lineage came up from Babylon** to Eretz Yisrael: **Priests; Levites; and Israelites; priests disqualified due to flawed lineage [*ḥalallim*]; converts; freed slaves; *mamzerim*; Gibeonites; *shetukei*; and foundlings. And it is permitted** for **all** men and women in these categories **to marry one another,** i.e., the list is arranged such that the marriage between people in any two categories that are adjacent to one another is permitted. This is possible only if one assumes that it is permitted for one whose flawed lineage status is uncertain to marry one whose flawed lineage status is certain.


###### Yevamot 37a:16
[Yevamot 37a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:16)

וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After citing the baraita taught by Hillel, which assumes that it is permitted for one whose flawed lineage status is uncertain to marry one whose flawed lineage status is certain, Shmuel concluded: The *halakha* is certainly decided in accordance with the opinion of Hillel, **and** yet **you,** Rabbi Yehuda, **said** the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** which states that a marriage between two people whose flawed lineage status is uncertain is prohibited; your ruling is incorrect.


###### Yevamot 37a:17
[Yevamot 37a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:17)

אַבָּיֵי סָבַר לַהּ כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּהִלֵּל, וּמוֹקֵי לַהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אַלִּיבָּא דְהִלְכְתָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תִּקְשֵׁי הִלְכְתָא אַהִלְכְתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to explain the dispute between Abaye and Rava: **Abaye holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel, who said** that the ***halakha* is** decided **in accordance with** the opinion of **Hillel** that it is permitted for one whose flawed lineage status is uncertain to marry one whose flawed lineage status is certain. Therefore, Abaye **establishes that** opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov** to be **in accordance with** this ***halakha*, in order that there should not be a contradiction between** one ***halakha*,** i.e., that the *halakha* is always decided in accordance with the opinion of Hillel, **and** another ***halakha*,** i.e., that the *halakha* is always decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.


###### Yevamot 37a:18
[Yevamot 37a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/37a:18)

רָבָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב, דְּאָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וּמוֹקֵי לַהּ לִדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אַלִּיבָּא דְּהִלְכְתָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תִּקְשֵׁי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava,** however, **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav, who said:** The ***halakha* is** decided **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar** that the marriage of those whose status is certain to those whose status is uncertain is prohibited. Therefore, Rava **establishes that** opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov** to be **in accordance with** this ***halakha*, so that there should not be a contradiction** between