## Yevamot Daf 38a

###### Yevamot 38a:1
[Yevamot 38a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:1)

דַּרְכַּי (חַד גַּבָּךְ) [גַּבֵּי חַד] הוּא. אֲבָל הָכָא, מִי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**my one path is with you** in one of your pieces of land. Since his claim is based on facts that are clear and certain, his claim is successful. **However, here,** in the dispute over the inheritance, **is** the son of uncertain descent **able to state** a claim like **this?** Although the son of uncertain descent claims that ultimately, whatever the nature of his relationship with the deceased is, he should have the right to inherit, nevertheless, since it is not actually known what that relationship is, his claim in reality is merely a composite of uncertain claims.


###### Yevamot 38a:2
[Yevamot 38a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:2)

וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר לָךְ: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי שָׁתְקַתְּ — שָׁתְקַתְּ. וְאִי לָא, מַהְדַּרְנָא שְׁטָרָא לְמָרַיְיהוּ וְלָא מָצֵית לְאִשְׁתַּעוֹיֵי דִּינָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל הָכָא — מִי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yirmeya** could have **said to you: I stated** my ruling **even in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** since perhaps **the Rabbis state** their ruling **only there,** in the case of the lost path, **because** the owner of the surrounding land **said to** the field owner: **If you** do not press your claim and **are silent,** then **be silent** and I will sell you the path at a reasonable price; **but if not,** then **I will return the bills** of purchase of the pieces of land **to their** previous **owners and** then **you will not be able to** successfully **engage in a legal dispute with them.** He is successful with this claim because it is within his power to return the fields and thereby recreate the original circumstances in which the owner of the field would forfeit the path. **However, here, are** the sons of the *yavam* **able to state** a claim like **this?** The original circumstance, in which the inheritance of the deceased had still not been divided, cannot be recreated. Therefore, a claim based on that circumstance will be unsuccessful.


###### Yevamot 38a:3
[Yevamot 38a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:3)

סָפֵק וְיָבָם שֶׁבָּאוּ לַחֲלוֹק בְּנִכְסֵי סָבָא. סָפֵק אָמַר: הַאי גַּבְרָא בַּר מִיתָנָא הוּא, וּפַלְגָא דִּידִי הוּא. יָבָם אָמַר: אַתְּ, בְּרַאי דִּידִי אַתְּ, וְלֵית לָךְ וְלָא מִידֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara brings another case, that of one of **uncertain** descent, who is either the son of the deceased or the son of the *yavam*, **and** the ***yavam* who came to divide up** the **possessions of the grandfather,** i.e., the father of the *yavam* and the deceased, and each one made a claim to the inheritance. The son of **uncertain** descent **said: That man,** referring to himself, **is the son of the deceased, and** therefore **half** of the possessions **are mine** because the inheritance should be split between the two sons, i.e., the deceased and the *yavam*, and since I am the sole heir of the deceased, I should receive his portion. **The *yavam* said** to him: **You are my son, and** therefore **you have absolutely no** rights to the possessions; rather, I should receive all the inheritance. One half is mine because I am the grandfather’s son, and the other half, which would have gone to my deceased brother, I should receive by virtue of the fact that I consummated the levirate marriage with his widow.


###### Yevamot 38a:4
[Yevamot 38a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:4)

הָוֵי יָבָם וַדַּאי, וְסָפֵק סָפֵק, וְאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rules on this case: This is a case in which **the *yavam* has a definite** claim because he is the grandfather’s son, **and** the son of **uncertain** descent has only **an uncertain** claim, and the *halakha* is that one with **an uncertain claim cannot extract** property **from** one who has **a definite** claim to it. Therefore, the *yavam* receives all the inheritance.


###### Yevamot 38a:5
[Yevamot 38a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:5)

סָפֵק וּבְנֵי יָבָם שֶׁבָּאוּ לַחֲלוֹק בְּנִכְסֵי סָבָא. סָפֵק אָמַר: הָהוּא גַּבְרָא בַּר מִיתָנָא הוּא, וּפַלְגָא דִּידִי הוּא. וּבְנֵי יָבָם אָמְרִי: אֲחוּנָא אַתְּ וּמְנָתָא אִית לָךְ בַּהֲדַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises yet another case, that of one of **uncertain** descent, who is either the son of the deceased or the son of the *yavam*, **and the sons of the *yavam* who came to divide up** the **possessions of the grandfather,** and each one made a claim to the inheritance. The son of **uncertain** descent **said: That man,** referring to himself, **is the son of the deceased, and** therefore **half** of the possessions **are mine** because the inheritance should be split between the two sons, i.e., the deceased and the *yavam*, and since I am the lone heir of the deceased I should receive his portion. **And the sons of the *yavam* said: You are our brother, and** therefore **you** should **receive** only **a portion together with us.**


###### Yevamot 38a:6
[Yevamot 38a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:6)

פַּלְגָא דְּקָמוֹדֵי לְהוּ — שָׁקְלִי. תִּילְתָּא דְּקָא מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ — שָׁקֵל. פָּשׁ לְהוּ דַּנְקָא — הָוֵי מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק וְחוֹלְקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rules on this case: **The half** of the grandfather’s possessions **that** the son of uncertain descent **concedes** belongs **to them,** the sons of the *yavam*, **they take** for themselves. By claiming to be the son of the brother who died first, he forfeits any rights to the other brother’s portion. **The third** of the grandfather’s possessions **that** the sons of the *yavam* **concede** belong **to him,** the son of uncertain descent, **he takes** for himself. By claiming he is their brother, they admit that he should at least receive an equal portion to them, which would mean one-third if they are three. This **leaves them** with **one-sixth [*danka*]** of the possessions that **is property of uncertain ownership, and** so **they** should **divide** it **up** between them.


