סוגיה 9 - ייבום וחליצה

כִּֽי־יֵשְׁב֨וּ אַחִ֜ים יַחְדָּ֗ו וּמֵ֨ת אַחַ֤ד מֵהֶם֙ וּבֵ֣ן אֵֽין־ל֔וֹ

לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֧ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּ֛ת הַח֖וּצָה לְאִ֣ישׁ זָ֑ר

יְבָמָהּ֙ יָבֹ֣א עָלֶ֔יהָ

וּלְקָחָ֥הּ ל֛וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֖ה

וְיִבְּמָֽהּ׃

וְהָיָ֗ה הַבְּכוֹר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֵּלֵ֔ד יָק֕וּם עַל־שֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו הַמֵּ֑ת

וְלֹֽא־יִמָּחֶ֥ה שְׁמ֖וֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

וְאִם־לֹ֤א יַחְפֹּץ֙ הָאִ֔ישׁ לָקַ֖חַת אֶת־יְבִמְתּ֑וֹ

וְעָלְתָה֩ יְבִמְתּ֨וֹ הַשַּׁ֜עְרָה אֶל־הַזְּקֵנִ֗ים וְאָֽמְרָה֙

מֵאֵ֨ין יְבָמִ֜י לְהָקִ֨ים לְאָחִ֥יו שֵׁם֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א אָבָ֖ה יַבְּמִֽי׃

וְקָֽרְאוּ־ל֥וֹ זִקְנֵי־עִיר֖וֹ וְדִבְּר֣וּ אֵלָ֑יו וְעָמַ֣ד וְאָמַ֔ר לֹ֥א חָפַ֖צְתִּי לְקַחְתָּֽהּ׃

וְנִגְּשָׁ֨ה יְבִמְתּ֣וֹ אֵלָיו֮ לְעֵינֵ֣י הַזְּקֵנִים֒ וְחָלְצָ֤ה נַעֲלוֹ֙ מֵעַ֣ל רַגְל֔וֹ וְיָרְקָ֖ה בְּפָנָ֑יו

וְעָֽנְתָה֙ וְאָ֣מְרָ֔ה כָּ֚כָה יֵעָשֶׂ֣ה לָאִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־יִבְנֶ֖ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית אָחִֽיו

וְנִקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל בֵּ֖ית חֲל֥וּץ הַנָּֽעַל׃

(1) When there is a dispute between men and they go to law, and a decision is rendered declaring the one in the right and the other in the wrong— (2) if the guilty one is to be flogged, the magistrate shall have him lie down and be given lashes in his presence, by count, as his guilt warrants. (3) He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more, lest being flogged further, to excess, your brother be degraded before your eyes. (4) You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing. (5) When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty. (6) The first son that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel. (7) But if the man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, his brother’s widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.” (8) The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. If he insists, saying, “I do not want to marry her,” (9) his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house! (10) And he shall go in Israel by the name of “the family of the unsandaled one.” (11) If two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by his genitals, (12) you shall cut off her hand; show no pity. (13) You shall not have in your pouch alternate weights, larger and smaller. (14) You shall not have in your house alternate measures, a larger and a smaller. (15) You must have completely honest weights and completely honest measures, if you are to endure long on the soil that the LORD your God is giving you. (16) For everyone who does those things, everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent to the LORD your God. (17) Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt— (18) how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. (19) Therefore, when the LORD your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

... הַיְבָמָה נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה.

וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בַּחֲלִיצָה וּבְמִיתַת הַיָּבָם:

(1) A woman is acquired in three ways, and she acquires herself in two ways. She is acquired through money, through a document, or through sexual intercourse. Through money: Beit Shammai say, "With a dinar [a specific unit of money] or with the equivalent value of a dinar." And Beit Hillel say, "With a perutah or with the equivalent value of a perutah." How much is a perutah? One eighth of an Italian issar [a specific unit of money equal to one twenty-fourth of a dinar]. And she acquires herself through a bill of divorce or through the death of the husband. A yevamah [a widow whose brother-in-law performed levirate marriage with her] is acquired through sexual intercourse, and acquires herself through chalitzah [the ceremony performed by the widow of a childless man as an alternative way to release herself from the obligation to wait for levirate marriage] or through the death of the yavam [one upon whom has fallen the obligation to perform levirate marriage].

