## Yevamot Daf 97a

###### Yevamot 97a:1
[Yevamot 97a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:1)

שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ דְּבַר שְׁמוּעָה מִפִּי בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים דְּבַר שְׁמוּעָה מִפִּיו בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, שִׂפְתוֹתָיו דּוֹבְבוֹת בַּקֶּבֶר. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן זְעֵירָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא שִׁמְעוֹן נְזִירָא: מַאי קְרָאָה — ״וְחִכֵּךְ כְּיֵין הַטּוֹב הוֹלֵךְ לְדוֹדִי לְמֵישָׁרִים דּוֹבֵב שִׂפְתֵי יְשֵׁנִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that they will say a matter of *halakha* in my name in this world** when I have passed on to another world. **As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:** With regard to **any Torah scholar in whose name a matter of *halakha* is said in this world, his lips mouth** the words **in the grave,** as though he is talking. **Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ze’eira said, and some say** this was stated by **Shimon the Nazirite: What is the verse** from which it is derived? **“And the roof of your mouth is like the best wine that glides down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those who are asleep”** (Song of Songs 7:10).


###### Yevamot 97a:2
[Yevamot 97a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:2)

כְּכוֹמֶר שֶׁל עֲנָבִים: מָה כּוֹמֶר שֶׁל עֲנָבִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ אָדָם אֶצְבָּעוֹ עָלָיו — מִיָּד דּוֹבֵב; אַף תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאוֹמְרִים דְּבַר שְׁמוּעָה מִפִּיהֶם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה — שִׂפְתוֹתֵיהֶם דּוֹבְבוֹת בַּקֶּבֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He explains: This is **like a pile [*komer*] of grapes** left to warm before they are pressed: **Just as** in the case of **a pile of grapes, when a person places his finger on it, immediately it moves,** as the wine bursts through and the whole pile shakes, **so too** with **Torah scholars: When a teaching is said in their name in this world their lips mouth** the words **in the grave.** For this reason Rabbi Yoḥanan wanted his Torah statements to be attributed to him, so that he would earn eternal life.


###### Yevamot 97a:3
[Yevamot 97a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:3)

אֶחָד בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — יָבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁהוּא בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים, וְהוּא הַסָּרִיס — לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַיבֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara addresses the statement of the mishna that this is the *halakha* **both** for a boy **who is nine years** and one day old as well as a twenty-year old who has not developed two pubic hairs. In both cases, their sexual relations are not considered proper intercourse with regard to levirate marriage. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** against this from the following source: With regard to a man **twenty years old who has not developed two** pubic **hairs, they must bring proof that he is twenty years old, and** he **is** established as **a eunuch,** who **may neither perform *ḥalitza* nor perform levirate marriage.**


###### Yevamot 97a:4
[Yevamot 97a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:4)

בַּת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — יָבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁהִיא בַּת עֶשְׂרִים, וְהִיא הָאַיְלוֹנִית — לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, in the case of a woman who is **twenty years old and has not developed two** pubic **hairs, they must bring proof that she is twenty years old, and** that **she is a sexually underdeveloped woman,** who **may neither perform *ḥalitza* nor enter into levirate marriage.** This shows that the status of a nine-year-old male and a twenty-year old man without pubic hairs are not the same, as the intercourse of a nine-year-old is considered of some significance, whereas that of a eunuch is entirely disregarded, as he may not even perform *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 97a:5
[Yevamot 97a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:5)

הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: וְהוּא שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ לוֹ סִימָנֵי סָרִיס. אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: וְהוּא הַסָּרִיס. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Wasn’t it stated with regard to this** *baraita* that **Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said** that **Rav said: And this** *halakha* applies only **if he developed** other **signs of a eunuch** by the age of twenty. The mishna, by contrast, is referring to one who merely showed the signs of maturity at a late age. **Rava said:** The language of the *baraita* **is also precise, as it teaches: And he is the eunuch.** One can **learn from here** that this is referring to one who is definitely a eunuch.