###### Yevamot 38a:7
[Yevamot 38a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:7)

סָבָא וְיָבָם בְּנִכְסֵי סָפֵק. אוֹ סָבָא וְסָפֵק בְּנִכְסֵי יָבָם —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents two additional cases. One is a case where a son of uncertain descent, who is either the son of the deceased or the son of the *yavam*, died, and **the grandfather and the *yavam*** come to divide up the **possessions of the** son of **uncertain** descent. In the absence of any children, a father inherits from his son. The grandfather claims that the son of uncertain descent was actually the son of the deceased, and since the deceased has already died, the grandfather should be next in line to inherit from him. The *yavam* claims that the son of uncertain descent was his own son, and therefore he should inherit from him. **Or,** the second case is one in which the *yavam* died and **the grandfather and the** son of **uncertain** descent come to divide up the **possessions of the *yavam*.** The son of uncertain descent claims to be the lone son of the *yavam* and therefore he should inherit, whereas the grandfather claims that the son of uncertain descent was the son of the deceased and that the *yavam* died childless, and therefore the grandfather, who is the father of the *yavam*, should inherit from him.


###### Yevamot 38a:8
[Yevamot 38a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:8)

הָוֵי מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק וְחוֹלְקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rules in these cases: This **is** a case of **property of uncertain ownership, and** so **they** should **divide up** the possessions between them.


###### Yevamot 38a:9
[Yevamot 38a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים — מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁמּוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת, וְקַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a widow waiting for her *yavam*** to either consummate a levirate marriage or perform *ḥalitza* with her, i.e., a *yevama*, **to whom property was bequeathed: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel** both **agree that she may sell or give** away that property *ab initio*, **and** that if she did, the transfer **is valid.** Since she has only a levirate bond with the *yavam*, she retains total control of the property. This is in contrast to a betrothed woman, concerning whom Beit Hillel rule that she may not sell such property because her betrothed also has rights to it (*Ketubot* 78a).


###### Yevamot 38a:10
[Yevamot 38a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:10)

מֵתָה, מָה יַעֲשֶׂה בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, וּבִנְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִים וְיוֹצְאִין עִמָּהּ? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יַחְלוֹקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נְכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן. כְּתוּבָּה — בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל, נְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִים וְיוֹצְאִין עִמָּהּ — בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If she **died, what should be done with** the money assured to her in **her marriage contract** by her deceased husband **and with** her **property that enters and leaves** the marriage **with her,** in which a husband only ever has a usufructuary interest? **Beit Shammai say: The husband’s heirs,** i.e., the *yavam*, who stands to inherit from the husband when he consummates the levirate marriage, **should divide up** the property **together with** her **father’s heirs,** i.e., the woman’s family. **And Beit Hillel say:** The **property** retains **its** previous ownership **status.** Therefore, money assured to her in her **marriage contract** remains **in the possession of the husband’s heirs.** Since it was to be paid from the husband’s own property, the money is retained by his estate and passes to his heirs. And her **property that enters and leaves** the marriage **with her** remains **in the possession of the father’s heirs.** Since those properties belonged to her, upon her death they are inherited by her father or his heirs.


###### Yevamot 38a:11
[Yevamot 38a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:11)

כְּנָסָהּ — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכׇל דָּבָר. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּתוּבָּ[תָ]הּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the *yavam* **consummated the levirate marriage with her, then** her legal status is **that of his wife in every sense,** and therefore the *yavam* has the same rights to her property as in a regular marriage. **And** the **only** exception to this is **that** her **marriage contract will** still **be** payable **from the property of her first husband** and not from the property of the *yavam*.


###### Yevamot 38a:12
[Yevamot 38a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא דְּלָא פְּלִיגִי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא דִּפְלִיגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is different** about **the first clause,** concerning a *yevama* who is still alive, **that** Beit Shammai **do not disagree** with Beit Hillel that the woman has full possession of the property since there is only a levirate bond but no marriage, **and what is different** about **the latter clause that** Beit Shammai **disagree** with Beit Hillel and rule that the *yavam* does take a share of the property, which would imply that the levirate bond alone is sufficient to afford the *yavam* rights over her property?


###### Yevamot 38a:13
[Yevamot 38a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:13)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: רֵישָׁא דְּנָפְלָה כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה, וְסֵיפָא דְּנָפְלָה כְּשֶׁהִיא נְשׂוּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said:** The two clauses concern different cases: **The first clause** concerns a case **where she happened** before her *yavam* for levirate marriage at a time **when she was a betrothed woman** and only then did she come into the possession of property. Since when she was betrothed her husband did not have any rights to the property, neither does the *yavam*. **And the latter clause** concerns a case **where she happened** before her *yavam* at a time **when she was a married woman.** In such a case, were her husband still alive, he would have full rights to the property; therefore, so does the *yavam*.


###### Yevamot 38a:14
[Yevamot 38a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/38a:14)

וְקָסָבַר עוּלָּא: זִיקַּת אֲרוּסָה עוֹשָׂה סְפֵק אֲרוּסָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And Ulla holds** that a levirate **bond** formed **with a betrothed woman affords** her a status equivalent to **a woman** about whom there is an **uncertainty** whether she is **betrothed,**