(2) A Hebrew slave is acquired through money or through a document, and acquires himself through years [of service], through the Jubilee Year, or through prorated monetary [payment]. A Hebrew maidservant has an advantage over him, in that she acquires herself through [physical] signs [of puberty]. [A slave] who [has his ear] pierced is acquired through [the] piercing, and acquires himself through the Jubilee Year or with the death of the master.

(3) A Canaanite slave is acquired through money, through a document or through chazakah [a presumption of ownership, generally regarding landed property, established by unchallenged, publically known possession for a certain period of time, together with a legally acceptable claim regarding how the property came into the possessor’s hands]. And he acquires himself through money by a third party or through a document by himself. These are the word of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say, "Through money by himself and through a document by a third party, providing that the money be from a third party.

(4) A large animal is acquired through transfer [of the reins], and a small animal through lifting [it]; these are the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar. The Sages say, "A small animal is acquired through pulling [it]."

(5) Mortgaged property is acquired through money, through a document, or through chazakah; and non-mortgaged [property] is acquired only through pulling [it]. Property which is non-mortgaged can be acquired along with mortgaged property through money, through a document or through chazakah; and that which is non-mortgaged can, [by association,] bind [itself to] that which is mortgaged [to force one] to take an oath regarding [that property].

(6) Anything that is used as currency for something else, once this [party to the transaction] takes possession [of it], this [other party] is obligated in its exchange. How so? If one exchanges a bull for a cow, or a donkey for a bull, once this one takes possession, this one is obligated for its exchange [i.e., the animal he agreed to exchange for it]. The Temple authority [acquires directly] through money, and the lay authority [acquires] through chazakah. A verbal statement [declaring an object as belonging] to the Temple [authority] is like [physical] transfer to the lay [authority].

(7) [With regard to] all commandments of the son which are [incumbent] upon the father, men are obligated, and women are exempt. And [with regard to] all commandments of the father which are [incumbent] upon the son, both men and women are obligated. And [with regard to] every positive commandment that is time-dependent, men are obligated and women are exempt. And [with regard to] every positive commandment which is not time-dependent, both men and women are obligated. And [with regard to] every negative commandment, whether it is time-dependent or it is not time-dependent, both men and women are obligated, except for: "You shall not round off [the corners of your head]" (Leviticus 19:27), "You shall not destroy [the corners of your beard]" (ibid.), and "You shall not become ritually impure for the dead" (Leviticus 21:1).

(8) The leanings, and the wavings, and the presentations, and the kemitsot [individual handfuls of the meal offering, which the priest takes to be put on the altar], and the incense offerings, and the melikot [instances of utilizing a slaughtering method used for bird sacrifices, employing the thumbnail instead of a knife], and the sprinklings, and the collections of blood are practiced by men, but not by women, except for the meal-offering of the sotah and of the female Nazirite, that they wave [them].

(9) Any commandment which is dependent on the Land [of Israel] only applies in the Land. And any commandment which is not dependent on the Land applies both in the Land and outside the Land, except for orlah [the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting, the consumption or usage of which is forbidden] and kilayim [the prohibition of planting together certain plants]. And Rabbi Eliezer says, "Also chadash [grain from the current year that one is forbidden to eat until after the sixteenth of Nissan]"

(10) Anyone who performs a single commandment is bestowed with goodness, his days are lengthened, and he inherits the Land. And anyone who does not perform a single commandment is not bestowed with goodness, his days are not lengthened, and he does not inherit the Land. Anyone who is [involved in] Scripture, the Oral Law, and proper social behavior will not easily [come to] sin, as it is stated, "And the three-ply cord is not quickly severed" (Ecclesiastes 4:12). Anyone who is not [involved in] Scripture, and not in the Oral Law, and not in proper social behavior is not part of civilization.

