MISHNAH: If somebody comes to his sister-in-law, whether in error, or criminally, or under duress, or willingly, even if he is in error and she acts criminally, or he does it criminally but she is in error, or he is under duress but she is not, or she is under duress but he is not, whether he touched or completed, he acquired her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody comes to his sister-in-law,” etc. We have stated: “Even if he is in error and she acts criminally, or he does it criminally but she is in error.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Even if both act in error, even if both act criminally. They wanted to say, a hearing person who is competent acquires both if he has the intention and if he does not have the intention but the deaf-mute, who is not competent, should acquire only if he has the intention. It was found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Both the deaf-mute and the insane who copulated acquired [the widow] and freed the co-wives. 25:5 requires only that “the levir should come upon her” for valid levirate. Marriage needs the intentional participation of both partners. Therefore the mentally incompetent cannot marry by biblical standards. But levirate of a mentally incompetent person is marriage by biblical standards. .
. 25:5 is also in the Babli, 54a , in a different formulation. “Her levir shall come upon her”, when he is aware of it. “And take her as a wife for himself”, when he is not aware of it. “And take her in levirate”, even against his will. “Her levir shall come upon her”, when she is aware of it. “And take her as a wife for himself”, when she is not aware of it. “And take her in levirate”, even against her will. “Her levir shall come upon her”, in the usual way. “And take her as a wife for himself”, not in the usual way. “And take her in levirate”, even from the side her” is not to be taken to mean that the act is only valid if the levir actually lies on top of the woman. . “Her levir shall come upon her”, in a completed intercourse. “And take her as a wife for himself”, in incomplete intercourse. “And take her in levirate”, even if only touching.
What is touching? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That the finger should be seen between the lips. Rebbi Joḥanan said, until the gland enters. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When the gland has entered that is completion of intercourse. What are we dealing with? If about incest prohibitions, He made the one who touches equal to him who finishes. 20:18–19 . . If for a bound slave girl. 19:20–22 . The quasi adultery of a man with a slave girl which was somehow betrothed before she was manumitted is punishable only if there was ejaculation. {Tosaphot, Babli 55b, s. v . אינו, interprets the Babli as making the intercourse punishable in the moment an ejaculation leading to a pregnancy was possible even if none actually occured. It is impossible to read this into the text of the Yerushalmi.} , until he ejaculates, since Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, said in the name of Rav: “Flow of semen”, until he ejaculates. But we must deal with a widow for the High Priest. When he touched her, he became guilty for desecrating her. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because “he shall not desecrate his semen in his people.. 21:15 . Since the three sins are committed at three different times, he can be indicted and punished for three different crimes without any question of competition of laws. In the Babli, Qiddushin 78a , it is noted that the language of Lev . 21:14 implies that he can be punished for the second offense only if he actually had married the widow. ”
There 5:1. In the Babli, Niddah 41b , the names between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish are switched. , we have stated: “All women become impure in the outer cavity.” What is the outer cavity? Rebbi Joḥanan said, up to the place which is seen when girls sit down to urinate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him, but in all impurities particular to her, she becomes impure only up to the place of teeth 5 is lost; in the Babli, Rav Jehudah defined the “teeth” as the place reached by the male organ during intercourse. That place is defined as being open to the outer world since Lev . 15:18 decrees that semen causes impurity in the body of the woman. . Rebbi Zakkai stated: Up to the place of teeth, and from between the teeth to the inside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: The entire genitals are called “outer cavity”.
“He acquired her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.” What did he acquire? Samuel said, he acquired only the things spelled out in the paragraph: To inherit the deceased’s property, (to be betrothed by a brother)), and is quoted as לאוסרה לאחיו “to forbid her to his brothers” in Arukh, s. v. דבר א׳. One may assume that a compilor of a dictionary is more careful in his quotes than any other medieval author. , and to permit her co-wife to the outside. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired everything. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, when do they disagree? If he touched her. But if he completed the intercourse, everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when do they disagree? If he had intercourse with her still in her father’s house. But if he had intercourse with her still in her husband’s house, everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said: If he married her, she is his wife in every respect.