###### Yevamot 97a:6
[Yevamot 97a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:6)

וְכִי לֹא נוֹלְדוּ לוֹ סִימָנֵי סָרִיס, עַד כַּמָּה? תָּנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עַד רוֹב שְׁנוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question with regard to the *halakha* itself: **And** in a case **where he does not develop the signs of a eunuch, until what** age is he considered a minor? **The school of Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Until most of his years** have passed, i.e., until he reaches the age of thirty-five, i.e., halfway to seventy, the standard length of a man’s life.


###### Yevamot 97a:7
[Yevamot 97a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:7)

כִּי אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אִי כָּחוּשׁ אֲמַר לְהוּ: זִילוּ אַבְרְיוּהּ. וְאִי בָּרִיא אֲמַר לְהוּ: זִילוּ אַכְחֲשׁוּהּ. דְּהָנֵי סִימָנִין, זִמְנִין דְּנָתְרִי מֵחֲמַת כְּחִישׁוּתָא, וְזִמְנִין דְּנָתְרִי מֵחֲמַת בְּרִיּוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On the same issue, the Gemara relates: **When they would come before Rava** to inquire about someone who had reached the age of maturity but had not yet developed the physical signs, **if** the person in question was **thin, he would say to them: Go** and **fatten him** up before we decide on his status. **And if he** was **fat, he would say to them: Go** and **make him thin. As these signs,** the pubic hairs of maturity, **sometimes they fall off due to thinness and sometimes they fall off due to fatness.** It is therefore possible that after his bodily shape is adjusted he will develop the signs of maturity and will not have the status of a eunuch.


###### Yevamot 97a:8
[Yevamot 97a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:8)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָאִשָּׁה רַבָּה**


###### Yevamot 97a:9
[Yevamot 97a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:9)

**נוֹשְׂאִין עַל הָאֲנוּסָה** וְעַל הַמְפוּתָּה, הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה עַל הַנְּשׂוּאָה — חַיָּיב. נוֹשֵׂא אָדָם אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וּמְפוּתַּת אָבִיו, אֲנוּסַת בְּנוֹ וּמְפוּתַּת בְּנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וּמְפוּתַּת אָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One may marry** a relative, e.g., the sister or the mother, **of the woman he raped and of the woman he seduced.** However, **one who rapes and one who seduces** a relative **of the woman who is married** to him **is liable** to receive capital punishment or *karet* for engaging in prohibited sexual intercourse, depending on the particular family relationship. **A man may marry a woman raped by his father, or a woman seduced by his father,** or **a woman raped by his son, or a woman seduced by his son. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits** marriage **in** the case of **a woman raped by his father or a woman seduced by his father.**


###### Yevamot 97a:10
[Yevamot 97a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָנַס אִשָּׁה — מוּתָּר לִישָּׂא בִּתָּהּ, נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה — אָסוּר לִישָּׂא בִּתָּהּ. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַנִּטְעָן מִן הָאִשָּׁה — אָסוּר בְּאִמָּהּ וּבְבִתָּהּ וּבַאֲחוֹתָהּ! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **We learned** in the mishna **that which the Sages teach** in a *baraita*: If a man **raped a woman, he is permitted to marry her daughter.** If **he married a woman, it is prohibited** for him **to marry her daughter. However,** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from another *baraita*: **One who is alleged** to have engaged in intercourse **with** a particular **woman is prohibited** from marriage **with her mother, and with her daughter, and with her sister.** Apparently, as a consequence of non-marital intercourse, there is a prohibition against the man marrying the woman’s relatives. The Gemara answers: This is merely prohibited by **rabbinic** decree, lest the man continue to engage in intercourse with this particular woman after marrying one of her relatives, thereby transgressing a Torah prohibition.


###### Yevamot 97a:11
[Yevamot 97a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:11)

וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא אִיסּוּרָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן תָּנֵי נוֹשְׂאִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה?! כִּי תְּנַן מַתְנִיתִין — לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And anywhere that there is a rabbinic prohibition,** does the mishna **teach** that **one may marry** the woman ***ab initio*?** Since the marriage is prohibited by rabbinic decree, the mishna should have taught that if he marries her, he is exempt from punishment. The Gemara answers: **When we learned** in **the mishna** that he may marry her *ab initio*, it was dealing with their marriage **after** the **death** of the woman that he raped or seduced. The rabbinic prohibition does not relate to this case, as concern with regard to forbidden relatives is not relevant there.