והתניא (דברים כה, ח)

וקראו לו זקני עירו- הן ולא שלוחן

ודברו אליו- מלמד שמשיאין לו עצה הוגנת לו

שאם היה הוא ילד והיא זקנה הוא זקן והיא ילדה

אומרין לו: מה לך אצל ילדה? מה לך אצל זקנה?

כלך אצל שכמותך ואל תשים קטטה בביתך

If one of these women was fit to marry into the priesthood and one was unfit, then if he performs ḥalitza, he should perform ḥalitza with the unfit woman rather than with the one who is fit for the priesthood, since doing so with the woman who is fit would needlessly disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. But if he consummates the levirate marriage, he may consummate the levirate marriage with the one who is fit. GEMARA: The simple reading of the mishna’s first clause implies that all four brothers died. The Gemara questions this: Can it enter your mind to say that all four brothers died? If they all died, then who remains to consummate the levirate marriage? Rather, emend the mishna and say instead: Four married men of a set of more than four brothers died. The mishna continues: If the eldest of them wished to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot, he has permission to do so. The Gemara asks: Do they actually leave him to do so? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the Elders of his city shall call him” (Deuteronomy 25:8), which indicates that they, the Elders, and not their agent, should call him. The verse continues: “And they speak to him”; this phrase teaches that they offer him advice that is appropriate for him. The baraita explains: Appropriate advice means that if he was a young man and she an elderly woman or if he was an elderly man and she a young woman, they say to him: What do you want with a young woman when you are elderly? Or: What do you want with an elderly woman when you are young? Go after your own kind, i.e., a woman of a similar age, and do not place discord in your household that could be caused by marrying a woman of a significantly different age. From the baraita it is apparent that if consummating the levirate marriage will ultimately lead to contention between the couple, it is preferable to perform ḥalitza. Similarly, in the case of the mishna, marrying four women will likely lead to contention since it is difficult to support so many people, and poverty will lead to strife. Therefore, the yavam should not be allowed to consummate levirate marriages with all of them. The Gemara qualifies the mishna’s case: No, it is necessary to teach that he has permission to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot in the case where it is possible for him to provide for all four women. The Gemara asks: If so, then the same should be true even if there are many more women as well; why does the mishna specifically discuss a case of four women? The Gemara explains: The mishna teaches us good advice; in a case of up to four women, yes, if he can provide for them then it is acceptable to marry all of them. But if there are any more than that, no, he should not, in order that he will be able to meet the conjugal rights of each woman at least once in each month. A Torah scholar is expected to provide conjugal relations once a week. If he marries no more than four women, then that will ensure that each of his wives will receive their conjugal rights at least once a month. § The mishna states: In the case of one who was married to two women and died childless, the intercourse or ḥalitza of either one of them with the yavam releases her rival wife from the levirate bond. The Gemara questions why the mishna considers only the possibility that he would do so with only one of the women: But let him instead consummate levirate marriages with both of them. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse states that a yavam who performs ḥalitza is referred to as: “The man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9). The fact that the word “house” appears in the singular indicates that even had he instead chosen to consummate a levirate marriage, only one house may he build, by consummating a levirate marriage with one of his brother’s wives, but he may not build two houses. The Gemara suggests: But let him perform ḥalitza with both of them; why does the mishna state that he does so with only one woman? Mar Zutra bar Toviya said: The verse states that following the ḥalitza the man is called: “The house of him who had his shoe removed” (Deuteronomy 25:10). The fact that the word “house” appears in the singular indicates that he performs ḥalitza with only one house, i.e., only one of his brother’s wives, and he does not perform ḥalitza with two houses. The Gemara suggests: But let him consummate the levirate marriage with one and perform ḥalitza with the other. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “If the man does not wish to take his yevama” (Deuteronomy 25:7), which implies that with regard to anyone who performs ḥalitza, were he to wish to, he could consummate the levirate marriage. This teaches the principle that only one who is eligible for levirate marriage is eligible for ḥalitza, but one who is ineligible for levirate marriage is ineligible for ḥalitza. And since, in the case of the mishna, if the yavam consummated the levirate marriage with one of his brother’s wives he may not do so with the second, consequently he may not perform ḥalitza with her either. And furthermore, an additional reason that one may not do so is so that people should not say that the brother’s house was partially built through levirate marriage and partially released through ḥalitza. The Gemara asks: And even if they will say that, what of it? The Gemara explains: If he first consummated the levirate marriage with one wife and subsequently performed ḥalitza with the other, indeed, there is no reason not to do this. However, perhaps he might first perform ḥalitza with one wife and subsequently consummate levirate marriage with the other, and by doing so he is liable for a violation of the prohibition of: “He does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9). The verse indicates that one who performs ḥalitza has not built his brother’s house and is therefore subsequently prohibited from attempting to do so by consummating a levirate marriage with either the ḥalutza or any of her rival wives. The Gemara asks. But since the Torah’s description of levirate marriage mentions only a case in which the deceased brother had only one wife, say: When there is only one wife, the mitzva of levirate marriage exists, but when there are two wives, the mitzva of levirate marriage does not exist. The Gemara suggests a proof: If that were so, why do I need the halakha