‘A Non-Jew Has No Father’: The Halachic Status of Convert Brothers and Their Wives in the Context of Levirate Marriage and Sexual Prohibitions (Yevamot 97b-98a)
This piece analyzes the sugya in Yevamot 97b-98a about the halakhic status of twin brothers who converted to Judaism, focusing on their ability—or inability—to perform yibbum (levirate marriage) or ḥalitza with each other's widows.
It provides a straightforward reading (pshat), deliberately avoiding polemical or apologetic explanations that obscure the sugya’s plain sense.1
The case is somewhat complex but accessible with the right framing.2
Basic Terms
Ger (גר): A convert to Judaism. A convert is considered halakhically a "newborn”,3 meaning he has no legal family ties to biological relatives unless otherwise stated.
Freed Slave (עבד משוחרר): A slave of non-Jewish origin owned by a Jew who is freed. Upon freedom, he becomes fully Jewish and is subject to all mitzvot, like a born Jew. Similar to a convert, a freed slave is considered a "newborn" (kekatan shenolad).
Yibbum (יבום): The biblical obligation (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) for a brother to marry the widow of his deceased brother if the deceased had no children.
Ḥalitza (חליצה): A ceremony releasing a widow from the obligation of levirate marriage (yibbum) if the surviving brother does not wish to marry her.
Karet (כרת): A severe divine punishment (spiritual excision) for certain prohibited sexual relationships, including sex with one's sister-in-law (brother’s wife) outside of levirate marriage.
”In sanctity” vs. ”in non-sanctity” (בקדושה - kedusha) = while mother is Jewish: An idiom meaning “while mother is Jewish” (i.e she had already converted), as opposed to “non-sanctity” (שלא בקדושה), meaning “while mother is not Jewish” (i.e. she hadn’t converted convert)
Basic Ideas
The sugya turns on two central halakhic ideas:
Converts are considered halachic "newborns", severing prior biological ties unless Jewish status was present from conception and birth
Jewish law recognizes patrilineal kinship for purposes like yibbum, but this kinship is entirely absent among non-Jews, even when biological fatherhood is certain.
The sugya cites a baraita that sets up three scenarios:
Mother non-Jewish at both conception and birth
Mother non-Jewish at conception but Jewish by birth
Mother Jewish at both conception and birth.
Each stage produces a different halakhic outcome for obligations and liabilities regarding yibbum, ḥalitza, and incest prohibitions.
The discussion culminates in a broader halakhic principle: there is no halakhic patrilineage among non-Jews.
Even proven biological fatherhood is legally irrelevant. The sugya cites twins—who obviously share a father—as proof: despite biological certainty, they are halakhically considered strangers with respect to yibbum.
Scriptural support is drawn from Ezekiel 23:20, comparing the biological "seed" of non-Jews to that of animals; thus, like animals, they are not treated as having legitimate patrilineal descent in Jewish law.
This piece thus serves both as an explanation of a controversial Talmudic passage and as a case study in clear, accessible presentation of technical Talmudic law.
Halakhic Principles Involved
Brotherhood for Yibbum:
Yibbum and ḥalitza only apply if the men are considered halakhic brothers — i.e., they must share a common father. Maternal brotherhood alone does not obligate yibbum.Legal Status of Converts and Freed Slaves:
Converts are considered new entities, breaking prior familial relationships.
Freed slaves likewise have "new birth" status upon emancipation.
Thus, two converted brothers are not considered halakhic brothers unless both were conceived and born under Jewish law (with a Jewish mother).
Three Legal Scenarios Outlined - Table
Reasoning Behind Each Case
The reasonings behind each case are not explicitly given by the baraita, but they are traditionally explained as follows (based on the subsequent interpretation of the Talmud, and of ed. Steinsaltz commentary):
Case 1: No ḥalitza/yibbum, no karet
The Talmud interprets: Because they are legally not considered brothers at all. Their biological relationship has no halakhic standing.Case 2: No ḥalitza/yibbum, but karet
Their brotherhood is legally insufficient for levirate obligations (since halakha requires brotherhood from conception), but each man's wife becomes forbidden to the other as an eshet ach (brother’s wife), which carries karet.Case 3: Full Jewish status
Brothers in every sense. All relevant laws apply: yibbum/ḥalitza obligations, and strict prohibitions regarding incest.