May she eat heave. 22:11 ). In the Babli, 56a , the position of R. Joḥanan is again represented by Rav. ? Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: It is reasonable that she should eat if she was eating during her husband’s lifetime; otherwise she may not eat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats even if she did not eat before. Rebbi Yose said, even if she was only able to eat, the Israel bride should be able to eat the Cohen’s food after betrothal. In praxi she is not allowed to use that food until she enters the Cohen’s household where everything is organized to vouchsafe the holiness of the sanctified food. R. Yose clarifies the position of R. Joḥanan; he is not a third party in the disagreement. . There is a baraita in support of either one. There is a baraita supporting Samuel: A hearing of a deaf-mute person are invalid since he has no standing in law. His marriage by cohabitation is valid but it is not an acquisition in the legal sense. Therefore, his wife cannot eat sanctified food under the terms of Lev . 22:11 . daughter of an Israel who married a deaf-mute Cohen does not eat heave. If he died and she came before the levir, if he is hearing to fulfill the conditions of Deut . 25:5 . This supports the position of Samuel that the consequences of unintended intercourse are very limited. , she eats, deaf-mute does not eat. There is a baraita supporting Rebbi Joḥanan: A hearing daughter of an Israel who became engaged to a hearing Cohen, who did not manage to bring her to the bridal chamber before he became deaf-mute or before she became deaf-mute, does not eat heave. If he died and she came before a levir she eats even if he is deaf-mute. 25:5 nevertheless decrees that the widow become the wife of the deaf-mute, it cannot make a distinction between intentional and unintentional intercourse. The Babli agrees that Samuel cannot explain this Tosephta (but its terminology implies that this is no reason for him to change his mind.) . In this He increased the power of the levir over that of the husband since the deaf-mute levir enables her to eat, but the deaf-mute husband does not enable her to eat.
MISHNAH: Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women specified in the Torah, or of the disqualified ones, [i. e.,] a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah for a private Cohen, a bastard or Gibeonite female for an Israel, or an Israel woman for a male bastard or Gibeonite, disqualified her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse. 21:7 . Any infraction of the “holiness prohibitions” ( Mishnah 2:4 ) desecrates the woman; the others formally make her a prostitute.} .
HALAKHAH: “Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women,” etc. “He should not take a widow. 21:14 . .” Even if under duress? The verse says, “he shall not desecrate his seed in his people.” Even if he touched? The verse does not say לא יחול but לא יחלל, even under duress; לא יחול but לא יחלל, even by touching. So far following Rebbi Aqiba or polel verb an extension of an original ayin waw or ayin yod form. {The reading of ms. A is preferable since a חיל form of חלל is used in Lev . 21:4 .} On the one hand, “to take” means “to marry”. On the other hand, the use of the pillel in v. 15 means an extension of the framework. This is taken as authorization of the judicial establishment to extend the range of the acts prohibited. . Following Rebbi Ismael (2)]: The technical meaning of a word does not change from topic to topic. ? Rebbi Ismael stated: It says here. 21:14 , are formulated as prohibitions to “take” certain women. “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to incest prohibitions. 18:17–18 . . Since regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is a bastard, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as a bastard. Rebbi Yosa said, for which purpose was “desecrated” written? Is not bastard worse than desecrated? Rebbi Abun bar Bisna came in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal. It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to the woman waiting for the levir. Since regarding “taking” referring to the one waiting for the levir He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is acceptable, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as acceptable, since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said: When he touched, he became guilty because of the desecrated one. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because of desecrating. 21:15 . Since the three sins are committed at three different times, he can be indicted and punished for three different crimes without any question of competition of laws. In the Babli, Qiddushin 78a , it is noted that the language of Lev . 21:14 implies that he can be punished for the second offense only if he actually had married the widow. .
MISHNAH: A widow betrothed to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah to a private Cohen are not permitted to eat heave; Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon declare them able. When they were widowed or divorced, after marriage they are disabled, after betrothal they are enabled.