concerning a rival wife of a forbidden relation, which is forbidden by the Merciful One in the Torah? Now that even in the case of two women in general, where neither woman is a forbidden relation, you say that they are not eligible for ḥalitza and levirate marriage, is it necessary to say a rival wife of a forbidden relation is also forbidden? The fact that the Torah does prohibit a rival wife of a forbidden relation indicates that the mitzva of levirate marriage does exist in a general case of two wives in which neither are a forbidden relation. The Gemara objects: Why not? Even if one assumes that there is no mitzva of levirate marriage when the deceased brother had two wives, it is still necessary to teach the halakha concerning a rival wife of a forbidden relation because it could enter your mind to say that since there is no possibility of consummating the levirate marriage with her, the forbidden relation stands outside the calculation such that her presence is disregarded, and her rival wife should enter into levirate marriage as though she were the only wife. Therefore, the verse needs to teach us that the rival wife is forbidden. Rather, the repeated use of the phrase “his yevama,” “his yevama in the verses concerning levirate marriage amplifies the mitzva of levirate marriage so that it applies even when the deceased brother had more than one wife. § The mishna states: If one of these wives of the deceased brother was fit for the priesthood and one was unfit, ḥalitza should not be performed with the fit woman since doing so would needlessly disqualify her from the priesthood. Rav Yosef said that here, through this mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught the principle that one should not perform an action that will needlessly disadvantage others, and so a person should not spill out water collected in his pit that he does not need when others are in need of it. MISHNA: With regard to one who remarries his divorcée after she had been married to another man from whom she was then widowed or divorced, or one who marries the woman with whom he performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza], or one who marries a relative of his ḥalutza, since all such marriages are forbidden he must divorce her, and the offspring born from such unions is a mamzer; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. He holds that even the offspring from relations forbidden by a prohibition punishable by lashes is a mamzer. The Rabbis say: The offspring in those cases is not a mamzer, but they concede with regard to one who marries a relative of his divorcée, a union forbidden by a prohibition entailing karet, that the offspring is a mamzer. They hold that only the offspring from relations forbidden by a prohibition entailing karet is a mamzer. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Akiva actually hold that with regard to one who marries a relative of his ḥalutza, the offspring is a mamzer? Didn’t Reish Lakish say that through the mishna here, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught that a sister of one’s divorcée is forbidden by Torah law whereas a sister of one’s ḥalutza is forbidden by rabbinic law? If a relative of one’s ḥalutza is forbidden by rabbinic law, how can the offspring of that union be a mamzer? The Gemara concedes: Emend the mishna and teach instead: A relative of his divorcée. The Gemara notes: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the correct version of the mishna, as the latter clause teaches: But they concede in the case of one who marries a relative of his divorcée that the offspring is a mamzer. Granted, if you say that Rabbi Akiva was talking about that case, this is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: They concede, which implies that they agree to a case already mentioned. However, if you say that he was not talking about that case, what could the phrase: They concede, possibly be referring to? The Gemara objects: But perhaps this phrase teaches us that the Rabbis concede that the offspring from forbidden relations for which one is liable to receive karet is a mamzer. The Gemara rejects this option: This is already taught later on in a mishna (49a): Which offspring of forbidden relations has the status of a mamzer? It is the offspring of a union with any next of kin that is subject to a Torah prohibition that one should not engage in sexual relations with them; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon HaTimni says: It is the offspring of a union with any forbidden relative for which one is liable to receive karet at the hand of Heaven. And the halakha is in accordance with his statement. Since the mishna explicitly rules in accordance with Rabbi Shimon HaTimni, it would be unnecessary for the mishna here to teach that fact. The Gemara persists: But perhaps the tanna taught us as unattributed a mishna that is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon HaTimni to indicate that this is indeed the accepted halakha. The Gemara rejects this: If so, then let him teach other cases of forbidden relations for which one is liable to receive karet; why do I need the mishna to specifically consider the case of a relative of one’s divorcée? Rather, conclude from this that Rabbi Akiva indeed was talking about that case. The Gemara persists: But perhaps he was not actually talking about that case, but since Rabbi Akiva taught the cases of one who remarries his divorcée, or one who marries his ḥalutza or a relative of his ḥalutza, the mishna also taught in the name of the Rabbis the case of one who marries a relative of his divorcée because it is a similar case. The Gemara concedes that this would be an acceptable reading of the mishna. Rather, the mishna should not be emended, and with regard to the Gemara’s original question as to how Rabbi Akiva could claim that the offspring from one’s union with a relative of his ḥalutza is a mamzer if that union is forbidden only by rabbinic law, one must conclude that a relative of one’s ḥalutza is forbidden by Torah law according to Rabbi Akiva and therefore the offspring is a mamzer. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that this is Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning: As the verse states: “The house of he who had his shoe removed” (Deuteronomy 25:10). The verse called his relationship with the ḥalutza his house, indicating that the ḥalutza is considered as though she had been married to the yavam, and therefore her relative is forbidden to him by Torah law. Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: All agree in the case of one who remarries his divorcée