###### Yevamot 97a:12
[Yevamot 97a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:12)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּכוּלָּן נֶאֱמַר שְׁכִיבָה, וְכָאן נֶאֱמַר קִיחָה, לוֹמַר לְךָ: דֶּרֶךְ לִיקּוּחִין אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to the mishna’s ruling, **from where are these matters** derived? It is **as the Sages taught: With** regard to **all** other prohibited sexual relations, **lying is stated, whereas here,** with regard to a man’s intercourse with his wife’s relatives, **taking is stated.** This is **to tell you** that the **Torah prohibited** intercourse with these relatives only **through taking,** i.e., the man’s acquisition of his wife through marriage. It did not prohibit intercourse with the relative of a woman with whom he engaged in nonmarital relations.


###### Yevamot 97a:13
[Yevamot 97a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי אֲחוֹתוֹ דִּכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ בַּת אָבִיו אוֹ בַת אִמּוֹ״, הָכִי נָמֵי דֶּרֶךְ קִיחָה הוּא דַּאֲסִיר, דֶּרֶךְ שְׁכִיבָה שְׁרֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye: However, if** that interpretation is **so,** then **with regard to** intercourse with **one’s sister,** concerning whom **it is written: “And if a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter”** (Leviticus 20:17), you must **also** say that is it is only intercourse **through taking,** i.e., marriage, that is **prohibited.** But intercourse **through lying,** i.e., without marriage, is **permitted.** How can this be?


###### Yevamot 97a:14
[Yevamot 97a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִיקּוּחִין כְּתִיבִי בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם. הָרָאוּי לְקִיחָה — קִיחָה, הָרָאוּי לִשְׁכִיבָה — שְׁכִיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to** Rav Pappa: When the term **taking is stated in the Torah without specification,** it is interpreted in accordance with the context. With regard to the context of a relationship **that has potential for taking** through marriage, this verb is interpreted as **taking** through marriage. In the context of a relationship **that has potential** only **for lying,** as their marriage would be invalid, taking the woman is understood to mean **lying** with her.


###### Yevamot 97a:15
[Yevamot 97a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:15)

רָבָא אָמַר: אָנַס אִשָּׁה — מוּתָּר לִישָּׂא בִּתָּהּ מֵהָכָא, כְּתִיב: ״עֶרְוַת בַּת בִּנְךָ אוֹ בַת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה״, הָא בַּת בְּנָהּ דִּידַהּ, וּבַת בִּתָּהּ דִּידַהּ — גַּלִּי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** The *halakha* that if a man **raped a woman it is permitted** for him **to marry her daughter** is derived **from here. It is stated: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter,** even their nakedness…**you may not uncover”** (Leviticus 18:10). It may be inferred from here that **the daughter of** the woman’s **own son** from a different relationship, **and the daughter of her own daughter,** may be **uncovered,** i.e., intercourse with them is not prohibited.


###### Yevamot 97a:16
[Yevamot 97a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:16)

וּכְתִיב: ״עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ לֹא תְגַלֵּה אֶת בַּת בְּנָהּ וְאֶת בַּת בִּתָּהּ לֹא תִקַּח״, הָא כֵּיצַד? כָּאן בָּאוֹנָסִין, כָּאן בְּנִשּׂוּאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is** also **written: “You may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you may not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter,** to uncover her nakedness; they are near kinswomen, it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). **How so?** How can the two verses be reconciled? Evidently, the former verse is stated **with regard to rape.** A man may marry the daughter or granddaughter of the woman he raped, provided they are not his own offspring. The latter verse is stated **with regard to marriage.** Marrying the relatives of one’s wife is prohibited.


###### Yevamot 97a:17
[Yevamot 97a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:17)

אֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא? עֲרָיוֹת ״שְׁאֵר״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ. בְּנִשּׂוּאִין אִיכָּא שְׁאֵר, בָּאוֹנָסִין לֵיכָּא שְׁאֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Perhaps **I should reverse** the resolution of the contradiction between the verses and state that the daughter or granddaughter of his rape victim is forbidden, whereas the relatives of his wife are permitted. The Gemara answers: **With** regard to **those with whom intercourse is forbidden,** the concept of **kinship is stated** (see Leviticus 18:13, 17). **In marriage there is kinship,** whereas **in** the case of **rape there is no kinship.** Therefore, the prohibition against intercourse with a woman and her daughter or granddaughter is clearly referring to the daughter and granddaughter of one’s wife and not of the woman he raped.


###### Yevamot 97a:18
[Yevamot 97a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:18)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו״, כָּנָף שֶׁרָאָה אָבִיו לֹא יְגַלֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda prohibits** marrying **a woman raped by his father** or a woman seduced by his father. **Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said: What is the reasoning** for the ruling **of Rabbi Yehuda?** It is **as it is written: “A man may not take his father’s wife, and may not uncover his father’s skirt”** (Deuteronomy 23:1), meaning that **one may not uncover** the **skirt that his father has seen.**


###### Yevamot 97a:19
[Yevamot 97a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:19)

וּמִמַּאי דְּבַאֲנוּסָה כְּתִיב — דִּכְתִיב מֵעִילָּוֵיהּ דִּקְרָא: ״וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשּׁוֹכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where** is it apparent **that** this verse **is written with regard to a woman raped** by his father and not with regard to his father’s wife? It is **as it is written** just **before that verse,** with regard to rape: **“And the man who lay with her shall give the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver”** (Deuteronomy 22:29).


###### Yevamot 97a:20
[Yevamot 97a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:20)

וְרַבָּנַן: אִי הֲוָה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ — כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ. הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָא סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב עָנָן. דְּאָמַר רַב עָנָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁל אָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וּמַאי ״כְּנַף אָבִיו״ — כָּנָף הָרָאוּי לְאָבִיו לֹא יְגַלֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how do **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, respond to this proof? **If** the prohibition stated **had been juxtaposed with** the verse dealing with rape, it would be **as you said.** However, **now that it is not juxtaposed with it,** as there is another prohibition in between, namely “a man may not take his father’s wife” (Deuteronomy 23:1), the prohibition of “he may not uncover his father’s skirt” **is necessary to** teach **that which Rav Anan** taught, **as Rav Anan said** that **Shmuel said: The verse is speaking of a widow waiting for her brother-in-law,** who is this man’s **father,** to perform levirate marriage. **And what** is the meaning of the phrase **“his father’s skirt”?** The **skirt that is potentially his father’s, he may not uncover.**


###### Yevamot 97a:21
[Yevamot 97a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:21)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דּוֹדָתוֹ! לַעֲבוֹר עָלֶיהָ בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this interpretation: Why does the Torah need to explicitly prohibit intercourse with the *yevama* of one’s father? **Derive** that intercourse is prohibited **due to** the fact that she is **his aunt,** as she is his father’s brother’s widow. The Gemara answers: The Torah purposely rendered this act a more serious offense. By specifying that it is prohibited for one to engage in sexual relations with his father’s *yevama*, one who engaged in intercourse **with her has violated two prohibitions.** The Torah specifically prohibited his father’s *yevama* in order **to** have one who engages in relations **with her violate two prohibitions,** the prohibition proscribing relations with his aunt and the prohibition proscribing relations with his father’s *yevama*, thereby rendering it a more serious offense.


###### Yevamot 97a:22
[Yevamot 97a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/97a:22)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם יְבָמָה לַשּׁוּק! לַעֲבוֹר עָלֶיהָ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה לָאוִין. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **derive** that one violates two prohibitions **because** there is also a prohibition against **a *yevama*** engaging in intercourse **with** a member of **the public,** i.e., someone other than her *yavam*. The Gemara answers: The Torah prohibited one’s father’s *yevama* so that one who engaged in intercourse **with her** will have **violated three prohibitions:** Intercourse with one’s aunt, with one’s *yevama*, and with one’s father’s *yevama*. **And if you wish, say** instead that the verse that prohibits his father’s *yevama* is referring to the period **after** the **death** of his father, who has no additional brothers, so there is no prohibition against the *yevama* engaging in intercourse with a member of the public.