HALAKHAH: “A widow to the High Priest,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “Being” is mentioned here. 21:7 : “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if a girl will be betrothed to a man. 22:23 , a shortened quote. .” Just as “being” there means betrothal, so “being” here means betrothal. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon? “Being” is mentioned here. 21:7 : “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s. 22:12 . ”. Just as “being” there means marriage, so “being” here means marriage. Rebbi Yosa said, from where do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon know that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave? Not from that verse, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”? Here they make it betrothal, there they make it marriage! What is the reason of the rabbis? “A man’s”, the man who enables to eat5(7 ): “ ‘If the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s’, this includes not only a bastard, from where even to a Levi or an Israel? The verse says, ‘an outside man’s’. From where a widow to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah to a private Cohen? The verse says ‘a man’s’, a man’s who enables to eat.” The rather cryptic argument here and in Sifra makes reference to the rule ( Mishnah 7:3 ) that only a man can enable a (non-priestly) woman to eat heave, not a fetus. An Israel woman married to a Cohen eats heave as long as her husband is alive or after his death if she has children, but not if she is the pregnant widow of an otherwise childless man. She will only regain her status as member of the priestly clan after she has given birth. This explains the emphasis of the verse which is formulated לאיש זר and not simply לזר. For the rabbis, the entire verse refers to betrothal. . Is it not an argument de minore ad majus 5(8 ). The Babli, 56b , tries an equally invalid argument. ? Since an Israel, whose intercourse does not disable her from the priesthood, by intercourse will disable her from eating heave, the High Priest, whose intercourse does disable her from the priesthood, it should be logical that his intercourse will disable her from eating heave. No. If you argue about an Israel who cannot enable others to eat, what can you say about the High Priest who can enable others to eat? Since he can enable others to eat, his intercourse should not disable her from eating heave. The argument de minore ad majus is broken, and one has to return to the verse. Therefore, it must say “a man’s”; viz ., the man who enables her to eat. : מַה טַעֲמָא לֹא אָֽמְרוּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִישּׂוּאִין פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִלּוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לוֹכַל אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא אִם לֹא יְדָעָהּ מִשּׁוּם מַה נַעֲשֶׂה פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הֲרֵי יֹאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. הָדָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲכִיל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין פְּסוּלוֹת. לֹא נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין .מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין כְּשֵׁירוֹת. What is the reason that Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon did not say that marriage disables them from eating heave? What do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon in this case? Because he may eat or because he is not fit to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her why his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he enables to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only from marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled. The text is seen to be corrupt. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following. 23:2 ), if they are Cohanim their intercourse desecrates. They themselves are also barred from eating sanctified food. If they were healthy when they married, their wives retain their priestly status even if the priest who brought them into the priesthood loses his. : “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not really from betrothal or marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled.
MISHNAH: The High Priest shall not marry a widow, whether a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage 21:14 . Since qiddushin are the marriage in criminal law, they can be dissolved only by a bill of divorce which makes the recipient a divorcee. Consequently, if the groom dies between betrothal and marriage, she becomes a widow. . He shall not marry an adult; Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon enable the adult 21:13 is interpreted to mean “he shall take a woman with an intact hymen.” It is held that an adult, older than 12.5 years, has a softened hymen so that the act of deflowering might not be recognizable. . He shall not marry one injured by a piece of wood. If he gave qiddushin and afterwards was elected High Priest, he shall marry her are the acquisition understood by the root לקח in the verses, she has already been acquired when he was appointed and verses 13–14 do not apply to him. ; it happened that Joshua ben Gamla had given qiddushin to Martha bat Boetos, about 6.5 liter, of gold denars. In Midraš Ekha Rabbati 1(50), her name is Miriam bat Boethos. Elsewhere in the Babli ( Giṭṭin 56a , Ketubot 104a ), her name is that of a legendary superrich woman. A different story appears in Jesephus Antiquities xv, 320 ff., where king Herod dismisses the incumbent High Priest from office and replaces him with Simon ben Boethos, because he wants to marry Simon’s daughter (the granddaughter of a Boethos). In addition to the similarities of names and subject, the sources also agree about the prevailing corruption. The note that the High Priest was appointed, not elected by his fellow priests, is an intended slur. when the king appointed him as High Priest and he married her. If a woman was waiting for her Cohen levir when he was elected High Priest, even though he “bespoke” her, he may not marry her, he may not marry the widow. . If the brother of a High Priest died, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.