Outline
Technical Background for the Sugya on Convert Twin Brothers
Basic Concepts
Halakhic Principles Involved
Three Legal Scenarios Outlined
Reasoning Behind Each Case
The Passage
The Status of Convert Twin Brothers and Their Wives in regards to levirate marriage
Their Mother was still non-Jewish even at the time of their birth
Their Mother was non-Jewish at the time of their conception, but Jewish by the time of their birth
Their Mother was Jewish already at the time of their conception
No Halakhic Patrilineage Among Non-Jews
Even if a convert's biological father is known, the child has no halakhic relationship to him
... Proof: twins who convert still do not perform ḥalitza or yibbum with each other's wives if one dies — even though they clearly share the same biological father
... God “dispossesses the male non-Jew of his offspring”
The Passage
The Status of Convert Twin Brothers and Their Wives in regards to levirate marriage
A baraita states regarding convert twin brothers:4
תא שמע:
Come and hear:
Their Mother was still non-Jewish even at the time of their birth
Convert twin brothers don’t perform ḥalitza or yibbum (levirate marriage - in case of death of one of the brothers), and no karet liability for sex with the brother's wife (=sister-in-law)
שני אחים תאומים גרים,
וכן משוחררים —
לא חולצין, ולא מייבמין,
ואין חייבין משום אשת אח
Two twin brothers who are converts,
and similarly twin brothers who are freed slaves,
do not perform ḥalitza for each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them,
and if they engage in intercourse with them they are not liable to receive karet for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife
Their Mother was non-Jewish at the time of their conception, but Jewish by the time of their birth
No ḥalitza or yibbum, but karet liability for sex with the brother's wife.
היתה
הורתן -- שלא בקדושה,
ולידתן -- בקדושה —
לא חולצין, ולא מייבמין
אבל --
חייבין משום אשת אח
If
they were not conceived in sanctity
and only their birth was in sanctity,
they do not perform ḥalitza or levirate marriage,
but
they are liable for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife.
Their Mother was Jewish already at the time of their conception
Full Jewish5 legal status: ḥalitza/yibbum, and karet liability for sex with the brother's wife.
היתה הורתן ולידתן בקדושה —
הרי הן כישראלים לכל דבריהן
[...]
If they were conceived and born in sanctity,
they are like Jews from birth in all of their matters
[...]
No Halakhic Patrilineage Among Non-Jews
Rava explains:
אמר רבא:
Rava said:
Even if a convert's biological father is known, the child has no halakhic relationship to him
When the rabbis (רבנן) said that “a non-Jew has no father”, it is not because of uncertainty due to “being steeped (שטופי) in promiscuity (זמה)”.
Even if the father’s identity is known, the child is still not halachically related to the father.
הא דאמור רבנן:
אין אב לגוי,
לא תימא משום דשטופי בזמה,
דלא ידיע,
אבל ידיע —
חיישינן,
אלא אפילו דידיע —
נמי לא חיישינן
With regard to that which the Sages 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 recognized, with regard to the prohibition of intercourse with forbidden paternal relatives and other halakhic issues.
Rather, even when it is known,
we are still not concerned.
... Proof: twins who convert still do not perform ḥalitza or yibbum with each other's wives if one dies — even though they clearly share the same biological father
Proof: Twin6 brothers who convert still do not perform ḥalitza or yibbum (on each other’s wives, in case of the death of a brother, even though they obviously biologically/genetically share a father).
דהא שני אחין תאומים,
דטפה אחת היא, ונחלקה לשתים,
וקתני סיפא:
לא חולצין ולא מייבמין
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 the same father.
... God “dispossesses the male non-Jew of his offspring”
The explanation given is that God (רחמנא) “dispossesses7 his [=the male non-Jew’s] offspring.8
Scriptural basis: Ezekiel 23:20 — the flesh and seed of non-Jews are compared to donkeys and horses.9
שמע מינה:
אפקורי אפקריה רחמנא לזרעיה,
דכתיב:
״בשר חמורים בשרם
וזרמת סוסים זרמתם״
Learn from this that
the Merciful One dispossesses the male non-Jew of his offspring,
as it is written with regard to Egyptians:
“Whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys,
and whose semen is the semen of horses” (Ezekiel 23:20),
i.e., the offspring of a male non-Jew is considered no more related to him than the offspring of donkeys and horses.
Expanding on a footnote (f.1) in my last piece: “Beyond the Mystique: Correcting Common Misconceptions About the Talmud, and Pathways to Accessibility”.
This piece addresses a controversial sugya. It gives the plain “pshat” reading, without getting into polemics or apologetics.
See also the pieces that I posted two years ago related to contemporary Ultra-Orthodox apologetics:
“Ultra-Orthodox Apologetics: Some Notes on R’ Ahron Lopianski’s Lecture Series “Da Ma Shetashiv” (Jul 13, 2023)
“The Kuzari Argument: A central claim in Ultra-Orthodox Apologetics” (Jun 26, 2023)
This piece also serves as a case study for the broader points I made in previous piece (cited in previous footnote):
Showing why many halachic sugyot are complex: legal/halachic topics; many technical terms used; highly terse/laconic style
Showing how these relatively complex halakhic Talmudic passages can be made much more accessible: by adding introductions, summaries, and headers, explaining technical terms, and formatting the material in a way that is significantly easier for readers to follow.
