Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot Chapter 1

חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּבּוּם עַד סוֹף העוֹלָם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנוֹ בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו אֲחוֹתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ. חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן כול׳. כְּתִיב מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָה. מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישָׁהּ. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל אוֹכֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְנֶאֶסְרָה קָרַב קוּמְצָהּ וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל אוֹכֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס כּוֹנֵס. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ כוֹנֵס. נִשֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וְנֶאֶסְרָה וּמֵת אָחִיו בְּלֹא בָנִים חָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס כּוֹנֵס. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ כוֹנֵס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. רִבִּי הוּנָא פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵירָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישָׁהּ. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל חָמֵץ אוֹכֵל. מַצָּה אוֹכֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס לְשֵׁם תּוֹאָר כּוֹנֵס. לְשֵׁם מָמוֹן כּוֹנֵס. נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וְנֶאֶסְרָה. מֵת אָחִיו בְּלֹא בָנִים חָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס לְשֵׁם תּוֹאָר כּוֹנֵס. לְשֵׁם מָמוֹן כּוֹנֵס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. אַתְיָא דְרִבִּי חוּנָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. דְּתַנָּא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ לְשׁוּם נוֹי אוֹ לְשׁוּם דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעִילַת זְנוּת וְקָרוֹב לִהְיוֹת הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. מַה אַבָּא שָׁאוּל כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בִיבָמָה. מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בִּיבָמָה שֶׁזִּינָת. מַה דְאָמַר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. אַתְיָא כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲלַפְתָּה. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא יִיבֶּם אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. חָמֵשׁ חֲרִישׁוֹת חָרַשׁ וְחָמֵשׁ נְטִיעוֹת נָטַע וְדֶרֶךְ סַדִּין בָּעַל. אֵילּוּ הֵן. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי מְנַחֵם בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי אֵבְדִּימוֹס בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כְּתִיב עֶרוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה. מַשְׁמַע הוּא בֵין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁהָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. בֵּין לְחַיִּים בֶּין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָנִים בִּין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָנִים. הוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. יָכוֹל לְכָל דָּבָר. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּיו. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר עֲבָדֶיךָ אַחִים אֲנַחְנוּ. מַה אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אַף אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב. יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן. הֵן בַּחַיִּים. אֲפִילוּ גֵּירְשָׁהּ וּמֶת זוּ פְטוּרָה. וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵן פְּטוּרָה. כְּתִיב כִּי אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֶל וְנִכְרָת. וַהֲלֹא אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בִּכְלָל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הַוָות וְהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. יָכוֹל אַף שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלָלָן עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. עָלֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. יִבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בַּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בַּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִן בַּר גִּידַל וְרִבִּי אָחָא הֲווּ יָתְבִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא הָדָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִן בַּר גִּידַל. אוֹ מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָחָא. הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בִּיבָמָה וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ [רִבִּי] בִּנְיָמִן בַּר גִּידַל. הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר בִּיבָמָה. ואִיקְפִּיד רִבִּי אָחָא לְקוֹבְּלֵיהּ. אַמָר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא דְרִבִּי אָחָא פַּלִּיג אֶלָּא דְהוּא מַקְפֵּד עַל לִישְׁנָא דְשָׁמַע מִן רַבֵּיהּ. מַה כְדוֹן. יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּ(שֶׁאֵינָה) יְבָמָה. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן אֲפִילוּ יְבִמְתּוֹ. אָמְרָה תוֹרָה וְאִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ לֹא תִקַּח. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הִיא. צָרָתָהּ מְנַיִין. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר לִצְרוֹר. לֹא לְצָרָתָהּ וְלֹא לְצָרַת צָרָתָהּ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת מְנַיִין. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בַּר חֲנִינָה. קַל וַחוֹמֶר. מַה אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְיוּחֶדֶת עֶרְוָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ הֲרֵי הִוא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָן לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. מַה זוֹ עֶרְוָה פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ אַף שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. קַל וַחוֹמֶר. מַה אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְיוּחֶדֶת עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. אַף כָּל עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. מַה נִפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. מָאן דָּמַר עֶרְוָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ. זוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. מָאן דָּמַר עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת הֲרֵי זֶה אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. זֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין חַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת תְּהֵא מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. רִבִּי אַיְיבוּ בַּר נַגָּרִי קְרִיסִפּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. זוֹ אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא זָרָה לוֹ. אָמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה. לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אֲפִילוּ מִצְוָה. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. יְבִמְתּוֹ יְבִמְתּוֹ. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּחֲלִיצָה. אִי יְבִמְתּוֹ יְבִמְתּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּיִיבּוּם. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מָאֵן יַבְּמִי. זוֹ שֶׁמִּיאֵן יַבְּמִי. לֹא שֶׁמֵּיאֵינוֹ שָׁמַיִם. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. הֲוֵוי צוֹרְכָה לְהֵין דְאָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. יְבִמְתּוֹ יְבִמְתּוֹ. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּחֲלִיצָה. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֶיפְשַׁר לוֹמַר קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי אַיילוֹנִית קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי אַיילוֹנִית מִטַּעַם אַחֵר הוּצֵאתָה. אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד. יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת. עַד שֶׁאַתְּ לָמֵד כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת מֵאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ לְאִיסּוּר. לְמַד כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת מֵאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לְהֵיתֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לְמֵידִין שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין מִשְּׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין. וְאֵין לְמֵידִין שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין מֵאִיסּוּר אֶחָד. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אָבוּן. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטֶל הָאִיסּוּר. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וּמַה אִית לָךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. כְּגוֹן אֵילּוּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. בִּתּוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו אֲסוּרָה לוֹ. נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו מוּתֶּרֶת לוֹ. לֵוִי בַּר סוּסַיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי. נִיתְנֵי שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. אִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ. נִיכַּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מוֹחַ בְּקָדְקֳדוֹ. וְלָמָּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וּבִמְפוּתַּת אָבִיו. וְלֹא מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם קִידְּשָׁהּ שֶׁתָּפְסוּ בָהּ קִידֻּשִׁין. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנִּינָן שֵׁשׁ עֲרָיוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת מֵאֵילּוּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נְשׂוּאוֹת לָאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כֵן. אִם יְכוֹלוֹת לְהִינָּשֵׂא לְאָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא בַעֲבֵירָה צָרוֹתֵיהֶן פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם. וּמִכּוּלָּם אֵין לָךְ אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. לָמָּה לֹא תַנִּיתָהּ. בְּגִין דְּתַנִּיתָהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה לֹא נִיתְנִינָהּ. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְנִינָהּ. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְתַנִּינָן. אֲחוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתָּהּ אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתִיַיבֶּמֶת. וְאַתְּ מִשְׁכַּח בְּכוּלְּהוֹן אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתּוֹ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. חוּץ מֵאִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. יִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַיָיה אָמַר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי. נִיתְנֵי. שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. חֲלִיצָה פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמַיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָתָהּ. בְּגִין רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בַּחֲלוּצָה. נִיתְנִינָהּ עַל דְּרַבָּנִן. לֹא אָתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא מִילִין דְּכָל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי בְהוֹן. אַתְיָיא דְּיִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַיָיא כְּרִבִּי אִמִּי. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְהָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. בֵּין הוּא וּבֵין אַחִים חַיָיבִין עַל הַצָּרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בֵּין הוּא בֵין אַחִין אֵינָן חַיָיבִין לֹא עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְלֹא עַל הַצָּרָה. רִבִּי אִימִּי מַחֲלִיף שְׁמוּעָתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְהָא רִבִּי אִימִּי מַחֲלִיף שְׁמוּעָתָא. אֶלָּא דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילוּ תֹאמַר. דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לְרִבִּי יוֹחָָנָן. דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּיִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַיָיא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי אִמִּי וּמִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן מְסַיְיעִין לְרִבִּי יָסָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי בָּא תְּרֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּצָרָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. מַה פְלִיגִין. בַּחֲלוּצָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְהָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. חֲלוּצָה פְטוֹר. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה בֵין חוֹלֵץ מַה בֵין מְגָרֵשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּחוֹלֵץ אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעָא. כְּמַה דְּאָמַר. בֵּין הוּא בֵין אַחִין אֵין חַיָיבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עַל הַצָּרָה. נִיחָא הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. שֶׁכְּבָר נִרְאֶה לִפְטוֹר בָּהּ. וְחַיָיב עַל הַצָּרָה. שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאֶה לִפְטוֹר בָּהּ. אַחִין מַה בֵּין חֲלוּצָה אֶצְלוֹ מַה בֵּין צָרָה אֶצְלוֹ. חָזַר וְאָמַר. אֵין אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ מִשֵּׁם מַה אַתְּ מְחַיְיבוֹ. אִי מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּחוֹלֵץ אִי מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּחוֹלֵץ אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁלַּמֵת. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּצָרָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. קִידֵּשׁ אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן וּבָא הַיָּבָם וְחָלַץ לָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. וּפָקְעוּ מִמֶּנָּה קִידּוּשִׁין. חָלַץ לַחֲבֵירָתָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. לְמַפְרֵיעָה חָלוּ עֲלֶיהָ קִידּוּשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. נִמְנוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וְכַמָּה זְקֵינִים. מְנַיִין שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בִּיבָמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לָהּ הֲוָיָיה אֵצֶל אַחֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָה הִיא. אוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּחֲלוֹץ לֵיךְ יַבְּמֵיךְ. אֵינֶהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְהָיָה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְקַלֶּס לָהּ. הַזָּלִים זָהָב מִכִּיס. בְּנִי אַל יַלִּיזוּ מֵעֵינֶיךָ. חֲכַם בְּנִי וְשַׂמַּח לִבִּי. תֵּן לְחָכָם וְיֶחְכַּם עוֹד. יִשְׁמַע חָכָם וְיוֹסֵף לֶקַח. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּתַר כָּל אִילֵּין קִילּוּסַיָיא יְכוֹל (הוא) אֲנָא פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בִּיבָמָה. אֶלָּא תַּמָּן יְבָמָה אַחַת וְהָכָא שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא אִיסּוּר יְבָמָה אַחַת שַׁנְיָיא הִיא אִיסּוּר שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעָא. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלִיצָה אֲבָל חַיָיב הוּא עַל הַצָּרָה. חֲלִיצָה פְּטוֹר. בִּיאָה פְּטוֹר. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר. חָלַץ לָהּ נֶאֶסְרָה לָאַחִין. וְדִכְוָותָהּ בָּא עָלֶיהָ נֶאֶסְרָה לָאַחִין. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. מֵת הָרִאשׁוֹן יְיַבֵּם הַשֵּׁינִי. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי יְיַבֵּם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה אַתְּ סָבַר. הִיא חֲלִיצָה הִיא בִּיאָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָלַץ לָהּ נֶעֶקְרָה הִימֶּינָּה זִיקַת הַמֵּת לְמַפְרֵיעָה. לְמַפְרֵיעָה חָל עָלֶיהָ אִיסּוּרוֹ שֶׁלְּמֵת אֵצֶל הָאַחִין. אֲבָל אִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. מֵת הָרִאשׁוֹן יְיַבֵּם הַשֵּׁינִי. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי יְיַבֵּם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ. נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ. גְּבַר וּבְרֵיהּ נָסְבִין תַּרְתֵּין אַחֲוָון. אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. תְּרֵין אַחִין נְסִיבִין לְתַרְתֵּין אַחֲוָון. וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אַחֲוָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר עֲבָדֶיךָ אַחִים אֲנַחְנוּ. מַה אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אַף אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן יְשִׁיבָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן יְשִׁיבָה. וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בָּהּ. מַה יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ יְרוּשָּׁה. אַף יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ יְרוּשָּׁה. רִבִּי אָבוּן בַּר בִּיסנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן דְּבֵית גּוּבְרִין. יָשְׁבוּ. אֶת שֶׁיְּשִׁיבָתָן בְּבַיִת אֶחָד. יָצְאוּ אַחִים מִן הָאֵם שֶׁזֶּה הוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיו וְזֶה הוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיו. יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה אָמַר. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. אַיילוֹנִית וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ הָיוּ בְפָרָשָׁה. מֶה חָמִית מֵימַר. אַיילוֹנִית צָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ צָרָתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַיילוֹנִית מִטַּעַם אַחֵר הוּצֵאתָה. אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד. יָצָאת זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת. לא דַיֵיךְ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתְּ מְבַקֵּשׁ לֶאֱסוֹר צָרָתָהּ. אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ עֶרְוָה הִיא וְעֵרְוָה פוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. אַסִּי אָמַר. צָרַת אַיילוֹנִית אֲסוּרָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל אַסִּי. וְכוּלָּן אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. מַה דָמַר אַסִּי כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. כֹּל שֶׁאֵין אַתְּ מְיַיבְּמֵינִי אֵין אַתְּ מְיַיבֵּם צָרָתִי. וְכַלָּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁמּוּתָּר לָאָדָם לִישָּׂא אֶת אֵשֶׁת בֶּן אָחִיו.

MISHNAH: Fifteen [categories of] women. 25:5 requires that the widow of any man who died without legitimate or illegitimate issue be married by the man’s brother. If, however, that brother is forbidden one of the deceased’s wives by the incest prohibition of Lev . 18 or the rules of Deut. 25:5–10 , she may not be married by the brother to whom she is forbidden. free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever polygamous brothers; n arbitrary. . They are the following: one’s daughter.). Legitimate children are covered by Lev . 18:17 . However, the Yerushalmi (Note 135) does not make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate daughters. Sadducees (followed by Karaites and Christians) did forbid marriage with a niece since marriage with an aunt is a biblical prohibition and they held that the incest prohibitions of Lev . 18 are gender symmetric. Pharisaic opinion is that “one does not introduce punishable offence by argument;” what is written is forbidden, what is not written is not (biblically) forbidden. , his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter. 18:10 . , his wife’s daughter and her daughter‘s daughter and her son’s daughter. 18:17 : “The genitals of a women and her daughter (including mother-in-law and wife) you may not [both] uncover, her son’s daughter (wife’s granddaughter or wife as paternal grandmother’s daughter) or her daughter’s daughter (this forbids the wife’s maternal grandmother) you may not marry to uncover her genitals; they are relatives, it is tabu.” , his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister. 18:9 ) married to a paternal halfbrother. It will be established that the levirate applies only to paternal brothers; the first marriage of the halfsister was legitimate. and his maternat aunt. 18:13 . and his wife’s sister. 18:18 . , his maternal halfbrother’s wife. 18:16 . It is assumed that the halfbrother died or divorced his wife who then married a paternal halfbrother of the man in question to whom she was not related. The earlier marriage to the maternal halfbrother forbade her permanently to the levir, the brother-in-law on the husband’s side. Since in Deut . 25 , “brother” is assumed to mean “paternal brother”, it needs some discussion in the Halakhah why in Lev . 18 “brother” may mean “maternal or paternal brother” since the usual stance is that in legal texts one word can have only one meaning. , the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family. , and his daughter-in-law. 18:15 ) except for the case that the son had died and his widow married a brother of her father-in-law unrelated to her. The prohibition of 18:15 is permanent; the earlier marriage to the son forbade her permanently to the father-in-law. . HALAKHAH: “Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives”, etc. 2(9–10); another version of 2(10) in Babli Yebamot 39b . The basis of the argument is the 12th exegetical rule of R. Ismael [Introduction to Sifra (2)]: If anything was in some set and was removed from it for another purpose, you cannot return it to that set unless the verse returns it explicitly. See Midraš Gen . rabba 85(6 ) for a formulation of 2(10) referring more directly to the rule. (For an introduction to these rules, see H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition , in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196; Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike , Methodos 1951, pp. 150–161.) What exactly was permitted, became forbidden, and is now commanded is a matter of interpretation in the next paragraphs. It is written. 6:9 , speaking of the leftovers of cereal offerings in the Tabernacle. These leftovers must be eaten by priests, in the holy precinct, and unleavened, after the prescribed rites were performed. “unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted and then forbidden, when it became permitted again should one think it returned to its prior permission? The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted and then forbidden, when she became permitted again should one think she returned to her prior permission? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment. Rebbi Yose 40a , the parallel arguments, in inverse order, are attributed to Rava, a preeminent authority. He is known sometimes to represent Yerushalmi positions, cf. צבי דוֹר, תוֹרת ארץ ישׂראל 1971. בבבל, דביר, תל אביב explains the baraita : “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat. When he dedicated it became forbidden. When the fistful. 6:8 , brought to the altar to be burned. Once the offering starts to burn, the remainder is permitted to the priests. was brought it became permitted again; should one think it returned to its prior permission? If he wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat. and Lev . ? The verse states “unleavened it must be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment to marry her whether he likes her or not. . Rebbi Huna. c . 39b) this is the opinion of Rav Isaac ben Eudaimon, a minor figure. Here also, the author R. Huna of this paragraph does not have the authority of R. Yose of the preceding paragraph. explains the baraita : “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it leavened, he eats it, unleavened, he eats it. The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her brother-in-law shall come upon her” as commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥuna follows Abba Shaul, as we have stated: “Abba Shaul says, one who brings his sister-in-law into his house because of beauty or another reason commits intercourse of prostitution and the child is close to be a bastard. 23:3 . .” Does Abba Shaul hold with Rebbi Aqiba? Since Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! What Rebbi Aqiba said refers to a sister-in-law who whored. 