שאלת: אשה אחת בת חמשים שנה, ומת בעלה בלא בנים. ונפלה לפני יבם, והיבם נשוי....

ואם היא אינה רוצה להתייבם לו, והוא רוצה ליבם, משיאין אותו עצה ההוגנת לו, שלא יכניס קטטות לתוך ביתו, אחר שיש לו אשה אחרת. וכן אם הוא בחור, והיא זקנה, אומרים לו: כלך אצל שכמותך. ואם נותן עיניו בה כדי ליטול נכסיה, מטעין אותו. ואומרים לו: חלוץ על מנת שתתן לך כך וכך. ואחר שיחלוץ לה, אין לו עליה כלום...

מאחר שאינו הגון לה, ומצוה עליו לחלוץ. דכתיב: ושלחו לו זקני עירו ודברו אליו. נותנין לו עצה הוגנת. אם הוא ילד, והיא זקנה, אומרים לו: כלך אצל שכמותך.

ואם הוא ערום, ואין יכולין להעמידו בכך, מבקשין ממנו לחלוץ.

ואם לא רצה, ייבם.

רשב"א: רבי שלמה בן אדרת- גדול חכמי ישראל בספרד, בתקופת הראשונים (סוף המאה ה-13 ותחילת המאה ה- 14) . ספר התשובות שלו מהווה ספר יסוד בהלכה.

ספרות השו"ת : תשובותיהם, החלטותיהם ומסקנותיהם הכתובות של חכמי ההלכה לשאלות שנשלחו אליהם בכתב. כבר בתקופת האמוראים הייתה חליפת שאלות ותשובות בין מרכזי הלימוד והקהילות השונות, והם שובצו בתוך התלמודים. לאחר חתימת התלמוד מופיעות השו"ת כענף ספרותי בפני עצמו, ההולך ונמשך עד עצם היום הזה. מטרת השו"ת: לברר את ההלכה ואת הכרעת הדין בבעיות ספציפיות , אולם תוך כדי הדיון ההלכתי אנו לומדים גם על תקנות ומנהגים, פילוסופיה, דברי מוסר, מאורעות היסטוריים וכ'.