HALAKHAH: “The High Priest shall not marry a widow,” etc. “A widow he shall not take”, whether from betrothal or from marriage. “A divorcee he shall not take,” whether from betrothal or from marriage 21:14 is absolute, referring to any woman who is called widow or divorcee. An extended argument parallel to this one is in the Babli, 59a . .
“He shall not marry an adult; Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon enable the adult.” They agree that he shall not marry one injured by a piece of wood. What is the difference between the adult and the one injured by a piece of wood? The hymen of an adult dissolved in her body. The hymen of one injured by a piece of wood came outside. 21:13 ; parallel to the discussion here in the next paragraph. The switched version is not found elsewhere. . Some switch: He shall not marry one injured by a piece of wood; Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon enable one injured by a piece of wood.” They agree that he shall not marry an adult. What is the difference between the adult and the one injured by a piece of wood? An adult is no longer young. The one injured by a piece of wood is still young.
A sister injured by a piece of wood, Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon say, he shall not defile himself for her, but the Sages say, he must defile himself for her 21:1–4 , that a Cohen may not defile himself by the impurity of the dead except for his close relative. His sister is included in the list as long as she belongs to his clan, i. e., as long as she is not married. The language of v. 3 is involved: “And for his virgin sister who is close to him, who never had been a man’s, for her he must defile himself”, inviting a close analysis of the meaning of the conditions attached. In the Babli, 60a , this is only R. Simeon’s opinion. . Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon follow well what they have stated, but the argument of Sages seems inverted. There. 22:23 , “If there was a virgin girl …” The statement of the rabbis referred to is not otherwise recorded. , they say “a girl”, not an adult, “a virgin”, not one injured by a piece of wood; and here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. There. 21:3 . The argument is quoted in the Babli, 60a . , “and for his virgin sister”, that excludes the raped and the seduced one. Or maybe I should exclude the one injured by a piece of wood? The verse says, “who had not been a man’s.” Who became [deflowered] through the action of a man, not one who became it through something else. “The close one”, to include the betrothed one. “To him”, to include the adult. The argument of Sages seems inverted. There. 21:3 in Sifra Emor 0(4 ); the Cohen may not defile himself by the impurity of the dead, “except for his flesh close to him, for his mother and his father, his son and his daughter, and his brother.” , they say “the close one”, to exclude the betrothed one, “to him”, to exclude the divorcee. And here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. “His sister” is always inside [the family] until she leaves; his betrothed is always outside until she enters.
His own rape victim or seduced woman he should not marry but if he married her one does not remove her from him. Somebody else’s rape victim or seduced woman he should not marry but if he married her one does remove her from him: “His own rape victim or seduced woman he should not marry but if he married her he is married. Somebody else’s rape victim or seduced woman he should not marry but if he married her, R. Eliezer ben Jacob said, their child is desecrated, but the Sages say, their child is enabled.” . He should not marry a minor but he may marry the one who repudiated. Is the one who repudiated not a minor? One waits until she grows up.
“If he gave qiddushin and afterwards was elected High Priest, he shall marry her.” Similarly, If he gave qiddushin to a minor and afterwards was elected High Priest, shall he marry her? I am reading for her “a woman. 21:13 : “And he shall take a woman with an intact hymen.” ”, not a minor.
He tricked her 9:9 , is explained in its Halakhah to mean that a big engagement feast is a kind of proof that a betrothal did in fact take place. If despite the rich gift no betrothal has taken place, a bill of divorce is nevertheless necessary to free the woman for marriage to another man. If Martha bat Boethos had rejected the gift, as a “divorcee” this daughter of a High Priest would have been barred from marrying another priest. The word in the recently discovered ms. A, בדיומה, is a hapax and probably corrupt. The text of A was chosen because at least the remainder of the sentence represents correct and coherent grammar. The unintelligible word in ms. L פיריו מהו has been read as פיריומה which in different contexts has been explained as Greek φέρετρον (from the root φέρω “to bear, carry”) meaning a litter, or as περιωμίς meaning a garment covering the shoulders. Perhaps here it should be read as Greek φερνάριον, τό, diminutive of φερνή “gift to the wife, bridal gifts” (also from φέρω); also cf. the word παράφερνα “bride’s goods”, from which Latin “paraphernalia” derives (E. G.). . He borrowed a בדיומה and seated his mother next to her. She heard and accepted. And we have stated: “If she has a reputation in town to be betrothed, then she is betrothed.”