25:5 ) “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man” he holds that any marriage of a widow not released from levirate duty to another man is invalid and her relationship is one of whoring. A parallel, but more differentiated, statement is in the Babli 92a . . What Abba Shaul said refers to his sister-in-law. It comes like Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta since Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta contracted a levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He ploughed five times and planted five saplings and had intercourse using a bedsheet 48a ). The story contradicts Mishnah 4:4 which states that once married, the sister-in-law becomes a wife in all respects , including the husband’s duty to satisfy her sexual needs. Tosaphot (Babli Šabbat 118b) discuss the Yerushalmi versions but they read that R. Yose contracted levirate marriages with the widows of his brothers implying that he married five widows, had with each of them only the one biblically required intercourse ( Deut . 25:5 ) and then divorced them. This custom was followed by some Jewish Berber groups in the Atlas mountains to modern times. (R. Moses Margalit restricts the avoidance of direct contact to the first intercourse in fulfillment of the biblical command. R. David Fraenckel concludes that R. Yose rejects Mishnah 4:4 except that he agrees that the wife acquired in levirate can be divorced by the rules applying to any other wife.) The parallel in Babli Šabbat 118b , formulated as personal statement of R. Yose does not mention either the sheet or levirate marriage, and appears in a completely different context. . These are they: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eudaimon ben Rebbi Yose. It is written. 18:16 . : “The genitals of your brother’s wife you may not uncover.” One understands both his paternal and his maternal brothers’ wives, both the wife of a brother who lived concurrently with him or onewho did not live concurrently with him, whether he had children or did not have children. 25:5 ; among them a reference to Lev . 18:9 , where “sister” is expressly defined as at least a halfsister from any side. [A tannaitic source, Sifra Qedošim Pereq 11(8 ), restricts the meaning of “brother” in this verse to that in Deut . 25:5 . Cf. R. Abraham ben David’s commentary ad loc.] The Yerushalmi has no need for an additional argument since this paragraph is still a continuation of the first one in this Halakhah, an application of the 12th exegetical rule ( Note 13 ), only that the argument is inverted. Since we know that if something was permitted, forbidden, and permitted again, the set of second permissions must be a proper subset of that of first permissions, it is necessary that the restrictions applied to the meaning of “brother” in the second set cannot apply to the prohibition. {The Babli avoids using rules 7–13 of R. Ismael and never has systematic comparisons between arguments following R. Ismael and those following R. Aqiba.} . She became permitted, excluded from this set, by levirate. Should I think unconditionally? It is said here 25:5 . : “When brothers live together”; and it is said there. 42:13 . להלן is a Babylonism; in true Galilean style it would be תמן. The parallel argument is in Babli 17b ; because the constructive framework of the Yerushalmi is missing in the Babli, the latter has a lengthy discussion why the definition of “brother” for levirate is narrower than that for incest prohibitions. : “We, your servants, are twelve brothers.” Since the “brothers” mentioned there are paternal brothers, so the “brothers” mentioned here must be paternal brothers. . 25:5 . The parallel in the Babli, 17b , follows Sifry Deut . #288 in inferring from “together” not only to exclude the wife of a predeceased brother but also the wife of the maternal halfbrother who in a patriarchal world would not live in their clan. “Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. “And one of them died”, of those who lived. Even if he divorced her and then died? This one is exempted. “Without child”. Therefore, if he has a child she is exempted. It is written 18:29 . The verse is not quoted exactly. The argument is in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 10(10 ). A similar version in Babli 3b . : “For anyone who is acting out any of these abominations will be extirpated”. Was not the brother’s wife in the set of all incest prohibitions and was removed from this set by the levirate? Could one say that all other incest prohibitions were removed from this set by levirate? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “upon her 18:18 : “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51 . ”, “upon her ”: “her levir shall come upon her. ” Since with respect to “upon her” which was said there, the verse speaks about paternal brothers, so with respect to “upon her” which was said here 18:18 : “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51 . , the verse speaks about paternal brothers 18 can be subject to the levirate, as spelled out in the Mishnah. . Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there 18:18 : “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51 . , the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here , does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law18:18 obviously includes the prohibition of a sister-in-law who is not a brother’s wife, R. Yose ben Ḥanina’s argument seems illogical. ? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions 18:18 : “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51 . one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law to Lev. would restrict the prohibition of the sister-in-law to a brother’s widow! ! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here 18:18 : “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51 . is even about a brother’s widow 18:18 applies even to the widow of the childless brother as claimed in the Mishnah. . The Torah said 18:18 . : “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister”. Not only her, her co-wife from where? The verse says “to ‘bundle’ together”, not her co-wife nor her co-wife’s co-wife 14:25 . The duplication of consonants is taken to imply “many bundlings together”, to exclude the co-wives’ co-wives. That argument is more in the line of R. Aqiba’s teaching than the bare argument here. . Not only his wife’s sister, all other incest prohibition from where? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: A conclusion de minore ad majus . Since his wife’s sister, who is under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed, nevertheless is prohibited from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions which cannot be lifted after being imposed not much more so! Since in the first case the incest prohibition exempts the prohibited co-wife, all other incest prohibitions also exempt their co-wives. This follows Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Pereq 11(10 ); a version combining the argument with the argument excluding the co-wives in Babli 3b . Both sources are anonymous. Rebbi Ismael stated an argument de minore ad majus. Since his wife’s sister is particular being under incest prohibition for whose violation one is punished if intentional by extirpation, if in error by an obligation to bring a purification offering, and is barred from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions for whose violation one is sanctioned if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation to bring a purification offering, should be barred from the levirate. What is the difference between them? A widow for the High Priest. For him who says, a woman under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed, this one, not being permitted after being prohibited21:14 . No sanction in mentioned in this case, in contrast to violations of incest prohibitions whose punishment is detailed in Chapter 20. On the other hand, following the principle that “one ascends in holiness but does not descend”, a High Priest may become inactive but he cannot return to the status of common priest permitted to marry a widow. , should be barred from the levirate. For him who says, a woman under an incest prohibition for which one is punished if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation to bring a purification offering, is barred from the levirate, in this case since one is not sanctioned if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation of a purification offering, should be permitted for the levirate. Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari, Crispus, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “The dead man’s wife should not be outside, to a strange man 25:5 . “To be” referring to a woman means “to be married”, Deut. 24:2 . זר “strange” means “outside the clan”, cf. Num. 17:5 . This is interpreted here to mean “outside her marriage group”, e. g., the High Priest for the widow. .” That is a wife who is a stranger to him. The Torah said, she should not be his wife even in case of a commandment. That being, she should not need ḥalîṣah! Rebbi Jeremiah said: “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah 25:7 reads: “If the man does not want to take his sister-in-law, then his sister-in-law shall go to the elders at the gate and she shall say: My levir refuses to sustain his brother’s name in Israel, my levir does not agree.” The second “sister-in-law” seems unnecessary; if it were written “then she shall go” it would have the same meaning. Since we hold that no word in the Torah is unnecessary, R. Jeremiah concludes that there is a sister-in-law who goes even though the levir did not refuse but Heaven refused for him. This is the subject of the next paragraph. ! If from “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, did the Torah not increase the cases of levirate 25:7 also repeats “levir”, should there not be a levir who marries his sister-in-law even though the union otherwise would be forbidden? ? Rebbi Ismael stated #289. There, the second “levir” is used to express what R. Jeremiah concluded from the first part of the verse: “My levir does not agree,” to exclude the case that the Omnipresent does not agree. : “My levir refuses”. That is, my levir refused, not that Heaven refused for him. In that case, she should not need ḥalîṣah ! That means, the statement of Rebbi Jeremiah is needed, “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah ! Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a widow need ḥalîṣah ? He said to him, is it possible to say that her qiddushin , requires the groom to hand over to the bride an object of value (today, a gold ring) or a written promise of marriage and to declare before two witnesses that the woman is betrothed to him. From that moment on they are married as far as penal law is concerned. In antiquity, the prospective bride (who probably was in her early teens) did not prepare any trousseau. Hence, after qiddushin she was given adequate time to prepare and then was married to live with her husband in a second public ceremony, nissuïn, the execution of the ketubah document, in which the groom mortgages all his possessions and earnings for the upkeep of his wife and the care of his children, followed by the public recitation of seven benedictions (in the presence of 10 adult males). From that moment on, the couple is required to live in intimacy. Today, the two ceremonies are separated only by the reading of the ketubah and, sometimes, by a rabbi’s sermon. The period between qiddushin and nissuïn is one in which the groom is legally married, but as he is forbidden marital relations with his wife, as yet has no financial responsibility. After nissuïn, since the wife has a claim on his property enforceable in court, he receives administration of her estate. The “preliminary marriage” contracted by qiddushin , in Greek speaking communities called πρωτογαμία (cf. Demay 6, Note 19 ), can be dissolved only by a valid bill of divorce. are legally recognized (where the relationship is punished by extirpation by the Heavenly court or as a capital crime by the earthly court) are null and void. Forbidden marriages for which no particular penalties are indicated, such as marriages of priests with unsuitable women or marriages of bastards, are sinful but valid. Since the marriage of a High Priest with a widow would be valid, it is clear that a levirate union would be sinful but valid and, therefore, the widow needs ḥalîṣah. and you say she may not need ḥalîṣah ? He answered him: But qiddushin of a she-ram are legally recognized and one says that she does not need ḥalîṣah ! He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear #289, quoted in Babli 12a . Deut. 25:6 : “It shall be that the firstborn she will bear should replace the name of his dead brother”. ”, this excludes the one who cannot have children. Instead of inferring from his wife’s sister that all women under incest prohibitions remain prohibited, deduce from his brother’s wife that all women under incest prohibitions become permitted! Rebbi Mana said,one infers two prohibitions from two prohibitions but one does not infer two prohibitions from one prohibition. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun: For anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for anything not induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. What is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, e. g., those fifteen categories of women. That you should not say that his daughter is forbidden to him before she is married to his brother; once she is married to his brother she is permitted to him. Levi bar Sisi asked before Rebbi: Should we not state “sixteen women”? One’s mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother 23:1 does not forbid the unmarried mother of a son to his paternal halfbrothers. R. Jehudah disagrees but even he must hold that the prohibition of the unwed mother to the halfbrothers of her son is not severely penalized and therefore, a marriage would be legally valid. The incest prohibitions of Lev. 18 all speak of the “father’s wife”. . He said to him, it is evident that this person has no brain in his head. And why? He said to him, because of Rebbi Jehudah, because Rebbi Jehudah forbids the one who was raped or seduced by his father. Does Rebbi Jehudah not agree that if [the halfbrother] gave her qiddushin, the preliminary marriage is legally recognized? But because we have stated: “Six incest prohibitions more severe than these; because they are married to others their co-wives are free.” And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thereupon: 1:7 . In that case, the marriage is valid and the co-wives are freed as co-wives of a forbidden one. But if the “marriage” of the brother was in sin, it was in deadly sin and the marriage was not legally recognized. In that case, the brother was not married to the forbidden woman and the so-called co-wife was in fact the only wife and subject to the laws of the levirate. “If they may marry his brother without sin their co-wives are freed from ḥalîṣah and levirate.” And among all of them there is only his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. Why did we not state this? Because Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it, should we not state it? Certainly we should state it! But because we have stated: “Her sister who also is her sister-in-law either takes ḥalîṣah or accepts the levirate.” We find in all cases 9b . In the 16th case, if the raped woman married a son of the man who raped her, her sister cannot marry her son since the maternal aunt is forbidden in Lev. 18:13 . Therefore, her sister cannot be her sister-in-law in a case involving prohibited levirate. that her sister who also is her sister-in-law accepts the levirate except for his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife, she is forbidden to him and all other brothers. The majority opinion is that she is forbidden not as his brother’s wife since that prohibition was eliminated when levirate became possible but because it is written in Deut . 25:5 אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִבְנֶה אֶת־בֶּית אָחִיו which is interpreted not as “who would not build his brother’s house but as “who will not build”; if he refused once he will not build in the future. If the brother who performed ḥalîṣah nevertheless afterwards marries his sister-in-law, that marriage is recognized since no special penalties are attached to this prohibition. If he then dies childless, according to R. Simeon ben Laqish she is forbidden to any remaining brothers as wife of the first brother since for them that prohibition was never lifted. Since she is severely forbidden, the co-wife is free without ceremony. ! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah . One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah , but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah . Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife is not different from that vis-à-vis the other brothers. . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah . Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah , but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah . gives the widow the additional status of divorcee, a position endorsed by Rebbi. Samuel holds that ḥalîṣah is simply the removal of an impediment for the widow to remarry and does not create new marriage restrictions. The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing is at least rabbinically treated as a divorcee. ? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah ” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.” Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got ḥalîṣah since he was cleared to have her freely. He is guilty about the co-wife since he was never cleared to have her freely. What is the difference for one of the brothers between the woman who got ḥalîṣah and the co-wife? He turned around and said, you do not know under which head to declare him guilty, whether as wife of the one performing ḥalîṣah or wife of the deceased. Rebbi Yose said, do you think ḥalîṣah is acquisiton? But it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah ” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”. Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says that everybody agrees about the co-wife that he is guilty, if somebody from the market gave qiddushin to one of them and then the levir came and performed ḥalîṣah with her or had intercourse with her, did the qiddushin become invalid? If he performed ḥalîṣah with her companion but then had intercourse with her, were qiddushin validated retroactively? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, . 25:5 . “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with another man or simply makes them sinful like other non-incestuous forbidden unions. The editors of the Babli explicitly follow Samuel and reject the opinion of the Yerushalmi. That a transgression which is not a capital crime either before the human or the heavenly court is invalid is a very exceptional statement. . Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? 3:5 . The Mishnah enumerates situations in which consummation of the marriage is impossible at the moment but may become possible later on. If consummation of the marriage is impossible then qiddushin are impossible since they make the bride a wife for all aspects of criminal law. She becomes a wife for matters of civil law only by entering the husband’s house in nissuïn , the marriage ceremony. (R. Meїr disagrees and acknowledges inoperative qiddushin which become activated once the impediment to marriage is removed. The second question of R. Yudan must refer to R. Meїr’s position.) “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai 2:1 and a similar text in Kilaim 8:1 (p. 258). praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet. 46:6 . ,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,. 3:21 . ” “get wise, my son, and make me happy. 27:11 . ”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser. 9:9 . ,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.. 1:5 . ” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law. 25:5 ) “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man” he holds that any marriage of a widow not released from levirate duty to another man is invalid and her relationship is one of whoring. A parallel, but more differentiated, statement is in the Babli 92a . ! But there. is one sister-in-law, here are two sisters-in-law. The prohibition of a single sister-in-law is different from that of two sisters-in-law! Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but he is guilty for the co-wife, ḥalîṣah is freeing; is intercourse freeing. 25:5 . The act not only is one of binding the woman to him but also of freeing him from the incest prohibition of the brother’s wife. ? As you say, if he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate! Rebbi Yose said, what do you think? That ḥalîṣah is the same as intercourse? Once he performed ḥalîṣah , the claim of the dead is removed from her retroactively. Retroactively fell on her the prohibition of the dead man regarding the brothers. But if he had intercourse with her, she is his wife. On that did Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate . “His maternal halfsister,” married to his paternal halfbrother. “His mother’s sister,” a man and his son married two sisters. “His wife’s sister,” two brothers being married to two sisters. “His maternal halfbrother’s wife.” It mentions here brotherhood and it is said there: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers.” Since the “brothers” mentioned there are paternal brothers, so the “brothers” mentioned here must be paternal brothers. Rebbi Jonathan said, it is said here dwelling and it says there dwelling. “You will inherit and dwell there 17:13 . .” Since with “dwelling” mentioned there, inheritance is connected. so with “dwelling” mentioned here, inheritance is connected. Rebbi Abun bar Bisna in the name of Rebbi Jonathan from Bet Gubrin: “they dwell 25:5 . The argument is based on the expression “dwell together ”. Cf. Sifry Deut . #288, first paragraph. The argument is hinted at in the Babli, 17b , as a side remark. ”. Those whose dwelling is in one house. This excludes maternal halfbrothers where one goes to his own father’s house and the other one goes to his own father’s house. “Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family. . 25:5 . The parallel in the Babli, 17b , follows Sifry Deut . #288 in inferring from “together” not only to exclude the wife of a predeceased brother but also the wife of the maternal halfbrother who in a patriarchal world would not live in their clan. . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: The she-ram and the wife of his brother who did not live in his world were in the paragraph. Why do you see fit to say that the co-wife of the she-ram is permitted but the co-wife of the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is forbidden? He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children #289, quoted in Babli 12a . Deut. 25:6 : “It shall be that the firstborn she will bear should replace the name of his dead brother”. . Is it not enough that she cannot be eligible for the levirate but you also want to forbid her co-wife? But the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is under an incest prohibition and any incest prohibition frees the co-wife. Assi said, the co-wife of a she-ram is forbidden. The Mishnah disagrees with Assi: “All of these, if they died, or refused, or were divorced, or turned out to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Assi follows Rebbi Meїr since Rebbi Meїr said, in any case where you cannot take me in levirate you cannot take my co-wife. “And his daughter-in-law.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man is permitted to marry his brother’s son’s wife.

הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם. וְכוּלָּם אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֵנוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. וְאֵי אַתְּ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בַּחֲמוֹתוֹ וּבְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת אוֹ שֶׁמֵּיאֵינוּ. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְמֵאֵנֶת הִיא בְּיָבָם לַעֲקוֹר זִיקַת הַמֵּת לְהַתִּיר צָרָה לְאָבִיהָ וְכַלָּה לְחָמִיהָ. רַב וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. אֵינָהּ מְמֵאֵנֶת בְּיָבָם לַעֲקוֹר זִיקַת הַמֵּת וּלְהַתִּיר צָרָה לְאָבִיהָ וְכַלָּה לְחָמִיהָ. רַב וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים בְּבַעַל. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי לֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵיךְ וְלֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵי אָחִיךְ. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהִיא עוֹקֶרֵת. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵיפְשִׁי בְנִישּׂוּאִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי לֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵיךְ וְלֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵי אָחִיךְ. רַב וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בְנִישּׂוּאֵיךְ אֲבָל בְּנִישּׂוּאֵי אָחִיךְ רוֹצָה אֲנִי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְכוּלָּן אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ וְלֹא הִימֶּינּוּ. וְדִכְוָותָהּ מֵיאֵינוּ הִימֶּינּוּ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כֵן. אִם מֵיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ בְחַיֵי הַבַּעַל צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל צָרוֹתֵיהֶן חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְּרִבִּי מַתָּנְיָת. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁמֵּתוּ וְלֹא מֵיאֵנוּ. דְּמַתְנִיתָא. כָּל הַיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵינָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. כֵּן מַתְנִיתָא. כָּל הַיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵנָה וּמֵתָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר בְּקַיֶימֶת. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁאֵין שָׁם יָבָם אַחֵר אֶלָּא אָבִיהָ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. בִּלְבַד מִן הָאֵירוּסִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. אַף מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. בְּמַחֲזֵירָה תִנְיָנָא חָזַר בּוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי פִּינְחָס. לֹא כֵן אִלְּפָן רִבִּי. מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהִיא קְבוּעָה גַּבָּךְ כְּמַסְמֵרָא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. יֵאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עַד לֹא יַחֲזוֹר בָּהּ. אִילּוּ בִתּוֹ מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין בְּלֹא אַיילוֹנִית צָרָתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּיתּוֹסַף לָהּ אַיילוֹנִית צָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַיילוֹנִית כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּעוֹלָם. אִילּוּ שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת אַחַת אַיילוֹנִית וְאַחַת שֶׁאֵינָהּ אַיילוֹנִית וּבָא הַיָּבָם וְחָלַץ לָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. שֶׁמָּא פָטַר בַּחֲבֵרָתָהּ כְּלוּם. הֲוֵי אַיילוֹנִית כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּעוֹלָם. בִּתּוֹ. וּבִתּוֹ מְמֵאֶנֶת. וְלֹא כְנִישּׂוּאֵי תוֹרָה הִיא. אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה. רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תִּיפְתָּר בִּקְטַנָּה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ וְנִתְגָּרְשָה. שֶׁהִיא כִיתוֹמָה בְחַיֵי אָבִיהָ. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאֵין קְטַנָּה יוֹלֶדֶת. דִּלֹא כֵן תַּמְתִּין עַד שֶׁתַּגְדִיל וּתְמֵאֵן בְּבַעֲלָהּ וְתַתִּיר צָרָתָהּ לְחַתְנָהּ. כַּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מֵיאֵנָה וּבְנָהּ עַל כְּתֵיפָהּ. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. תַּנֵּי. עַד אֵימָתַי הַבַּת מְמֵאֶנֶת. עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחוֹר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁתִּתְפַּשֵּׁט הַכַּף. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. עַד שֶׁתִּתְפַּשֵּׁט הַכַּף וִיהֵא הַשָּׁחוֹר רָבָה עַל הַלָּבָן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי לָעֲזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָן. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יַסָּא. אָמַר. אֵיזְלוֹן לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ דְּאִית לֵיהּ אוּלְפָן. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אֲנָן לֵית לָן אוּלְפָן. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְצִיפּוֹרַיָיא. אַתּוּן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. וְלֵית הִיא כֵן. מַאי כְדוֹן. חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מוֹדֵיי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם נִבְעֲלָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מוֹדֵיי רִבִּי יוּדָה שֶׁאִם נִתְקַדְּשָׁה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָה יְכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָה דְאָמַר. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה מִשֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת. הָא אִם נִתְקַדְּשָׁה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת וְנִבְעֲלָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְּׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְמָאֵן. נִיחָא. עַל דַעְתִּין דַּחֲבֵרַיָּא דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. נִבְעֲלָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת. הָא אִם נִבְעֲלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְמָאֵן. וְזֶה אֵימָתַי. עִיבֵּרָה וְיָלְדָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת. וְחָיָה הִיא. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי רְדִיפָא רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. אִיתָא. עִיבֵּרָה וְיָלְדָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת הִיא וּבְנָהּ מֵתִים. מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת הִיא וּבְנָהּ חַיִים. עִיבֵּרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת וְיָלְדָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת הִיא חָיָה וּבְנָהּ מַת. מַאי כְדוֹן. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה שָׁחוֹר כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. עַל תְּנַאי קִידּוּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבָעַל. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּאָמְרֵי. בַּסִּימָנִין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דּוּ אָמַר. לִכְשֶׁיּוֹסִיף בָּהּ קִינְיָין אֶחָד. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ גְדוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. וְכֵינִי. אֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפָּרְצוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּזִימָּה. אַתְיָיא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר יִבְדְקוֹ דַדֶּיהָ. מַה. כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה שָׁחוֹר. וְהוּא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֵין בֵּין יְמוֹת הַנַּעֲרוּת לִימוֹת הַבַּגְרוּת אֶלָּא שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִים בִּלְבַד. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין עוֹשִׂין מַעֲשֶׂה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמָן. אֲבָל לְאַחַר הַזְּמַן עוֹשִׂין מַעֲשֶׂה. בְּרַם הָכָא סָפֵיק רָבָה שָׁחוֹר סָפֵק לֹא רָבָה שָׁחוֹר כּוֹפוֹ אֲנִי לִיתֵּן גֵט. רָבָה הַשָּׁחוֹר אֵינוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בַּגֵּט.

MISHNAH: All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever polygamous brothers; n arbitrary. . And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted. But you cannot say about his mother-in-law or his mother-in-law’s mother that they were found to be she-rams or that they had repudiated. HALAKHAH: “All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law is permitted to the girl’s father in case the father had lost his guardianship over the daughter (see below). She herself is permitted to her non-husband’s father. The Babli, 12a , agrees that repudiation of the levir invalidates the marriage to the dead brother but nevertheless in this case forbids the girl to the father-in-law (a Babylonian baraita ). . Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates. But we hold in case she says “I cannot stand marriage”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. But levirate cannot be tolerated since that would show that the rabbinically valid marriage is a sham. . After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died without having repudiated since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate. But levirate cannot be tolerated since that would show that the rabbinically valid marriage is a sham. .” So is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not dies, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if her father is the only levir. Rebbi Jonah said, only after qiddushin . Rebbi Yose said, even after final marriage. In the second repetition. , Rebbi Yose changed his mind. Rebbi Phineas said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us “after final marriage”? He answered him, is that fixed in you like a nail? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, did not Rebbi Yose say correctly before he changed his mind? Once a man’s daughter is married without being a she-ram, her co-wife is forbidden. If in addition she is a she-ram, does her co-wife become permitted? He said to him, the she-ram is as if non-existent. If there are two sisters-in-law, one a she-ram and one not a she-ram, if the levir comes and performs ḥalîṣah or has intercourse with the first, did he free her companion of anything? That shows that the she-ram is as if non-existent. “His daughter”. How can his daughter repudiate, is she not married by Torah standards, “my daughter I gave to this man. 22:16 . From the text it is clear that the marriage is valid in all respects. The verse implies that the father has the right to marry off his daughter, but only the Babli ( Soṭah 23b ) infers from it that the mother does not have this right, even though the Yerushalmi accepts that ruling in practice. ”? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Explain it by a minor, who was married off by her father 44b . and divorced, who is like an orphan while her father is alive. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This means that a minor cannot give birth; because otherwise she could wait until she grew up, repudiate her husband, and permit her co-wife to her son-in-law. The daughter-in-law 52a , the daughter. of Rebbi Ismael repudiated while her son was on her shoulder. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Ismael., R. Ismael is quoted to hold that no biblically invalid marriage bars the woman from walking out. It is also stated that the action of the daughter was in accordance with her deceased father’s opinion. Since according to the Yerushalmi that opinion is nowhere recorded formally, the Babli’s explanation is one of the possibilities mentioned in the paragraph after the next as R. Ismael’s. said the same. It was stated. and Tosephta Niddah 6:11 . : Until when may the daughter repudiate? Until she grows two pubic hairs 5:7–8, 6:1. , the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Judah says until the black covers most. Rebbi Simeon says until the hill of Venus expands. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Until the mons Veneris enlarges and the black be more than the white. Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah 52a , the statement is Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar and includes that of the colleagues below. . Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. A case came before Rebbi Yasa; he said, go to Rebbi Abbahu since he has learned that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah; we did not learn that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said to the Sepphoreans, you say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, but it is not so. How is it? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if she had intercourse after she grew two hairs, she cannot repudiate 52a . . Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if she received qiddushin after she grew two hairs, she cannot repudiate. According to Rebbi Ze‘ira who said “she received qiddushin after she grew two hairs”, it follows that if she received qiddushin before she grew two hairs and had intercourse after she grew two hairs, she can repudiate 46a , disagrees. . That fits. According to the colleagues who say “she had intercourse after she grew two hairs”, it follows that if she had intercourse before she grew two hairs, she can repudiate. When was it? She became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs. Could she have lived? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila 12b , rejects a similar (Galilean) statement; the Babylonian Rav Saphra declares that pregnancy is a sign of puberty. : If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Rebbi Ismael follows RebbiJehudah, until the black covers most [and] Rebbi Simeon, that intercourse occurred with the idea of the prior qiddushin . Following the opinions of Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Jehudah who say that her status depends on the signs of development, it fits. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon who says, if he adds another act of acquisition, then even if she is an adult! Rebbi Isaac said, that is so. Only that the daughters of Israel should not be unbridled in breaking tabus. There came a case before Rebbi Yose. He said: One should examine her breasts 5:7–8 explains the progress of puberty from minority to adulthood through the state called נערוּת “maidenhood” when she is an adult and legally responsible for her actions but still under the authority of her father. This paragraph identifies the beginning of maidenhood with the growing of two pubic hairs and adulthood with the covering of the mons Veneris by hair. This means that R. Meїr permits repudiation only during minority and R. Jehudah during minority and maidenhood. . How? Following Rebbi Jehudah! Since Rebbi Jehudah said, until the black covers most. Is not that what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, between maidenhood and adulthood thare are only six months 65a , this is a statement of the contemporary Babylonian Samuel. , and Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one does not act on this? This means during that period. But after that period one acts 46a , which disregards R. Jehudah’s opinion and forbids repudiation by maidens, holds that after the age of 12 full years no examination is necessary to establish the fact of maidenhood. . But in this case where there was a doubt whether the black covered most or the black did not cover most, I force him to give a bill of divorce. When the black covers most one does not touch a bill of divorce.

