The Adiut-B-Sut edition and audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically Gemara Yevamot and Masechet Yevamot, has been dedicated and sponsored by our dear friend Mr. Isaac Jamal and his wife in honor of his family. They wish for him to have success and blessings in all his endeavors, may he merit to raise his children in the ways of the Torah, and may they bring him much joy. They hope he will have many more children, blessed with health and happiness, and that he should find favor and kindness in the eyes of Hashem and humanity. May he and his entire family be blessed, Amen.
As we study Masechet Yevamot, it is important to note that many of the cases require diagrams for clarity. We have chosen the book Sefer Tziyurim le-Masechet Yevamot as our reference for these diagrams, written by Aharon Shlomo ben Rabi Baruch Moshe Hafner, which is available in bookstores. When we refer to pages, we will be using this sefer.
Today's daf is being studied le-iluy nishmat Avraham ben Esther. May the spirit of Hashem rest upon him in Gan Eden, Amen. We begin today's daf on Yud Zayin Amud Rishon, starting four lines from the top. The sugya we are currently discussing began on Tet Vav Amud Bet. We had a statement in the name of Rav Assi: Amar Rav Yehuda Amar Rav Assi, regarding a gentile who engaged in kiddushin with a Jewish woman in our times. We stated that if a gentile makes kiddushin with a Jewish woman, we must suspect that the kiddushin is valid, and therefore, she would require a get. This is due to the possibility that he may be a descendant of one of the ten tribes.
Rashi explains that perhaps one of the ten tribes, who was definitely Jewish, married a gentile woman, and their child would be considered Jewish. This presents an interesting opinion, as we typically understand that Jewish identity is passed through the mother. Here, we see a shita that suggests Jewishness can also pass through the father, which would classify the child as a mamzer. Thus, we must be concerned if a gentile comes along and engages in kiddushin with a Jewess, as he may indeed be Jewish, and we must be choshesh for the kiddushin.
The Gemara then discusses various locations where the ten tribes resided, countering the argument that we should rely on the majority of the world, which is not comprised of the ten tribes. We have a rule stating that whoever emerges from the majority is considered part of it; however, in the case of kiddushin that took place in the territory of the ten tribes, there is no majority. This situation falls under the rule of kavua, where the status is 50-50, leading us to treat it as a safek, and thus we must be machmir.
Rav Yehuda, citing Rav Assi, establishes that the child involved in the kiddushin or the gentile who performed the kiddushin may be a result of one of the ten tribes marrying a gentile woman, thus potentially making him Jewish. The Gemara continues by stating that when Rav Yehuda shared this chiddush with Shmuel, he argued that the child of a Jewish woman is considered Jewish, and therefore if a gentile makes kiddushin with a Jewish woman, that kiddushin is invalid, and no get is necessary.
To substantiate this, the Gemara references a pasuk from Devarim, which states that intermarriage with gentiles is forbidden. The pasuk indicates that if a gentile father marries a Jewish woman, he may cause their child to turn away from Hashem. This implies that the child is only considered the son of the Jewish mother, thus reinforcing that Jewishness is determined by maternal lineage.
The Gemara further clarifies that if the mother is not Jewish, the child is also not Jewish. We see that the concern regarding the ten tribes is unfounded, as any offspring from such unions would not be Jewish. The discussion leads us to conclude that the concern for kiddushin with a gentile, in this context, is unwarranted.
As we continue, the Gemara presents a new point regarding a shomeret yavam, a woman waiting for her brother-in-law to fulfill the mitzvah of yibum. If she dies before the yibum is completed, her brother can marry her mother. This indicates that there is no zika, or bond, in this case, as the relationship does not prohibit him from marrying the mother. This conclusion suggests that the opinion held here is that there is no zika connecting the shomeret yavam to her brother-in-law.
The discussion pivots to the halachic implications of this ruling. It emphasizes that if there were a zika, the brother would be considered connected to the shomeret yavam as if they were engaged, thus prohibiting him from marrying her mother. The Gemara's conclusion is that the absence of zika allows for the permissibility of marrying the mother after the shomeret yavam's death.
In a related discussion, the Gemara notes that if the yevamah dies, the brother may marry her sister, which parallels the general halacha that permits marrying a sister after a wife’s death. However, the Gemara points out that the mother remains forbidden, as the prohibition against marrying a mother-in-law is a biblical restriction that persists regardless of the circumstances surrounding the death of the wife or yevamah.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that even in the case of yibum, while the sister may be permissible to marry, the mother remains forbidden, reinforcing the significance of zika and the bonds of familial relationships in halacha. This nuanced discussion highlights the complexities of yibum and the various halachic principles that govern these relationships.