QUESTIONS: The Gemara teaches that after two brothers who share the same mother undergo conversion, they may not marry each other's former wives. The Rabanan prohibited them from marrying each other's wives as a Gezeirah lest people mistakenly assume that any Jew (and not just a Ger) is permitted to marry "Eshes Achiv," the wife of his brother. In contrast, when the two brothers share the same father, they may marry each other's former wives.

RASHI explains that the basis for this difference is that no one will mistake the two Gerim (who do not share the same mother) for two ordinary Jewish brothers. People will assume that they do not really share the same father and are not really brothers, since Nochris women tend to live with numerous men and there is no way to prove who the father is. Hence, people will presume that they are permitted to marry each other's wives because they are not really brothers.

The Mishnah states that when a male and female convert give birth to a child whom they conceived before the woman converted ("Horaso she'Lo b'Kedushah"), sons born subsequently may not do Yibum with the first brother's wife (and he may not do Yibum with their wives). RASHI explains that a Ger does not have familial ties to his father, as the verse states, "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" (Yechezkel 23:20), and thus the first son is not considered to have the same father as his brothers.

(a) Why does Rashi offer two different reasons for why a Ger is not considered to be related to his father -- the reason of "Zirmas Susim" and the reason of the mother's immorality?

Moreover, Rashi's source for his comment in the Mishnah here is the Gemara later (98a). The Gemara teaches that even twins who converted have no obligation to do Yibum for each other, even though they clearly share the same father, because of "Zirmas Susim." Why, then, does Rashi in the Gemara say that the reason they are not considered related to each other is the assumption that the mother lives with numerous men? Rashi should give the same reason that he gives in the Mishnah -- that a Ger is considered to have no familial ties.

The same question may be asked on Rashi earlier in Yevamos (42a, DH v'Yiftor). The Gemara there says that if a Nochri and Nochris who are married convert together, they are obligated to separate for three months in order to remove any doubt about the time of conception of a child born to them after their conversion. Rashi there explains that this separation period is necessary because if the child was conceived before the Gerus, he is prohibited from doing Yibum for the brothers born after the Gerus. He is prohibited because of the assumption that his Nochris mother is involved in immoral relations and thus he has a different father than the brothers conceived after the Gerus.

Why does Rashi give this reason for the requirement for converts to separate? Even if the woman was not involved in immoral relations and the child indeed was conceived from her husband and not from another man, the child still may not do Yibum for the brothers conceived after the Gerus. He is not considered to be related to them patrilineally because of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam." (The MAHARSHA asks this question on the words of Rashi on 42a and leaves it unanswered, suggesting that "perhaps a mistaken Talmid inserted these words into Rashi." The ARUCH LA'NER concurs with this suggestion.)

(b) The Gemara later teaches that when Nochrim convert, even if they share the same mother they are not considered related to each other because "Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami" -- a Ger who converts is like a newborn child.

If a Ger is like a newborn child, why does the Gemara (98a) and Rashi in the Mishnah say that the reason why a Ger is not considered related to his father is "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam"? The Gemara and Rashi should say that the Ger is not related even to his brothers from the same mother because he is "like a newborn child"!

(c) The Gemara's assertion that a Nochri is not considered related to his father's family because of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" contradicts the Gemara earlier. The Gemara earlier (62b) proves that a Nochri is considered related to his father. Moreover, the Gemara in Kidushin (19b) says that mid'Oraisa a Nochri inherits the property of his father, a clear indication that they are related. (HAGAHOS MAHARSHAM in the name of the SHO'EL U'MESHIV 3:3:34)

(a) The ARUCH LA'NER and RAV SIMCHAH M'DESVI explain that when Rashi here says that brothers who converted who share the same father are permitted to marry each other's former wives (and the Rabanan did not prohibit them) because they probably do not share the same father, Rashi is not explaining the Halachic logic. Rather, Rashi is explaining what people think:

People are not aware of the principle of "Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami," and thus they will wonder why a Ger may marry his brother's former wife. Similarly , they are not aware of the principle of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" and that the Torah removes the familial ties of the Ger. What explanation will people offer to justify the fact that brothers who are Gerim are permitted to marry each other's wives when they share the same father? Rashi answers that they will assume that the reason two Gerim brothers are permitted to marry each other's wives is because they do not really share the same father.

