Yevamot 80: Aylonit/Turner’s Syndrome

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 80

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The gemara kiddushin (4a) derives that a Jewish maidservant must be freed both at the initial phases of physical maturity, called na'arut (puberty), as well as at the more advanced stage of maturity - bagrut, which takes place six months later. The gemara poses the obvious question: If the maidservant was previously set free at na'arut, the requirement to free her at bagrut is irrelevant. Abbaye responds that the relevance of this halakha is limited to the special case of a girl who fails to mature physically - called an aylonit. Such a girl achieves the status of bagrut directly, without passing through the initial phase of na'arut.

Secondly, there is a controversy between Rav and Shmuel on our daf, regarding the culpability of an aylonit who transgresses the law prior to the age of twenty. Their argument revolves around the determination of the exact point at which an aylonit is designated an adult. According to Shmuel, she enters adulthood from the time she is recognized to be an aylonit, namely at the age of twenty, whereas prior to that she retains the status of a minor. Rav argues that an aylonit achieves the halakhic status of adulthood retroactively.

We explore the medical correlates of this condition most likely that of Turner’s syndrome, only described as recently as 1938!

Yevamot 79: Ethnic Character

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 79

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In our daf King David used three verses to describe traits of the Jewish people. They are merciful, shamefaced, and kind.

If a person is converting to Judaism, they must embody these characteristics.

A note suggests that rabbis reinterpreted this idea. They do not believe that Jews embody these traits.

Instead, they suggest that G-d gave those gifts to us to do with what we will.

The subtle difference between these two descriptions of Jewish traits is quite fascinating. Are we different innately? Did G-d bestow these differences upon us? Do these traits occur independent of our relationships with G-d, or with our religion?

We explore the notion of ethnic character and the science of race, those describing Jews from the outside (1892) from a Christian perspective down to the Tibor Egervari’s post-Auschwitz adaptation of Shakespeare’s anti-Semitic comedy The Merchant of Venice.

Yevamot 78: Ritzpah and David

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 78

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf looks at the prohibitions facing the Gibeonites.

It is suggested that this originates in the times of King David, where there was a three-year long famine (II Samuel 21).

David blamed the people of Israel: in the first year, for worshipping idols, in the second year, for sexual impropriety, in the third year, for promising charity publicly then giving nothing.

When no transgressors were found, David blamed himself and turned to speak with G-d through the Umim V'Tummim.

These were the stones in the breastplate of the High Priest. G-d told David that the famine was because Saul put the Gibeonites to death.

The Lord’s response is: “It is because of the bloodguilt of Saul and [his] house, for he put some Gibeonites to death.”

The Rabbis list two reasons for the famine. One was because the Israelites did not properly eulogize Saul, while the other was Saul’s killing of some Gibeonites.

As for the Gibeonites, he summoned them to effect a reconciliation. He sought to appease them, but they would not be placated until seven of Saul’s sons, including Rizpah’s two sons, were handed over to them. How did David choose them? He had Saul’s sons pass before the Ark; whoever adhered to the Ark and could not move, was chosen to die, while those who passed by it were chosen to live.

The Rabbis relate that Rizpah was not angry at God; to the contrary, she justified His actions and recited the verse (Deut. 32:4): “The Rock! His deeds are perfect, yea, all His ways are just; a faithful God, never false, true and upright is He.” For seven months Rizpah guarded the corpses—during the day from the birds of the sky, and at night, from the wild beasts.

We explore this tragic mother and how she was immortalized by Tennyson.

Yevamot 77: Doeg

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 77

To download, click/tap here: PDF

King David was a descendant of Rut ha-Mo’aviah – Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 4:17).

Our Gemara relates that when King Saul was concerned that David would claim the monarchy, his advisor, Do’eg ha-Edomi argued – convincingly – that David should be forbidden from being considered a true member of the Jewish people, due to this ancestry.

Based on our daf (Yevamos 77a) on the basis of the question regarding the prohibition of a Moavite woman,

Doeg HaEdomi very nearly managed to invalidate Dovid HaMelech altogether.

When Doeg asked Avner why the Moavite women didn’t meet the Jewish women with food and drink, since by anyone’s standards that could still be considered modest, no one could answer.

It was just then that Amasha girded his sword and said, ‘I will run through anyone who doesn’t wish to accept this ruling. I received from the beis din of Shmuel HaRamasi that the language of the verse is Amoni and Moavi—in the masculine—and it excludes the women of either nation!’

This dramatic Haggadah forms part of a genre of Dovid Hamelech legends which we investigate with particular attention to the character of Doeg.