בידינו מצויות כיום מאות אלפי שאלות ותשובות, המופיעות ביותר משלשת אלפים ספרים של מחברים שונים, ובעידן המודרני- אינספור שו"תים במרשתת.

הרבנות הראשית לישראל

תקנות קבועות לגדרי אישות בישראל –

שנתקבלו פה אחד בכינוס הרבנים הארצי שהתקיים בירושלים

בימים י"ח-כ"א בשבט, תש"י (5-8.02.1950).

ב"ה.

לרגל קיבוץ גלויות מכל תפוצות הגולה, מקצוי ארץ ואיים רחוקים, שעולים לאלפים ורבבות, ומתיישבים בארץ בחסד ה' עלינו הגדול, ומביאים אתם מנהגים קדומים שאינם הולמים לתקנות חכמים מרי דארעא דישראל שבעיקו"ת (שבעיר קודשנו תיבנה) תו"ב בעניני קדושין ונשואין ובענייני גיטין וגירושין, ייבום וחליצה, ודבר זה עלול להביא מחלוקת בישראל ולהרוס את שלום בית ישראל,

לזאת מצאנו וראינו חובה לעצמנו לחדש תקנותיהם של רבותינו הקדמונים זצ"ל, ולהוסיף עוד תקנות כאלה, שהשעה מחייבת אותם מפני דרכי שלום ושלום הבית בישראל, שהם תופסים מקום יסודי לכל תקנות רבותינו הקדמונים, מימי משה רבינו ועד הדורות האחרונים לקהלותיהם.

ברשות קודשא ברוך הוא ושכינתיה (הקדוש ברוך הוא ושכינתו), וברשות בית דין של מעלה ובית דין של מטה וברשות רבנן קדמאי מרי ארעא דישראל (החכמים הראשונים, רבני ארץ ישראל), ובהסכמת הגאונים הגדולים חברי המועצה המורחבת של הרבנות הראשית בישראל גוזרים המתקנים בתוקף תוה"ק (תורתנו הקדושה) ככל תקנות ישראל שנעשו בישראל לקהלותיהם ולדורות עולם.

א. אסור לכל איש ואשה מישראל לקדש ולארס שלא בשעת חופה ...

ב. אסור לו לאדם מישראל לקדש לו אשה שהיא קטנה מגיל שש עשרה שנה ויום אחד ...

ג. ברוב קהלות ישראל וכן בקהלות האשכנזים שבארץ, קבלו עליהם להלכה שמצות חליצה קודמת

למצות יבום, וגם כששניהם, היבם והיבמה, רוצין ביבום, אין מניחים אותם ליבם. ובמקום שהיבם

נשוי אשה, נהגו בכל המקומות שאין מניחים אותם ליבם. ובהיות ובזמננו ברור הדבר שרוב יבמים

אינם מכוונים לשם מצוה, ומשום דרכי שלום ואחדות במדינת ישראל שלא תהיה התורה כשתי

תורות, הננו גוזרים על תושבי ארץ-ישראל ועל אלה שיעלו ויתישבו מעתה והלאה, לאסור עליהם

מצוות ייבום לגמרי, וחייבים לחלוץ, וחייבים במזונות יבמתם, כפי מה שיפסקו עליו בי"ד עד

שיפטרו את יבמתם בחליצה. איסור זה אפשר להתירו רק במסבות מיוחדות ועפ"י החלטת

המועצה המורחבת.

בחתימת הרבנים הראשיים לישראל.

[...]

ראשי הרבנים לישראל

יצחק אייזיק הלוי הרצוג בן ציון מאיר חי עוזיאל

עיון ודיון

1. הסבירו בקצרה מהו ייבום ומהי חליצה.

2. "ודיברו אליו" – הסבירו את פשט הפסוק המקראי ואת הדרש

(שבברייתא). מהו המסר של הברייתא?

3. קראו את תשובתו של רשב"א. יש הטוענים שפסיקתו מערערת על האמור

בתורה. נסו להוכיח זאת בהסתמך על הכתוב!

4. האם דברי הברייתא שבתלמוד מקובלים על רשב"א?

הוכח בהסתמך על תשובתו.

5. קראו את תקנות הרבנות הראשית.

מה הניע את הרבנים הראשיים לישראל לתקן את התקנות הללו?

מה מטרתן? ציינו במה שונה כל אחת מהתקנות מן ההלכה המשתקפת

בספרות חז"ל והפוסקים (כפי שלמדת בסוגיות שבפרק זה).

6. האם הייתם ממליצים לנסות ולתקן תקנות נוספות באחד מן הנושאים

שנדונו בפרק זה? נמקו!

פותחים סוגריים

הייבום הנו תופעה נפוצה בחברות מסורתיות, בהן האישה אינה מפרנסת את עצמה וזקוקה למשענת כלכלית. הייבום נזכר במקורות קדומים מאד ובקבצי-חוקים מכל רחבי המזרח התיכון.

חוקי החיתים: 193 – כי תהיה לאיש אשה, ומת האיש, אחיו את אשתו (האח את אלמנת אחיו ייקח), ואחריו אביו ייקחנה. ואם גם אביו ימות, ואחד מבני אחיו יקח את האדה שהיתה לו – אין עונש.

חוקי החיתים- קובץ חוקים שנמצא באסיה הקטנה (טורקיה). החוקים נערכו בקובץ אחד בערך בשנת 1500 לפני-הספירה וכנראה היו פרי חקיקה של מלך החיתים

אף בימינו ניתן למצוא חברות בהן קיים נוהג זה.

מן העיתונות:

הארץ

https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/world/asia/.premium-MAGAZINE-1.6137242?=&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=haaretz&ts=_1528638336610

הכלה האפגנית

"פעם היו לי חלומות": התאלמנה משני אחים, נשואה לשלישי והיא רק בת 18

רוד נורדלנד, ניו יורק טיימס 01.06.2018 (מעובד)

חדיג'ה בת 18, היתה נשואה שלוש פעמים — לשלושה אחים. היא התאלמנה בפעם הראשונה בגיל 10, כשבעלה, לוחם טאליבן, נהרג. החוק באפגניסטן קובע שאחיו של המת צריכים להינשא לאלמנתו, וכך התחתנה עם אחיו, שהיה שוטר- ומת מפיצוץ מטען. עכשיו היא בת 18, נשואה לאחיו השלישי, ומתפללת שהוא יישאר בחיים.

סיפורה של חדיג'ה ושלושת האחים שנישאה להם הוא סיפור האופייני לאפגניסטאן על מלחמה ומסורת. הוא התרחש באחד האזורים האלימים ביותר של המלחמה במדינה — מחוז הלמנד בדרום — מעוזם של הטליבאן, שבו משפחות רבות נקרעו בין נאמנות לממשלה ולמורדים. זהו גם סיפורן של נשים שמנסות לחיות בחברה מסורתית שלא מותירה להן הרבה ברירות. בחברת הפָּשְטוּן אדם חייב לשאת את אלמנת אחיו. אם האלמנה מסרבת עלולים לקחת ממנה את ביתה וילדיה.

... "התרבות הפשטונית לא הותירה לי ברירה" – אומרת חדיג'ה. אלמנות לא יכולות לעבוד, בדומה לנשים אחרות בחברות מסורתיות, וכל רכוש שתצבור או ירושה שתקבל יעברו ישירות לאחיה של בעלה, ולא לאלמנתו או לצאצאיו. "פעם היו לי חלומות, אבל אני לא יכולה לשתף בהם אף אחד, משום שאני אשה", אמרה, "פעם רציתי ללמוד ולהיות אשה משכילה שעומדת על שתי רגליה בכוחות עצמה, אבל בתרבות שלי זה בלתי אפשרי. השאיפה העיקרית שלי עכשיו היא שבעלי לא ייהרג בידי הטליבאן. אני מבקשת מאלוהים שיגן עליו".