בְּאֵי זֶה צַד פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. הָיְתָה בִתּוֹ אוֹ אַחַת מִכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֵילּוּ נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו וְלוֹ אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת וָמֵת כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבִּתּוֹ פְּטוּרָה כָּךְ צָרָתָהּ פְּטוּרָה. הָלְכָה צָרַת בִּתּוֹ וְנִשֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו הַשֵּׁנִי וְלוֹ אִשָּׁה אֶחֶרֶת וָמֵת כְּשֵׁם שֶׁצָּרַת בִּתּוֹ פְּטוּרָה כָּךְ צָרַת צָרָתָהּ פְּטוּרָה אֲפִילוּ הֵן מֵאָה. כֵּיצַד פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. הָיְתָה בִתּוֹ אוֹ אַחַת מִכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֵילּוּ כול׳. הִיא מַתְנִיתָא כָּל הַיְּכוֹלוֹת לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵנָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת.

MISHNAH: How do they free their co-wives? If a man’s daughter or one of the incest-prohibited women was married to his brother who has another wife and dies, just as his daughter is free so her co-wife is free. If his daughter’s co-wife went and was married to a second brother who then died, just as his daughter’s co-wife is freed, so the co-wife’s co-wife is freed; even if this is repeated a hundred times. HALAKHAH: “How do they free their co-wives? If a man’s daughter or one of the incest-prohibited women,”, etc. That is the baraita: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate. But levirate cannot be tolerated since that would show that the rabbinically valid marriage is a sham. .”

בְּאֵי זֶה צַד אִם מֵתוּ הֵן צְרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. הָיְתָה בִתּוֹ אוֹ אַחַת מִכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֵילּוּ נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו וְלוֹ אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת מֵתָה בִתּוֹ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָחִיו צָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת. וְכָל הַיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵינָה וּמֵתָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. כֵּיצַד אִם מֵתוּ הֵן צְרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא כָּל הַיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵנָה וּמֵתָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת.

MISHNAH: How are their co-wives permitted if they die? If his daughter or one of the incest-prohibited women was married to his brother who has another wife, if his daughter died and then his brother died her co-wife is permitted. And if a woman could repudiate but did not do so, when she died her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate. But levirate cannot be tolerated since that would show that the rabbinically valid marriage is a sham. . HALAKHAH: “How are their co-wives permitted if they die,” etc. That is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, when she died her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate text of the preceding Halakhah which presumes the daughter to be a widow. .”

שֵׁשׁ עֲרָיוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת מֵאֵילּוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנְּשׂוּאוֹת לָאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. אִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וָאֲחוֹת אָבִיו אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו. וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. שֵׁשׁ עֲרָיוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת מֵאֵילּוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נְשׂוּאוֹת לָאֲחֵרִים כול׳. מַה אִינָּה חֲמוּרָה. הָכָא כָרֵת וְהָכָא כָרֵת. הָכָא מַמְזֵר וְהָכָא מַמְזֵר. מַהוּ חֲמוּרוֹת. שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלוֹת לְהִינָּשֶׂא לָאַחִים שֶׁלֹּא בַעֲבֵירָה. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כֵן. וְכוּלָּן אִם יְכוֹלוֹת לְהִינָּשֶׂא לָאַחִין שֶׁלֹּא בַעֲבֵירָה צָרוֹתֵיהֶן פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמַן הַיִּבּוּם. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אֵין צָרָה אֶלָּא מֵאָח בִּלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נְשׂוּאוֹת לָאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. וּתְהֵא צָרָה מִן הַשּׁוּק. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לֹא שְׁמִיעַ רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה הָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. לֹא שְׁמִיעַ לְמַתְנִיתִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נְשׂוּאוֹת לַאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. חָזַר וָמַר. אִין דִּשְׁמִיעַ. אֶלָּא כְּאִינַשׁ דִשְׁמִיעַ מִילָּה וּמַקְשֵׁי עֲלָהּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. הַבָּא עַל הַצָּרָה מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אַח. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִילּוּ אֶיפְשַׁר לְצָרָה בְּלֹא אֵשֶׁת אַח יְאוּת. אֶיפְשַׁר לְאֵשֶׁת אַח בְּלֹא צָרָה. אֵיפְשַׁר לְצָרָה בְּלֹא אֵשֶׁת אַח. וְאֵשֶׁת אָח לֹא יְבִמְתּוֹ הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ בָּנִים מֵאַחִים.

MISHNAH: Six incest prohibitions are more stringent than these since they [concern women who] must be married to others, their co-wives are permitted: A man’s mother, his father’s wife, his father’s sister, his paternal sister, his paternal aunt, and his paternal brother’s wife. HALAKHAH: “Six incest prohibitions are more stringent than these since they [concern women who] must be married to others”, etc. In what are they more stringent? Here there is extirpation, there is extirpation. Here there is bastardy, there there is bastardy. What is more stringent? That they cannot be married to the brothers without transgression. And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: For all women who may be married to the brothers without transgression, their co-wives are free from ḥalîṣah and levirate. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A co-wife is only from a brother”. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says the same: “Since they must be married to others, their co-wives are permitted.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Why can there not be a co-wife from the market place? Rebbi Yose said, did Rebbi Jeremiah not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, did he not hear our Mishnah, “since they must be married to others, their co-wives are permitted”? He turned around and said, certainly did he hear. But he is a person who hears something and questions it Qedošim Pereq 11(12 ), Babli Yebamot 8a/b . . Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If one has intercourse with a co-wife, is he guilty because of his brother’s wife 25:5–9 speaks only of one sister-in-law and one house to build. The question is, does the brother who sleeps with the excluded co-wife infringe on the prescription (regarding a single levirate) of Deut . 25 or the incest prohibition of Lev . 18 ? The problem does not appear in the Babli since it derives all prohibitions directly from Lev . 18 . ? Rebbi Yose said, if a co-wife were possible without a brother’s wife, that would be a valid question. It is possible to be a brother’s wife without a co-wife. It is impossible to be a co-wife without a brother’s wife. 18:16 . . Is the brother’s wife not his sister-in-law? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, explain it if she had children from a brother.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַתִּירִין הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין. חָלְצוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין מִן הַכְֹּהוּנָּה וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. נִתְיַיבְּמוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַכְשִׁירִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל פּוֹסְלִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ אוֹסְרִין וְאֵלּוּ מַתִּירִין אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַכְשִׁירִן לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּישָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל וְלֹא בֵית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי. כָּל הַטְּהָרוֹת וְהַטּוּמְאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אֵילּוּ מְטַהֲרִין וְאֵילּוּ מְטַמְּאִין לֹא נִמְנְעוּ עוֹשִׂין טְהָרוֹת אֵילּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי אֵילּוּ. בֵּית שַׁמַּי מַתִּירִין אֶת הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִין כול׳. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם נְהוֹרַיי. טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. הַחִיצוֹנָה לֹא תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר. אַתְיָיא דְבֵית שַׁמַּי כְּאִילֵּין כּוּתַיָיא שֶׁהֵן מְיַיבְּמִין אֶת הָאֲרוּסוֹת וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַנְּשׂוּאוֹת. דְּאִינוּן דָּרְשִׁין. חוּצָה הַחִיצוֹנָה. מַה מְקַיְימִין בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמַיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ מִן הַנְּשׂוּאָה. הַחִיצוֹנָה לא תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא יְחַסְּדוּנָךְ כּוּתָאֵי דְאַתְּ מְקַיֵים דְּרָשֵׁיהוֹן. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. נוֹמֵיתִי לְסוֹפְרֵי כּוּתִים. מִי גָרַם לָכֶם לִטְעוֹת. דְּלֵית אַתּוּן דָּרְשִׁין כְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. דְּתַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לַמֵּ״ד מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְלֹא נִיתָּן לוֹ. נִיתֵּן לוֹ הֵ״א בְסוֹפוֹ. כְּגוֹן לַחוּץ חוּצָה. לִשְׂעִיר שְׂעִירָה. לְסוּכּוֹת סוּכּוֹתָה. מְתִיבִין לְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. וְהָא כְתִיב יָשׁוּבוּ רְשָׁעִים לִשְׁאוֹלָה. אָמַר רָבָא בַּר זַבְדָּא. לְדִיַיטֵי הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁלִּשְׁאוֹל. תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. רְאֵה הֵיאַךְ הֲלָכָה זוֹ רוֹוָחַת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. אִם לְקַיֵים דִּבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִדִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אִם לְקַיֵים דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִדִּבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי. בּוֹאוּ וּנְתַקֵּן שֶׁיְּהוּ הַצָּרוֹת חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. תַּנֵּי. לֹא הִסְפִּיקוּ לְהַתְקִין עַד שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה הַשָּׁעָה. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְאִם כֵּן מַה נַעֲשֶׂה לְצָרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּישְּׂאוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּצָרוֹת מוֹדִין הָיוּ שֶׁאֵין הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. שֶׁאֵין מַמְזֵר אֶלָּא מֵאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה וְחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ כָרֵת. אָמַר רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. תָּאֵב אֲנִי שֶׁיְּהֵא לִי צָרַת הַבַּת שֶׁאַשִּׂיאֵהָ לִכְהוּנָּה. שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. בְּנֵי צָרַת הַבַּת מַה הֵן. אָמַר לָהֶן. הֲרֵי אַתֶּם מַכְנִיסִין אֶת רֹאשִׁי בֵּין שְׁנֵי הֶהָרִים הַגְּבוֹהִים בֵּין דִּבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי וּבֵין דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּרִיצוּ אֶת מוֹחִי. אֲבָל מֵעִיד אֲנִי עַל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית עֲנוּבַיי מִבֵּית צְבוֹעִים וְעַל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית נְקִיפַי מִבֵּית קוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי צָרוֹת. וְהָיוּ בְּנֵי בְנֵיהֶם כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים עוֹמְדִין וּמַקְרִיבִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ זְקֵינִים אֵצֶל רִבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הֻרְכֵּינֹס לִשְׁאוֹל לוֹ עַל צָרַת הַבַּת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁאַתְּ מַתִּיר בְּצָרוֹת. אַמָר לוֹן. מַה שְׁמַעְתּוֹן. דוֹסָא בֶּן הֻרְכֵּינֹס. אָמְרוּ לוֹ בֶּן הֻרְכֵּינֹס. אָמַר לוֹן יוֹנָתָן אָחִי הֲוָה בְּכוֹר שָׂטָן הֲוָה וּמִתַּלְמִידֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי. הִיזָּהֵרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת תְּשׁוּבוֹת יֶשׁ לוֹ עַל צָרַת הַבַּת. אָזְלוֹן לְגַבֵּיהּ. שָׁלַח וְכָתַב לֵיהּ. הִיזָּהֵר שֶׁחַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִכְנָסִין אֶצְלָךְ. עָלוֹן וְיָתִיב לְהוֹ קוֹמוֹי. הֲוָה מַסְבִּיר לְהוֹן וְלָא סָבְרִין. מִיסְבַּר לְהוֹן וְלָא סָבְרִין. שַׁרְיָין מִתְנַמְנְמִין. אָמַר לָהֶן. מַה אַתּוּן מִתְנַמְנְמִין. שָׁרֵי מִישְׁדֵּי עֲלֵיהוֹן צְרִירִין. וְאִית דָּמְרִין. בְּחַד תְּרַע עָלוֹן וּבִתְלָתָא נָפְקִין. שָׁלַח אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה שָׁלַחְתָּ לִי בְּנֵי נַשׁ בָּעוֹ מֵילַף. וְאָמַרְתָּ לִי. אִינּוּן חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָתוֹ לְגַבֵּיהּ אָמְרוּן לֵיהּ. אַתְּ מַה אַתְּ אָמַר. אָמַר לָהֶן. עַל הַמְּדוֹכָה הַזֹּאת יָשַׁב חַגַּי הַנָּבִיא וְהֵעִיד שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים. עַל צָרַת הַבַּת שֶׁתִּינָּשֵׂא לִכְהוּנָּה. וְעַל עֲמוֹן וּמוֹאָב שֶׁהֵן מְעַשְּׁרִין מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. וְעַל גֵּירֵי תַּדְמוֹר אָמַר שֶׁהֵן כְּשֵׁירִין לָבוֹא בַקָּהָל. תָּלוֹן עֵינַיי דְנֵיחְמֵי לְחַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. רָאָה אֶת רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְקָרָא עָלָיו אֶת מִי יוֹרֶה דֵיעָה. זָכוּר אֲנִי שֶׁהָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מוֹלֶכֶת עֲרִיסָתוֹ לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּתְדַּבְּקוּ אָזְנָיו בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אֶת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. וְקָרָא עָלָיו כְּפִירִים רָשׁוּ וְרָעֵבוּ. מַכִּירוֹ אֲנִי שֶׁאָדָם גִיבּוֹר בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא. רָאָה אֶת רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. וְקָרָא עָלָיו נַעַר הָיִיתִי גַם זָקַנְתִּי. מַכִּירוֹ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא דוֹר עֲשִׂירִי לְעֶזְרָא. וְעָינוֹי דָמְיָין לְדִידֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה דְצִיפּוֹרִין. אַף רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן הֲוָה עִמָּהֶן וְקָרָא עָלָיו כְּהָדָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. רַב נַחמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר. מְקַבְּלִין גֵּרִים מִן הַקַּרְדּוּיִין וּמִן הַתַּדְמוֹרִיים. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן שֶׁגֵּירֵי תַדְמוֹר כְּשֵׁירִין. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן כָּל הַכְּתָמִין הַבָּאִין מֵרֶקֶם טְהוֹרִין. הָא גֵירֵי תַדְמוֹר כְּשֵׁירִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר שְׁמוּעָתָא. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי חַד מַכְשִׁיר וְחַד מְקַבֵּל. מָאן דְּמַכְשִׁיר מְקַבֵּל. וּמָאן דְּמְקַבֵּל לֹא מַכְשִׁיר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. אבל לְיוּחֲסִין עַד נָהָר זרוק. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל חַד אָמַר עַד נָהָר זְרוֹק. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. עַד נָהָר וָואנִיי. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר. בֵּין הַנְּהָרוֹת כְּגוֹלָה לְיוּחֲסִין. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּרוֹקָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. בְּנֵי מֵישָׁא לֹא חָשׁוּ לָהוּ אֶלָּא מִשֵׁם סָפֵק חֲלָלוֹת. וְכֹהֲנִים שֶׁשָּׁם לֹא הִקְפִּידוּ עַל הַגְּרוּשׁוֹת. תַּמָּן קַרְיָין לְמֵישָׁא מֵתָה. לְמָדַי חוֹלָה. עֵילָם וגוובאי גוֹסְסוֹת. חֶבֶל יָמָא תְכִילְתָא דְבָבֵל. שניות עוונייא וגווכייא וצוצרייה תְכִילְתָא דְחֶבֶיל יָמָא. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּצָרוֹת וּבָאֲחָיוֹת וּבְגֵט יָשָׁן וּבִסְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וּבִמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְהַמְּגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְּפוֹנְדָקִי. וְהָאִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּדֵינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דֵינָר. לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי מִלִּישָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל וְלֹא בֵּית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אֶלָּא נוֹהֲגִין בֶּאֱמֶת וּבְשָׁלוֹם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֵהָבוּ. מַמְזֵירוּת בֵּנְתַיִים וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. קִידֵּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְהַשֵּׁינִי בְדֵינָר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי מְקוּדֶשֶׁת לַשֵּׁינַי וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבֵית הִלֵּל מְקוּדֶשֶׁת לָרִאשׁוֹן וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מַן הַשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹדִין בֵּית שַׁמַּי לְבֵית הִלֵּל לְחוֹמָרִין. מֵעַתָּה בֵּית שַׁמַּי יִשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל דְּאִינּוּן מוֹדֵיי לְהוֹן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל לֹא יִשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים מִבֵּית שַׁמַּי דְּלֵית אִינּוּן מוֹדֵיי לְהוֹן. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ כַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין. אִם כַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בְּדָא תַנִּינָן. שָׁלְחוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּפְחָתוּהָ. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. עַד שֶׁיִּפָּחוֹת אֶת רוּבָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָא מַעֲשֶׂה אֵצֶל בֵּית הִלֵּל הָיוּ בֵית שַׁמַּי נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. מִשֶׁבָּא מַעֲשֶׂה אֵצֶל בֵּית הִלֵּל לֹא הָיוּ בֵית שַׁמַּי נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּמָרִי. יְאוּת. מַה תַנִּינָן. טִימְּאוּ טָהֳרוֹת לְמַפְרֵעַ. לֹא מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר. אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ כַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין. וְחַד אָמַר. אֵילּוּ כְהִילְכָתָן וְאֵילּוּ כְהִילְכָתָן. מַמְזֵרֻת בֵּנְתַיִים וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. הַמָּקוֹם מְשַׁמֵּר וְלֹא אוּרָע מַעֲשֶׂה מֵעוֹלָם. כְּהָדָא דְתַנִּי. כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ לִנְהוֹג כְּחוּמְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי וּכְחוּמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל עַל זֶה נֶאֱמָר וְהַכְּסִיל בָּחוֹשֶׁךְ הוֹלֵךְ. כְּקוּלֵּי אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ נִקְרָא רָשָׁע. אֶלָּא אוֹ כְדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי כְקוּלֵּיהֶם וּכְחוּמְרֵיהֶן אוֹ כְדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל כְקוּלֵּיהֶם וּכְחוּמְרֵיהֶן. הָדָא דְתֵימַר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל. אֲבָל מִשֶׁיָּצָאת בַּת קוֹל לְעוֹלָם הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. וְכָל הָעוֹבֵר עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל חַיָיב מִיתָה. תַּנִי. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה. אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ דִבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִים הֵם אֲבָל הֲלָכָה כְבֵית הִלֵּל לְעוֹלָם. בְּאֵיכָן יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל. רַב בֵּיבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּיַבְנֶה יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers, but the House of Hillel forbid. If they took ḥalîṣah , the House of Shammai disqualify them for the priesthood. 21:7 ) and ḥalîṣah is the equivalent of a divorce ( Mishnah 2:4 ). but the House of Hillel declare them qualified. 21:7 prohibits the marriage of a Cohen with “a woman divorced from her husband”, but not a woman divorced from a non-husband. . If they entered levirate, the House of Shammai declare them qualified but the House of Hillel as disqualified. Even though these forbid and those permit, these declare disqualified and those qualified, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel nor the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai. Regarding all purities and impurities which these were declaring as pure and those as impure, these did not refrain to process pure foods with the help of those. HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers,” etc. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name ofNehorai: The reason of the House of Shammai, “the outside wife of the deceased shall not belong to a strange man 25:5 . The verse reads לֹא־תִהְיָה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. In the masoretic text, הַחוּצָה is adverbial לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר and therefore is stressed on the penultimate syllable. The House of Shammai read an unlikely adjective לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. Following masoretic grammar, הַחוּצָה then should be stressed on the last syllable. As E. Y. Kutscher has shown in his study of the Isaiah scroll, one may assume that in the last century of the Jewish state the stress was penultimate irrespective of meaning. Therefore, in Mishnaic times there may not have been an audible difference between the two versions. The House of Shammai would translate: “The deceased man’s wife who is outside [the family of the levir] shall not be to a strange man,” implying that only the widow who already belongs to the levir’s family is free from the obligations of the levirate. The argument is quoted in the Babli, 13b . ,” the “outer one” should not be another man’s. It turns out that the House of Shammai hold like those Samaritans who perform levirate with the betrothed but remove the married, for they explain “outside” as “the outer one but not yet finally married, she is not yet part of the family. This interpretation avoids any appearance of conflict between Lev . 