Yevamot 76: Shlomo's Wive(s)

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 76

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In our daf in a baraita it is taught that Rabbi Yehuda said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, was a friend of mine from among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and he said: After I converted I was a first-generation Egyptian convert, and so I married another first-generation Egyptian convert.

I will marry off my son, who is a second-generation Egyptian convert, to another second-generation Egyptian convert, so that my grandson will be fit to enter into the congregation. (Deut 23:8-9)

This indicates that first- and second-generation converts of Egyptian extraction were prohibited from entering into the congregation even during the period of the Mishna.

Rav Pappa said: Shall we stand up and raise an objection from Solomon?

Solomon did not marry anyone, as it is written in his regard:

“Of the nations concerning which the Lord said to the children of Israel, You shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods; Solomon cleaved to these in love” (I Kings 11:2)

Solomon cleaved to these women in love, but was not legally married to them. As Solomon had other forbidden wives, the case of Pharaoh’s daughter presents no special difficulty. In fact, none of these marriages were valid at all.

Yet from the verse (I kings 3:1) “and Solomon married” that appears in connection with Pharaoh’s daughter is difficult, as it indicates that this marriage was in fact valid.

So we struggle with this marriage and how we can reconcile it with the halachah.

Yevamot 75: Eunuch סריס חמה vs. בידי אדם

The Rabbis distinguished two kinds of eunuchs: (1) "seris adam," a eunuch made by man; (2) "seris ḥamma," a eunuch made by the sun; that is to say, one born incapable of reproduction, so that the sun never shone on him as on a man. 

According to the Shulḥan 'Aruch, "seris ḥamma" means "castrated in consequence of fever.” 

The Talmud gives various criteria by which the eunuch of the second kind may be recognized, and refers to various disabilities due to the state, especially as regards ḤaliẒah.

We explore the eunuchs of the ancient world from the near east to Persia and China and the role they played as administrators of royalty.

Yevamot 74: Wandering Wombs

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 74

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Abaye said: Two verses are written with regard to a woman after childbirth: It is written: “She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed” (Leviticus 12:4), which suggests that once her days are completed and the sun has set on the last day, she is completely pure and requires nothing more.

And elsewhere it is written: “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure” (Leviticus 12:8), which indicates that following childbirth a woman is not completely pure until she has brought her offerings.

How so? Here, in the first verse, it is referring to teruma; there, in the second verse, it is referring to sacrificial food.

A woman following childbirth falls into the category of one who lacks atonement, but nevertheless the verse teaches that if she has immersed, she may eat teruma after sunset.

We explore this space between purity and waiting for sunset….as well as other laws relating to childbirth and the curious struggle to determine pure blood from impure blood

even suggesting two sources (uteruses?) b. San. 87b; b. Nid. 11b, 35b-36a.

How does this fit with the ancient theories regarding “wandering uterus” described in Greek medicine all the way down to the Victorian period?

The theories of “hysteria” and the origins of neurology (Prof Charcot of the Salpetriere in Paris) will be discussed another time.

Yevamot 73: Bikkurim Limits

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 73

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf quotes a Mishnah that teaches a numberof halakhot regarding bikkurim and terumah.

For example, someone who is not a kohen who eats them will be liable to receive the death penalty if he consumes them with malicious intent or will have to pay restitution and add a 20% penalty if he eats them accidentally.

It was taught in the baraita that second tithe and first fruits are forbidden to an acute mourner; and Rabbi Shimon permits an acute mourner to partake of first fruits.

Based on Deut 12:17, “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil…nor the offering of your hand”

and the Master said: “The offering [teruma] of your hand,” these are the first fruits.

And first fruits are juxtaposed in this verse to second tithe: Just as the second tithe is forbidden to an acute mourner, so too, first fruits are forbidden to an acute mourner.

We explore the notion of the Kohein who is an onein, and some halachic reflections on mourning by Rav Soloveitchik.

Yevamot 72: De-Circumcision

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 72

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have already learned (in the first Mishnah in this perek, or chapter – 70a) that a kohen who is an arel – a Jewish man who has not been circumcised – cannot eat terumah. The Gemara on our daf discusses the case of a mashukh – a person who had a brit milah and then had his skin stretched back so that it would appear to be a foreskin, in order to hide his circumcision. This type of operation was done during certain times in Jewish history – for example, under Greek/Hellenistic rule – when being circumcised was an embarrassment for someone who was interested in assimilating into the dominant culture, which viewed circumcision as mutilation. It should be noted that under the Greeks, sporting events – including the original Olympic Games – were held with the participants unclothed.

We explore the ancient practice in Greece of decircumcision as well as the cultural implications for those in Palestine wishing to assimilate.