In truth, however, the reason why they are permitted to each other's wives is the principle of "k'Katan she'Nolad Dami," which permits them even when they share the same mother. The Rabanan, however, prohibited Gerim with the same mother from marrying each other's wives because people do not realize that it is the principle of "k'Katan she'Nolad Dami" which permits them, and thus people will mistakenly permit an ordinary Jewish brother to marry his brother's wife.

This answer does not explain Rashi's comments earlier (42a), however, because there Rashi is not discussing what people will think. There he is discussing the actual Halachic reason for the requirement of a three-month separation period.

The NODA B'YEHUDAH (EH 1:23) suggests that the words of Rashi may be understood based on the words of the NIMUKEI YOSEF (3b of the pages of the Rif, DH d'Tanu Rabanan) cited by the SHACH (YD 269:6). The Nimukei Yosef writes that when two Gerim brothers were conceived before their mother's conversion ("Hora'asan she'Lo b'Kedushah") and born after their mother's conversion ("Leidasan b'Kedushah"), they are prohibited to marry each other's wives, as the Beraisa says, because they share the same mother. If, however, one brother was conceived before the mother's conversion and the other brother was conceived after her conversion, they are not considered related and are permitted to marry each other's wives. Apparently, the logic behind this ruling is that since one of the brothers was conceived before the Gerus and one after, they are considered as though they were born to different mothers. (The ARUCH LA'NER points out that this logic is mentioned by the Gemara here as a "Havah Amina.")

Rashi earlier (42a) describes the relationship between one brother who was conceived before Gerus and another brother who was conceived after Gerus. Although, according to the Nimukei Yosef, they are not related through the mother and therefore are not prohibited to each other's wives mid'Oraisa, when Rashi there says that they are prohibited from doing Yibum, he means that they are prohibited mid'Rabanan from doing Yibum.

Rav Acha bar Yakov, however, maintains that they are not prohibited mid'Rabanan from marrying each other's wives when they share both the same mother and father (because people look only at their father and assume that they have different fathers and are not really related). They are prohibited from marrying each other's wives only when they share only the same mother and not the same father. Accordingly, Rashi there writes that they probably do not have the same father because we may assume that the mother lived with numerous men. Since they have the same mother but not the same father, they are Asur mid'Rabanan from marrying each other's wives, and they may not do Yibum.

There are a number of difficulties with the answer of the Noda b'Yehudah. Rashi clearly disagrees with the opinion of the Nimukei Yosef (see Rashi to 97b, DH d'Af Al Gav; 98a, DH Nasa; see RASHASH here.) The Noda b'Yehudah himself notes this in DAGUL MEREVAVAH (YD 269). Indeed, the Acharonim point out that all of the Rishonim, including the Nimukei Yosef, concur with Rashi on this point. Therefore, it seems that the Nimukei Yosef earlier (on 3b) does not mean to say that two brothers are not considered to have the same mother when one was conceived before the mother's Gerus and one after her Gerus. (See YASHRESH YAKOV, ARUCH LA'NER.)

Moreover, according to the logic of the Noda b'Yehudah, in every case of two Gerim who share the same mother and father, they should be prohibited from marrying each other's former wives since it is assumed that they really do not share the same father (since the mother is involved in immoral relations) but only the same mother. Rav Acha bar Yakov, though, states that when they have the same father and mother they are permitted to marry each other's wives.

For these (and other) reasons the Acharonim reject the answer of the Noda b'Yehudah.

(See below for another answer for the words of Rashi on 42a, based on the following answer to the second question on Rashi.)

(b) Rashi himself addresses why the Gemara here does not mention the reason of "Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami." Rashi (98a, DH Ha d'Amur) asserts that the principle of "k'Katan she'Nolad Dami" applies only in the case of a Nochri who was born before his mother converted ("Leidaso she'Lo b'Kedushah"). If, however, he was conceived before his mother converted but was born after she converted, he is not considered a "Katan she'Nolad Dami," a newborn child with no parents, since he was born to a Jewish woman. When the Gemara later (98a) says that Nochrim have no familial ties because of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam," it refers to a case of two twins who were conceived before the mother's conversion and born after her conversion. Similarly, in the Mishnah -- which discusses a child conceived before his mother's conversion and born after his mother's conversion -- Rashi gives the reasoning of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" and not "k'Katan she'Nolad Dami."