Somewhat related, I’ve migrated the ChavrutAI mock-up to the domain:
Screenshot of current page (the website currently only functions as a mock-up):
גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד - ger shenitgayer ke-katan shenolad dami.
The idea that a ger is a newborn (ger shenitgayer ke-katan shenolad dami) shows Judaism applying a very strong legal fiction. In Talmudic law, once someone converts, their prior family ties - biological parenthood, siblinghood, kinship - are erased for most legal purposes. There are exceptions for certain biblical prohibitions (like arayot, forbidden sexual relations), but the basic presumption is severance.
Comparatively, this is unusually extreme.
In Roman law, a freed slave (who could be seen as a sort of status-convert) gained citizenship, but blood ties were still recognized.
In early Christianity, baptism was metaphorically a 'rebirth,' but did not erase legal family relationships.
In Islamic law, conversion changes religious status, but kinship and inheritance relationships generally remain intact, unless religious difference explicitly intervenes.
In fact, the Talmud itself struggles with the implications. On the one hand, it declares the convert legally 'newborn.' On the other, it builds in ad hoc restrictions: a convert still cannot marry his biological mother or sister, because the Torah's incest prohibitions were seen as applying universally, not just to Jews.
Bottom line:
This 'newborn' idea is a pure legal construct, useful for explaining certain social and halakhic consequences (like allowing a convert to inherit within Jewish frameworks or marry other converts without concern for prior relations), but not consistently enforced across all cases.
It seems designed less as a metaphysical claim, and more as a tool to solve integration and boundary - setting problems in a society where religious status sharply defined group membership.
Compare the rigid hierarchy of “lineages” in the famous Mishnah at the beginning of the fourth chapter of tractate Kiddushin (עשרת היוחסין), I plan to return to that sugya in the future.
See an overview and discussion here of the Talmudic halachic idea of a convert as a “newborn”, along with the many contradictions and inconsistencies.
On the Talmudic phrase/formula “come and hear”, see my piece “Signposts in Sacred Text: Formulaic Terms Used in Talmud Bavli“, section “Supports and Disputes“, list item B, where I write:
Ta Shema (תא שמע = "Come and hear"):
Introduction to a [Tannaitic] source as proof or challenge
ישראלים - “Israelites”; “Israelite” is the standard term in Mishnaic Hebrew to refer to a Jew.
“same drop (טפה) [of semen]”.
Ed. Steinsaltz adds the word 'identical' here - as in 'identical twins'. While that fits modern scientific terminology for twins originating from the same sperm, it is irrelevant in this context and not something the Talmud itself indicates. In general, the Talmudic rabbis seemed to have believed that all twins come from a single drop of sperm, so “from one drop" is simply the Talmud adding its scientific explanation of how twins come about.
אפקורי.
Literally: “makes hefker”.
See Wikipedia at the hyperlink:
Hefker (Hebrew: הפקר) is ownerless property under rabbinic law”
זרעיה - literally: “his seed”.
In other words, halacha - which the Talmud, as usual, treats as interchangeable with the will of God or the Torah itself - cuts off the legal and conceptual connection between a non-Jew and his biological father.
From a halachic standpoint, paternal lineage among non-Jews is not recognized as establishing any binding legal relationship.
Biological facts are sidelined in favor of a religious-legal framework that defines kinship differently.
The biological father may exist in a physical sense, but halachically, the relationship is disregarded.
Therefore, they are not treated as having legitimate patrilineal descent in Jewish law.
The actual derivation here is unclear; meaning, how does this verse imply what the Talmud is trying to prove?
The verse in Ezekiel is poetic and degrading, meant as an insult to Egypt's perceived lewdness and animalistic behavior. It says nothing (of course) about legal parenthood or lineage.
Ed. Steinsaltz adds:
i.e., the offspring of a male non-Jew is considered no more related to him than the offspring of donkeys and horses.
What ed. Steinsaltz (and the Talmud) likely means here is as follows, with brackets added:
"i.e., the offspring of a male non-Jew is considered no more related to him than the offspring of donkeys and horses [are related to their own donkey and horse offspring]."
The idea is that, just as animals are not seen as having a legally recognized father-child relationship in Jewish law (their offspring do not inherit or establish lineage), the offspring of a non-Jewish man are similarly not tied to him in any formal halakhic sense.
The analogy compares a human father's relationship to his child with an animal father's relationship to its offspring: in both cases, Jewish law does not treat the biological connection as creating halachic obligations.
(As a side note, an animal mother does have some halakhic relevance in certain ritual cases — for example, oto ve'et beno (אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד), the ban on slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day, Leviticus 22:28 — but it’s arguable if this means that animals have “halachic motherhood”.)