18:16 , declaring relations with the brother’s wife incestuous, and Deut . 25:5 , requiring marriage to the brother’s wife. In rabbinic Hebrew, ארוסה “the betrothed one”, is a seldom used synonym of מקודשת “who had received qiddushin ”. .” How do the House of Shammai confirm “when he has no child. 25:5 . You do not expect a man to have a child before marriage. ”? Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, “when he has no child” from the married one, “the outer one shall not belong outside to a strange man.. 25:5 and Lev . 18:16 . The practice of the Samaritans is confirmed in the Babli, Qiddušin 75b–76a . ” He said to him, will not the Samaritans love you that you confirm their interpretations! Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: I told the learned Samaritans, what did cause you to err? That you did not explain following Rebbi Neḥemiah, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: Anything which needs a ל as a prefix but did not get it, we give it a ה at the end, e. g., to the outside חוּצָה, to Se‘ir. 33:16 . שְׂעִירָה, to Succoth. 33:17 . סוּכּוֹתָה. They objected to Rebbi Neḥemiah, is it not written: “The wicked shall return to the pit לִשְׁאוֹלָה. 9:18 ; one of the two signs of direction is superfluous. .” Rabba bar Zabda said, to the lowest living space in Sheol. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, look how this practice is widespread in Israel! If one upholds the words of the House of Shammai, the child is a bastard following the words of the House of Hillel. If one upholds the words of the House of Hillel, the child is a bastard. 25:5 , which only R. Aqiba declares to result in bastards. The baraita of the Yerushalmi must come from R. Aqiba’s school and cannot represent practice. following the words of the House of Shammai. Come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah but not be admitted to levirate would let the co-wife marry outside the family for the House of Shammai and be ineffective for the House of Hillel. . It was stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if it were so, what would one have done with the earlier co-wives who married? Rebbi Eleazar said, even though the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai disagreed about co-wives, they agree that the child is not a bastard, since a bastard is only from a woman which is forbidden to [a man] by an incest prohibition and one is subject to extirpation for [sinning with] her. Rebbi Tarphon said, I would love to have a daughter’s co-wife to marry her into priesthood. They asked Rebbi Joshua, what are children of a daughter’s co-wife? He said to them, you bring my head between two large mountains, between the words of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel, that they should smash my brain. But I testify about the family ‘Anubai from Bet Ṣeba‘im and the family Neqipai from Bet Meqošeš 11:34 as settled by the returnees from the tribe ofBenjamin; cf. B. Z. Luria, ערי הכהנים בימי בית שני, HUCA 44 (1973) א-יח. that they were sons of co-wives and their grandchildren were High Priests officiating on top of the altar. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that the Sages visited Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos to ask him about the daughter’s co-wife. They said to him, are you the one who permits co-wives? He said to them, what did you hear? Dosa ben Hyrkanos? They said to him, ben Hyrkanos. He said to them, my brother Jonathan is exceedingly sharpminded and of the students of the House of Shammai. Be careful with him, he has three hundred arguments about the daughter’s co-wife. They went to him. He sent and wrote to him, be careful because the Sages of Israel will visit you. They came and he placed them before him. He lectured but they did not understand, repeatedly. They started to get drowsy. He said to them, why are you getting drowsy? He started pelting them with pebbles. But some people said, they entered in one door and left in three. He sent to say to him, why did you send to me, the people want to learn and you said to me, these are the Sages of Israel? They came to him and said to him, what do you say in the matter? He said, on this stone sat the prophet Ḥaggai and testified to three things: On the daughter’s co-wife that she can be married into priesthood, on Ammon and Moab that they tithe for the poor in a Sabbatical year 3:3 . , and on proselytes of Palmyra that they are acceptable to marry into the congregation. He said, lift my eyelids so I can see the Sages of Israel. He saw Rebbi Joshua and said to him: “To whom will one teach knowledge 28:9 . “To whom will one teach knowledge, to whom impart understanding, to those weaned from milk, removed from the breasts.” This determines the start of school for outstanding scholars at age 2. As usual, the part of the verse not quoted is the one intended. ?” I remember that his mother brought his crib to the Synagogue that his ears should cling to the words of the Torah. [He saw] Rebbi Aqiba, and said to him: “Lion cubs will be poor and hungry 34:11 : “Lion cubs will be poor and hungry, but those who seek the Lord will not lack any good thing.” R. Aqiba at the outset was an ignorant seeker of the Lord. .” I know of him that he is a man strong in Torah. He saw Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and said to him: “I was a youth but became an elder 37:25 . A pun is intended; זָקַנְתִּי “I grew old” is turned into “I was appointed as an elder” at age 16, cf. Berakhot 4:1, Note 118 . .” I know of him that he is the tenth generation from Ezra and their eyes are similar. Rebbi Ḥanina from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Tarphon also was with them and he addressed him as he did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. 16a/b , Niddah 56b . Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, one accepts proselytes from Kurds and Palmyrenians. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A Mishnah said that the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable. There, we have stated 7:6, 56b. If a stain is found on a garment, it might be from menstrual blood and therefore would be impure. As a precaution, any stain on a garment from Jewish sources is considered impure. Gentiles are unable to be impure in biblical law; their impurity is only rabbinical. Considering stains of Gentile origin to be impure would be superimposing one rabbinical decree over another, which is inadmissible. : “All stains coming from Petra are pure.” Therefore One has to admit the version, tentatively offered in the Babli, “from Petra and Palmyra”. This would either clear the inhabitants of Palmyra from any suspicion of Jewishness (Rashi’s opinion) or make it clear that the descendents of Jewish mothers were raised as Jews but that a Jewish woman would not give away an unwashed cloth (opinion of Tosaphot, R. Elieser from Tuchheim). Therefore, even following Tosaphot, a proselyte will never be a bastard. , the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable. Text of the parallel Qiddušin 4:1 : 71b . The origin of the paragraph is in Qiddušin, the readings of the parallel from there seem to be slightly better. Since the canals of Antiquity all decayed after the Arab conquest, the names cannot be reconstructed. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Naḥman bar Jacob: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the zrvq canal. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said up to the zrvq canal, the other said up to the Wani canal. Rav Jehudah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Jehudah: The people of Mesene are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women. The Cohanim amongst them did not care about divorcees. There Neubauer ( La Géographie du Talmud, Paris 1868, p. 325) thinks that the pun about Media connects the name of Media with the root דוה “to be unwell”. , they called Mesene dead, Media sick, Elam and gbby dying. The maritime district is the purple-blue of Babylonia. Šny’ , gbby’, and ṣrry 72b , שוניא גוביא, ציצורא. are purple-blue of the maritime district. “Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce 8:8 calls “he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry.” , and a woman doubtfully married, and one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, 1:1 . In qiddushin, the man has to give the woman something of value to make the act legally binding. The value according to the House of Hillel must be at least a peruṭah, the smallest copper coin in Hasmonean times, long out of circulation in Mishnaic times. The House of Shammai require a denar, the larger Roman silver coin in the early Empire. i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said 8:19 . : ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction of the second are invalid, the woman remains permitted to the first, but for the House of Shammai the court would have to force the second to write a bill of divorce. . In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated 4:5. If there is a trough in a rock too small to be a miqweh (40 seah ), one may drill holes in the rock to lead the water to a miqweh. The House of Hillel require that the hole be slightly more than 2 fingers in diameter; the House of Shammai require that most of the bottom be removed. In a case in Jerusalem known as “trough of Jehu”, the House of Shammai actually did enlarge the hole even though practice should follow the House of Hillel. : “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened. In this matter, it was stated 2:3 , Yebamot 1:13, Idiut 2:3. Babli Eruvin 6b , Roš Haššanah 14b , Ḥulin 43b . : “About anybody who wants to take upon himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said 2:14 . : ‘The silly one walks in darkness’. The leniencies of both of them, he is called wicked. Only either following the words of the House of Shammai in their leniencies and stringencies, or following the words of the House of Hillel in their leniencies and stringencies.” That is, before there came the disembodied voice. But after the disembodied voice was heard, “practice follows the House of Hillel forever 2:3 , Yebamot 1:13, Idiut 2:3. Babli Eruvin 6b , Roš Haššanah 14b , Ḥulin 43b . .” And any who transgresses the words of the House of Hillel is deserving of death 1:7 . . It was stated: There came the disembodied voice and said: Both of them are the words of the Living God, but practice follows the House of Hillel forever. Where was the disembodied voice heard? Rav Bebai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh.