Concerning today’s daf TB Yevamot, 111, I have good news and bad news. First the good news. Today’s daf marks that we have finished one third of the entire Talmud! This fact should encourage us to continue on our dafyomi journey to its final destination. The bad news is today’s daf is extremely complicated and difficult. Today’s daf wants to figure out the reason behind this statement in the Mishna on daf TB Yevamot 110b “If one wife is a minor and the other is a deaf-mute, consummation of levirate marriage or ḥalitza with one of them does not exempt her rival wife. Although both women are married by rabbinic law, their statuses are not the same and one cannot exempt the other.” (Sefaria.org translation) According to Rav the deaf-mute because of her disabilities is only partially married by rabbinic law. Rav was doubtful whether the minor was totally married or not married at all according to rabbinic law.
The Gemara brings case after case trying to understand the outcome of all the permutations in this and similar cases. For example, what happens if the brother-in-law does yibum with the minor first? What happens to the deaf-mute? What happens if he subsequently also does yibum with a deaf-mute? Will she ever be able to marry another man? What happens if the brother-in-law does yibum with the deaf-mute first? What happens to the minor?
As you study these cases on your own, you’ll have to remember some basic laws. When one sister falls as a yevama but the brother-in-law is already married to her sister, she is freed from the obligation of yibum and ḥalitza. A minor cannot perform the ceremony of ḥalitza. She has to wait until she reaches the age of majority and then she may perform the ceremony of ḥalitza. A deaf-mute may marry, but she too is forbidden to perform the ceremony of ḥalitza because she cannot say the formula which releases her from her yevam. An invalid sexual act (בִּיאָה פְּסוּלָה) does not exempt a woman from yibum or ḥalitza.
Does the next Mishna on TB Yevamot 111b provide a simple solution to all of our cases? It all depends on what version of the Mishnah you have. Our Mishnah reads: “If the deceased brother had two wives, an adult and a minor, and the yavam engaged in sexual intercourse with the adult, then engaged in intercourse with the minor, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the minor, the yavam or his brother did not disqualify the adult from staying married, as the consummation of the levirate marriage with the adult completely dissolves the levirate bond. If the yavam engaged in intercourse with the minor, and then engaged in intercourse with the adult, or if his brother engaged in intercourse with the adult, the yavam or his brother disqualified the minor from staying married. Rabbi Elazar says: The court instructs the minor to refuse him (me’oon) thereby annulling her marriage retroactively, and then the minor is permitted to marry any man.” (Sefaria.org translation)
The Tosefta, Rif, Rashba, Ramban, and the Bartenura have the following version of our Mishnah. “Rabbi Elazar says in all these (cases)-bekulam- בְּכּוּלָם), the court instructs the minor to refuse him.” According to this version even in the case of a deaf-mute and a minor, the court instructs the minor to refuse her husband. This one word in Hebrew (בְּכּוּלָם) simplifies all the earlier permutations discussed on the daf because me’oon retroactively the minor’s marriage. All the problems disappear.
The Raavad doesn’t have the version
“in all these (cases).” Rabbi Elarzar ruling only applies in the case of an adult
and a minor as taught in the Mishna. Only in this case does one teach the minor
to refuse her husband so that the brother-in-law can fulfill the mitzvah of yibum on a Torah level. In the case of
the minor and the deaf-mute this option of me’oon
is not available, because they are both married on a rabbinic level and the
rabbis taught that person should distance himself from refusals (me’oon).
No comments:
Post a Comment