Study Yevamot folio 98A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
there is a rabbinic prohibition, contrary to Rav Aḥa’s opinion. The Talmud answers: The same is true that there is no prohibition, either. And since the baraita wanted to teach in the latter clause that if they were born in sanctity they are liable, it also taught in the first clause that they are
Rava said: With regard to that which the rabbis said, that a non-Jew has no patrilineage, do not say that it is because they are so steeped in licentiousness that they do not know the identity of their fathers with certainty, but if that identity is known, we are concerned that the paternity is re
The proof is from the case of two identical twin brothers, who were one drop that was divided into two and obviously have the same father, and yet it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: They do not perform ḥalitza and they do not perform levirate marriage, although they certainly have th
The Talmud resumes its discussion of the dispute between Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov and Rav Sheshet. Come and hear another proof, as R' Yosei said: An incident took place involving Niftayim the convert, who married the wife of his maternal half brother, and the incident came before the rabbis, and they sai
The Talmud answers: No, the baraita is referring to a case where the brother married her while he was still a non-Jew, and since he converted they are no longer married. The Talmud asks: If he married her while he was a non-Jew, what is the purpose of stating this obvious halakha? The Talmud answe