Rashi's assertion is difficult to understand. The Gemara earlier (78a) states that if a pregnant Nochris immerses herself in a Mikvah for the sake of Gerus, the Tevilah is effective for her unborn child as well. The Gemara explains that her immersion is effective for her fetus because the mother's body is not considered a Chatzitzah, an intervention, between the Mikvah and the fetus (according to the opinion that "Ubar Lav Yerech Imo," a fetus is not considered part of the mother's body). The Gemara there implies that the child is considered a Ger in his own right even when he is born after his mother's conversion. Why, then, does Rashi assert that he is not like a "Katan she'Nolad" in such a case?

Perhaps Rava here follows his own view as expressed elsewhere. Rava maintains that "Ubar Yerech Imo" -- a fetus is considered part of the mother's body (see TOSFOS to 78a, DH Ela), and that is why he does not consider the child a Ger when born after the mother's conversion.

Alternatively, even though the child is considered a Ger as the Gemara there (78a) implies, he does not have the status of a "Katan she'Nolad" because he was born to a woman who was Jewish at the time of his birth. His status is based on his birth, and not on his conception.

Perhaps this distinction applies to the other line of reasoning for why a Ger has no familial ties. Just as the principle of "Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami" applies only when the child who later converts was both conceived and born while his mother was a Nochris, the principle of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" also applies only when the child's father was a Nochri at the time of his birth. If the father converted together with the mother and was already Jewish at the time the child was born, perhaps the logic of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" does not apply (since at the time of the child's birth his father was Jewish).

If this proposal is correct, it may explain why Rashi earlier (42a) writes that a son conceived before his parents' Gerus may not perform Yibum for brothers born after the Gerus because of the assumption that his Nochris mother is involved in immoral relations and thus he has a different father than the brothers conceived after the Gerus. "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" does not apply in such a case because the first son's father converted before his birth. Accordingly, the only reason why the brothers are prohibited to each other's wives is the Safek that the first son might have been conceived from a different father, and thus they are not eligible for Yibum. (This logic, which allows us to assume that the brothers are not related, does not apply to permit two brothers who are Gerim to marry each other's wives, because it is only a possibility, taken into account l'Chumra, that they have different fathers. It is not known for certain that they have different fathers. This is why the Gemara usually does not use the logic of the mother's promiscuity to permit Gerim brothers to marry each other's wives, but rather it uses the logic of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam.")

The above explanation describes Rashi's approach to the difference between "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" and "Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami." TOSFOS, however, has an entirely different approach.

TOSFOS in Bechoros (46a, DH Nisgayerah) writes that the only reason why Gerim are not considered related to each other is the principle, "Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami," and not the principle, "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam." Tosfos asserts that "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" is merely the Gemara's explanation for what people think (the same way Rashi uses the logic of the promiscuity of the Nochris). That is, the Rabanan did not prohibit two brothers who converted from marrying each other's wives, because people will not confuse two brothers who are Gerim with ordinary Jewish brothers. They will realize that the Gerim are not like brothers born Jewish, because of the principle of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam." (Tosfos makes no mention of the logic that a Nochris tends to be promiscuous.)

(c) Why does the Gemara here state that a Nochri is not considered to have Halachic familial ties because of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam," while the Gemara earlier (42a) proves that a Nochri is considered related to his family members? According to Tosfos in Bechoros (cited above), "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" is not a genuine Halachic argument. Rather, it is merely what people think when they justify to themselves why Gerim from the same father are permitted to marry each other's wives. Indeed, Tosfos cites the Gemara earlier (62b) -- which says that Nochrim are related to their fathers -- as proof against Rashi who says that "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" renders them unrelated.

Two approaches may be suggested to answer this question according to Rashi. Perhaps Rashi maintains that there is a difference between the relationship between Gerim from the same father with regard to an Isur Ervah (such as the prohibition against marrying each other's wives), and their relationship with regard to all other matters (such as inheritance and Piryah v'Rivyah).

Alternatively, perhaps Rashi maintains that "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" describes only a Ger's relationship relative to that of an ordinary Jew. When compared to an ordinary Jew, a Ger is not considered related to his original family members. However, before the two brothers convert, they are certainly considered fully related to each other. Only when a child conceived by Nochrim is compared to a full-fledged Jew does the principle of "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" apply. According to this understanding, Rashi is consistent with his opinion earlier (42a, as described above, end of answer (b)), in which he explains that "Zirmas Susim" means simply that a Jew cannot be directly related to a Nochri. For this reason, if the father becomes a Ger before his child is born, they indeed are considered to be related and "Zirmas Susim" does not apply.