Also the House of Shammai agree, also Rebbi Simeon agrees but not Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, since Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely 9:9 , is explained in its Halakhah to mean that a big engagement feast is a kind of proof that a betrothal did in fact take place. If despite the rich gift no betrothal has taken place, a bill of divorce is nevertheless necessary to free the woman for marriage to another man. If Martha bat Boethos had rejected the gift, as a “divorcee” this daughter of a High Priest would have been barred from marrying another priest. The word in the recently discovered ms. A, בדיומה, is a hapax and probably corrupt. The text of A was chosen because at least the remainder of the sentence represents correct and coherent grammar. The unintelligible word in ms. L פיריו מהו has been read as פיריומה which in different contexts has been explained as Greek φέρετρον (from the root φέρω “to bear, carry”) meaning a litter, or as περιωμίς meaning a garment covering the shoulders. Perhaps here it should be read as Greek φερνάριον, τό, diminutive of φερνή “gift to the wife, bridal gifts” (also from φέρω); also cf. the word παράφερνα “bride’s goods”, from which Latin “paraphernalia” derives (E. G.). .
“If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah?
MISHNAH: A private priest should not marry a she-ram unless he has a wife and children. Rebbi Jehudah says, even one who has a wife and children should not marry a she-ram since she is the harlot mentioned in the Torah. 21:7 , 14 . For R. Jehudah, every sex act which is not one of possible procreation is harlotry. . But the Sages say, a harlot is only a convert, a freedwoman, and one who copulated in harlotry.
HALAKHAH: “A private priest should not marry a she-ram,” etc. Does that mean that an Israel without wife and children may marry her? Still he is forbidden. But since we stated afterwards that “a harlot mentioned in the Torah is only a convert, a freedwoman, and one who copulated in harlotry,” all of which refer only to priests, for this reason it was not stated.
Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, it is written: “Between their rows they make oil, 24:11 . In this pornographic sermon, the rows are the female’s legs, the oil is semen. ” “they to not turn to the way of vineyards 24:18 . The evildoers are not interested in harvesting. ”, that their copulation was not for children. Rebbi Simon said, it is written: “They ate and were not satiated, they whored and did not spread, 4:10 . In the words of the Babli, 61b , “any intercourse not intended to spread (the human race)” is sinful. ” that their copulation was not for children. It is written: “Lemekh took for himself two wives 4:19 . The intimation is that Adah “the jewel” was not supposed to have children to preserve her beauty. Ṣillah “the shadow” was shadowed by her children. In Gen. rabba 23(3 ), the roles of Adah and Ṣillah are reversed. ”, “Adah” who was beautifying her body. “Ṣillah”, who was sitting in the shadow of children.
They objected to Rebbi Jehudah: Think of it, if she was sterile and could not give birth. Think of it, if she was old. Rebbi Eleazar said, intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman not with the intent of marriage is intercourse of harlotry. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, that implies that the High Priest who performed qiddushin by copulation is not having intercourse with a deflowered one by having intercourse with intent of marriage ( Mishnah Qiddushin 1:1 ). If “intercourse” means completed intercourse then by “touching” the High Priest would have desecrated the woman and the later ejaculation would be sinful. Since R. Eleazar explicitly authorizes intercourse of unmarried persons for the purpose of marriage, it follows that the act of marriage is the beginning of intercourse and is available to the High Priest. .