Yevamot 71: Uncircumcised Cohen

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 71

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The eighth perek, which begins on our daf, continues the discussion of teruma, and teaches about cases where a kohen may not be allowed to eat teruma, and yet his wife will be able to do so because of their marriage.

One example of such a case is an arel – an uncircumcised kohen – who cannot eat teruma himself, even though a woman who marries him will be permitted to eat teruma, by virtue of the fact that she has married a kohen. After all, a kohen who is uncircumcised is still a full kohen, he just needs a brit mila – without which he cannot eat teruma. According to the Gemara, the source for the halakha that an arel cannot eat teruma is the word parallels between teruma and the Passover sacrifice where it is clearly stated that an arel cannot participate.

We further explore issues surrounding the history of circumcision from differing viewpoints (including a polemical essay by an 1891 physician) from biblical times to the possibility of welcoming uncircumcised to the flock (as essay by my son Eliyahu)

Yevamot 70: Hemophilia

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 70

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to our daf,  the source for the halakha that an arel cannot eat terumah is the word parallels between terumah and the Passover sacrifice where it is clearly stated that an arel cannot participate (see Shmot 12:48).

Rashi explains that the arel being discussed by the Mishnah is someone who does not undergo circumcision because he had brothers who died after they had a brit milah.

In such a case we rule that the person should not be circumcised lest he suffer the same fate as his brothers.

Rabbeinu Tam argues that such a person is, essentially, free from the obligation of circumcision, and therefore cannot be considered an arel. 

We explore this early reference to bleeding disorders, the Halacha of circumcision and the cultural history of hemophilia (especially the Royal family).

Yevamot 69: Just Plain Water

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 69

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf quotes a baraita that offers the following ruling. If the daughter of a kohen marries an ordinary Jew, and he dies with no children, the widow can begin eating terumah immediately. That is to say, we are not concerned with the possibility that she is pregnant with a child, something that would keep her from returning to her father’s household. Rav Chisda explains that this is true for forty days because we can work with the assumption that either she is not pregnant or else the embryo is not considered to be significant for the first 40 days.

The Rabbinic ruling that an embryo is not given halakhic significance for the first 40 days coincides with the stage of development when the embryo loses its similarity to embryos of other animals to the extent that the tail disappears and the human head, hands and legs begin to form. Although at that point the embryo is still small and undeveloped, still it is clearly recognizable as a human form.

In light of the raging debate about the leaked Supreme Court brief planning to overturn Roe vs Wade how opportune a moment to reflect on the nuanced halachic deliberations regarding abortion based upon our daf’s claim that prior to 40 days the legal status of a fetus is dubious since it it merely like Just Plain Water מַיָּא בְּעָלְמָא הִיא

Yevamot 68: The Gene Pool and Lousy Science

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 68

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf struggles to prove that a woman who has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Lav becomes disqualified from eating Terumah.

The Gemara searches for a source that such a relationship also disqualifies the woman from marrying a Kohen.

The barite claims A nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is an Ammonite or a Moabite convert; or who is an Egyptian or an Edomite convert; or who is either a Samaritan, a Gibeonite, a ḥalal, or a mamzer, when he engaged in intercourse with a priestess, or a Levite, or an Israelite, he thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood.

We once again explore the “asarah yuchesin” those excluded from the club as well as Prof Meir Bar Ilan’s superb analysis of the mazer.

We then turn attention to the genetics of transmission of kehuna once claimed by geneticists then debunked a few years later, not first having been used by those selling Judaism as to the racial purity of the jehudah and perforce of Jews.

Yevamot 67: נפל הבית עליו

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 67

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf and new Mishnah deals with another case of doubt. If a house falls on a husband and his wife, who is his brother’s daughter, and it is not known who died first, the rival wife must have halitzah and cannot have yibbum.

She must have halitzah, lest her rival wife died first, and she was obligated to yibbum, because at the time of her husband’s death she had no rival wife who was forbidden to the yavam.

She cannot have yibbum lest the husband died first, and therefore at the time of his death she was the rival wife of a woman forbidden to the yavam (the yavam’s sister).

We explore the halachic definitions of death as well as the stories of Divine Punishment in Talmudic narrative.

Yevamot 66: De Usufructu et Habitatione

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One of the topics that was discussed in the sixth perek of Masechet Yevamot was how the relationships that a woman has affect her ability to marry a kohen, and similarly whether she will be able to eat terumah – the tithes that are permitted only to a kohen and to members of his household.

Although this topic has little direct connection to Masechet Yevamot, nevertheless, the seventh perek, which begins on our daf, is devoted to clarification of this issue.

The basic rule of thumb with regard to eating terumah is that all members of a Kohen’s household can eat, not only his wife and children, but also his slaves and even animals that he owns (see Vayikra 22:11-13). This is true of animals that are kinyan kaspo – that the kohen has purchased and owns. If, however, the kohen was responsible for the animal, but did not actually own it, then he cannot feed it terumah.

Thus, the Gemara on our daf quotes a Mishnah in Terumot (11:9) according to which a kohen who rents an animal from another Jew who is not a kohen will not be allowed to feed it karshinei terumah, even though a Jew who is not a kohen would be allowed to feed karshinei terumah to an animal rented from a kohen.

We examine the basic rules of usufruct in late antiquity and as recently as an Israeli Supreme court ruling.

Yevamot 65: The Cost of Lying

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The broadest of the Torah prohibitions against lying (even without language of oaths) is “mid’var sheker tirchak” (distance yourself from a matter of falsehood) (Shemot 23:7).

Philosophically, we abhor dishonesty. We are to emulate Hashem, about Whom it is said: “Hashem’s signet is truth” (Sanhedrin 64a).

Yet, gemarot spell out cases in which one may and/or even should lie. One daf (Yevamot 65b) says that one may lie to preserve peace.

Rebbi Ila'i teaches that one is permitted to alter the truth for the sake of peace. He derives this from the conduct of Yosef's brothers, who told Yosef that their father had commanded before his death that Yosef should forgive them for their sin (Bereishis 50:16-17), even though their father did not give such a directive.

Rebbi Nasan adds that not only is one permitted to alter the truth for the sake of peace, but it is a Mitzvah to do so. He derives this from Hashem's command to Shmuel to tell Shaul ha'Melech that he was on his way to offer a Korban to Hashem, when in truth he was on his way to coronate David ha’Melech.

We explore the notion of lying for the sake of Sholom (bayis) and the halochos therein.

When is it permissible to lie to a patient?

Yevamot 64: Divorcing a Barren Wife

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a man was married to a woman for ten years, and they did not have any children, in the times of the Talmud he would have to divorce her or marry another wife, so that he can fulfill the mitzvah of procreation.

This is only true if he did not children before. It also assumes that they don't know who is at fault. However, if the man is sterile, there is no point for him to divorce her, since he cannot have children with anybody else anyway.

After he divorces her, she has no presumption of not being able to have children, and when she marries to another man, the new husband needs to also count ten years before applying the rule above.

We explore the whole notion of the barren wife and her treatment.

Yevamot 63: מצא או מוצא

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf claims that in Eretz Yisrael prospective grooms were challenged with the following question:

”When a man marries a woman, people ask him: מצא or מוצא ?Is the match one where you say: ‘One who has found a woman has found (מצא (good?’

Or is it one where you say: Behold, I have found (מוצא (the woman more bitter than death?’”

The daf rehearses a number of rabbis and their experiences with their wives "Rav was once taking leave of Rav Hiyya. The latter said to him, 'May the All-Merciful deliver you from that which is worse than death'. 'But is there' [Rav wondered] 'anything that is worse than death'? When he went out, he considered the matter and found [the following text]: And I find more bitter than death the woman'" (Kohelet 7:26, Yevamot 63a).

We examine women as wives in the talmud.

Yevamot 62: פרו ורבו

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We look at the many different opinions on whether creating one boy and one girl are the ideal way to fulfill our mitzva to "be fruitful and multiply". Is one of each enough? What if we had two boys? What if one child dies? What if someone who converted already had children - who inherit. Is the mitzva fulfilled? What if one's child has a child - might that grandchild count as your child? Should you continue to procreate until you are old? How much does lineage matter to how we 'count' our children/grandchildren? The rabbis go into some detail discussing these and other questions.

We explore this unique mitzvah including Rav Soloveitchik’s halachic perspective and the famous T'shuva of red Moshe on siamese twins.

Yevamot 61: Procreation/Population Explosion

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In the Mishnah, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree about the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Piryah v’Rivyah.

Beis Shamai maintains that one fulfills the Mitzvah only when he has two sons.

Beis Hillel maintains that one fulfills the Mitzvah when he has one son and one daughter (see Chart).

Beis Hillel derives his view from Creation, when Hash-m created the world with one male and one female, Adam and Chavah.

Beis Shamai argues that "we may not derive that which is possible from that which is not possible" ("Ein Danin Efshar mi'she'Iy Efshar").

The world had to be created with one man and one woman (and not with two men) in order for mankind to propagate. The world could not have been created in any other way.

We explore the current [population growth of Am Yisrael in Israel and abroad and the ethical issues regarding ecology and sustainability.