However, one question remains. According to Rashi, even if "Zirmas Susim" does not apply, a Nochri still should not be considered related to his father because there is a doubt about who his true father is (as Rashi writes 42a).

The answer to this question is as follows. When the Torah refers to a Nochri, it certainly knows who his real father is and thus it can write, "Bal'adan ben Bal'adan" (cf. Melachim II 20:12) and "Hadadrimon ben Tavrimon" (cf. Melachim I 15:18). When the Gemara discusses whether a Ger who had children before Gerus is required to have new children after Gerus in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of "Piryah v'Rivyah," it apparently refers to a situation in which the father knows for certain that the children are his. (For instance, he is confident that his wife was faithful, or he and his wife were locked in prison together, in which case he can assume that the child is his based on "Rov"; see Chulin 11b). With regard to inheriting his father's estate, even if the man who raised him is not his true father, there is no one else who has as strong a claim to the inheritance as the supposed son has, and thus he inherits his supposed father before anyone else does.

QUESTION: According to the Gemara's second version, Rav Acha bar Yakov permits brothers who are converts to marry each other's wives even when they share only the same mother. He maintains that the brothers are not considered related to each other because of the principle, "Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami" -- a Ger who converts is like a newborn child.

What is the source for this principle?

(a) The CHASAM SOFER writes that he searched extensively for the source for this principle but did not find one.

(b) RASHI in Bava Kama (88a, DH Ger Ein Lo Chayas) implies that the source is the verse "Zirmas Susim Zirmasam" (Yechezkel 23:20), from which the law is derived that once a Nochri converts he is no longer considered to be a member of his original family. (M. Kornfeld)

(See RAMBAM in Perush ha'Mishnayos to Demai 6:10, who writes that "mid'Oraisa a Ger does not inherit the property of his [Nochri] father because there is no familial relationship between them, as the religion separates between them (sheha'Das Hivdil Beineihem)." His intention needs further elucidation.)

(c) The MESHECH CHOCHMAH (Devarim 5:27) cites the question of the Chasam Sofer and proposes an ingenious solution for the source of the principle, "Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami" as it applies to familial relationship. Immediately following the giving of the Torah, Hash-m commanded the Jewish men to return to their wives from whom they had separated temporarily at the time of the giving of the Torah: "Return to your tents" (Devarim 5:27). Although before the Torah was given many Jews were married to close family members (such as Amram and Yocheved) whom the Torah later prohibited, Hash-m nevertheless commanded them to return to their spouses.

However, the Gemara (Yoma 75a, as cited by Rashi to Bamidbar 11:10) teaches that the Jewish people cried after the giving of the Torah because the Torah prohibited them from marrying close relatives. The Meshech Chochmah explains that they cried over future marriages that had now become forbidden to them. Those who were already married to close family members at the time they left Mitzrayim were permitted to remain with their spouses, because at the giving of the Torah they all underwent a process of Gerus and became Jewish, and thus they had the status of newborns. This is the source for the principle of "Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami."

The Meshech Chochmah's approach does not conform with the straightforward reading of the Sifri there (#90) which explains that they cried when they were commanded to separate from their relatives whom they had married before the giving of the Torah. Why, according to the Sifri, were they indeed not judged as "Katan she'Nolad" when they formally became Jewish at the time the Torah was given? The MAHARAL (to Bereishis 46:10) addresses this question. He explains that Gerim who were converted "by force," as was the experience of the Jewish people at Har Sinai ("Kafah Aleihem Es ha'Har k'Gigis"), do not have the status of "Katan she'Nolad." The Maharal apparently intends to differentiate between the process of Gerus of the entire nation and the process of Gerus of an individual. When an individual converts, he separates himself from his own nation to join the Jewish people and thus he has the status of a "Katan she'Nolad." (Alternatively, the Maharal may mean that one who accepts the Torah because he is required to do so is not considered one who severs himself from his past. Only a Ger who voluntarily accepts upon himself to leave his family and nation of origin and to join the Jewish people is considered a newborn.)

An allusion in the Torah that a Ger is "k'Katan she'Nolad" may be the very word "Ger." Rabeinu Bachye explains in numerous places (Bereishis 31:39, Shemos 22:20, Vayikra 24:20) that the word "Ger" stems from the word "Gargir," which means a single seed or grape (Yeshayah 17:6). Like a seed which is completely separated from the rest of the plant, a Ger severs himself from his past and his family.