MISHNAH: A man should not rest from being fruitful and multiply unless he has children. The House of Shammai say two males, but the House of Hillel say a male and a female, as it is said “male and female He created them. 1:27 . .” If he married a wife and she stayed with him for ten years and had no child he is not permitted to rest. If he divorced her, she is permitted to marry another and the second [husband] is permitted to stay with her for ten years, and if she had a miscarriage she counts from the moment of the miscarriage. The man is commanded to be fruitful and multiply but not the woman. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, for both of them it says “God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, 1:28 . ” etc.
HALAKHAH: “A man should not rest from being fruitful and multiply,” etc. The House of Shammai say two males, since “Gershom and Eliezer” 23:15 . The argument is in Babli 61b , Tosephta 8:4 , Tanḥuma Buber Bereshit 26 . Nobody has to be more strict than Moses. are mentioned for Moses. The House of Hillel say a male and a female the way the world was created, as it is said “male and female He created them. 1:27 . .” Rebbi Abun said, one has to understand “even a male and a female”. If it were not so, it should have been a Mishnah It must be that the House of Hillel accept either two males or male and female. about the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel. Sons of sons are counted as sons, sons of daughters are not counted as sons. The son’s son and the daughter’s daughter count; the son’s daughter and the daughter’s son do not count. A she-ram, a castrate, and those who cannot have children are not counted.
Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of that Tanna: “At the end of ten years since Abram lived in the Land of Canaan. 16:3 ; Sarah gave her husband a second wife to have children. .” Deduct the years outside the Land. We also have stated: [The time during which] she was sick or he was sick, or he went overseas, does not count. If she was married to the first [husband] and did not give birth, she receives ketubah ; from the second she receives ketubah , from the third she receives ketubah , from the fourth and fifth she has no ketubah . Rebbi Ḥanina bar ‘Agil in the name of Rebbi Ḥizqiah: From the third himself she has no ketubah . If she was married to a fourth or fifth and did not give birth, may the earlier ones have regress on her money back? ? She can say, only now did this woman become sterile. If she was married to the fifth and gave birth, has she regress on the fourth? He says to her, your silence is better than your talk.
If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not 65b/66a , and Tosephta Niddah 8:1–2 know only of the more lenient opinion. This does not deal with a virgin but a woman who reacts to intercourse with interior bleeding that might be menstrual. After three consecutive episodes she may not have any more intercourse with this husband. . They wanted to say that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah . But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah . If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise 15:8 the person who holds that in matters of physical danger two cases are proof is Rebbi, and the one who requires three is his father, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. . They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah . Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger. It was stated 15:8 , Babli Shabbat 134a . In both of these sources, the third child was brought before R. Nathan (the Babylonian), the baby was called Nathan the Babylonian, and it happened in Kappadokian Mazaca (pre-Roman name of Caesarea). : Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.
If she had children but they died, she counts from the time of death. She can say, a spirit strangled the children of this woman and made me sterile is due her in any case. .
Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra: The reason of that Tanna: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and conquer it.” It is written “he shall conquer it. 1:28 . The last word is written וכבשה which can be read as defective plural or regular singular. ” Who usually conquers? The man, not the woman. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Isaac bar Marion, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula in the name of Rebbi Jehudah Neśia: If she requests to be married, she has the law on her side The Babli is explicit in this matter, that she must claim to need children who will care for her in her old age. Such a statement is needed only if practice does not follow R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa. . Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said to him, I was with you and it was only said that if she requests to be married, she has the law on her side. In a similar case 5a/b , the wrong statement is again given by R. Eleazar and the correction by R. Abba bar Zavda. From the insistence that the two cases are parallel, it seems that this should be the reading here also. But the text given here is confirmed by the parallel in Megillah 1:1. , referring to what we have stated there 4:9. : “In the week in which the Ninth of Av falls, it is forbidden to get a haircut and to wash. But on Thursday one is permitted, in preparation for the Sabbath.” Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi wanted to do away with the Ninth of Av but they did not let him. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, I was with you and it was only said that Rebbi wanted to do away with the Ninth of Av which happened to be on the Sabbath but they did not let him. He said, since it is pushed away, let it be pushed away. They said to him, it should be pushed to the next day. He recited on these 4:9 . From the text in Megillah , it seems that “he” is a third person, possibly R. Ḥaninah, : “Two are better than one.”