Mishnah
1 Fifteen categories of women free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥaliṣah and levirate forever. They are the following: one’s daughter, his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter and her son’s daughter, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister and his maternal aunt and his wife’s sister, his maternal half-brother’s wife, the wife of his brother who did not live in his world, and his daughter-in-law.
Halakhah
“Fifteen categories of women free their co-wives,” etc. It is written “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.
Rabbi Yose 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 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? 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.
Rabbi Huna 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 Rabbi 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.”
Does Abba Shaul hold with Rabbi Akiva? Since Rabbi Akiva said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! What Rabbi Akiva said refers to a sister-in-law who whored. What Abba Shaul said refers to his sister-in-law. It comes like Rabbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta since Rabbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta contracted a levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He plowed five times and planted five saplings and had intercourse using a bedsheet. These are they: Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Menaḥem ben Rabbi Yose, and Rabbi Ḥalaphta ben Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Eudaimon ben Rabbi Yose.
It is written: “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 one who did not live concurrently with him, whether he had children or did not have children. She became permitted, excluded from this set, by levirate. Should I think unconditionally? It is said here: “When brothers live together”; 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.
“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: “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? Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “upon her,”Leviticus 18:18 “upon her”Deuteronomy 25:5: “her levir shall come upon her.”Deuteronomy 25:5 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, the verse speaks about paternal brothers.
Rabbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rabbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rabbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rabbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there, 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-law? Rabbi 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! Rabbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law! Rabbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rabbi Yose said, not that Rabbi 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 is even about a brother’s widow.
The Torah said: “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. Not only his wife’s sister, all other incest prohibition from where? Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: A conclusion “from the lesser to the greater.” 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 Rabbi Akiva.
Following Rabbi Ishmael? Rabbi Ishmael stated an argument “from the lesser to the greater.” 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 prohibited, 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.
Rabbi Ayvu bar Naggari, Crispus, in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. “The dead man’s wife should not be outside, to a strange man.”Deuteronomy 25:5 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 ḥaliṣah! Rabbi Jeremiah said: “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law,” the Torah increased the cases of “ḥaliṣah”Deuteronomy 25:7! If from “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law,” did the Torah not increase the cases of levirate? Rabbi Ishmael stated: “My levir refuses.” That is, my levir refused, not that Heaven refused for him. In that case, she should not need ḥaliṣah! That means, the statement of Rabbi Jeremiah is needed, “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law,” the Torah increased the cases of ḥaliṣah!
Rabbi Bun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: Does a widow need ḥaliṣah? He said to him, is it possible to say that her qiddushin are legally recognized and you say she may not need ḥaliṣah? He answered him: But qiddushin of a she-ram are legally recognized and one says that she does not need ḥaliṣah! He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear,” 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! Rabbi Mana said,one infers two prohibitions from two prohibitions but one does not infer two prohibitions from one prohibition. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi 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? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi 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 Rabbi: Should we not state “sixteen women”? One’s mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal half-brother. He said to him, it is evident that this person has no brain in his head. And why? He said to him, because of Rabbi Judah, because Rabbi Judah forbids the one who was raped or seduced by his father. Does Rabbi Judah not agree that if the half-brother 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 Rabbi Ḥiyya stated on this:“If they may marry his brother without sin their co-wives are freed from ḥaliṣah and levirate.” And among all of them there is only his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal half-brother. Why did we not state this? Because Rabbi 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 ḥaliṣah or accepts the levirate.” We find in all cases 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 half-brother.
Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥaliṣah frees her co-wife! Rabbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rabbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rabbi Akiva, since Rabbi Akiva said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥaliṣah. 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 Rabbi Immi. Rabbi Yasa said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish disagreed. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥaliṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥaliṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥaliṣah or for the co-wife. Rabbi Immi switches the attributions. Rabbi Zeʿira said before Rabbi Yasa, does not Rabbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rabbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rabbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rabbi Yasa, as both Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Abba, said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥaliṣah. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥaliṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥaliṣah.
The words of the rabbis mean that ḥaliṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥaliṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥaliṣah is acquisition, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥaliṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.”
Rabbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥaliṣah but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got ḥaliṣah 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 ḥaliṣah 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 ḥaliṣah or wife of the deceased. Rabbi Yose said, do you think ḥaliṣah is acquisition? But it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥaliṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.”
Rabbi 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 ḥaliṣah with her or had intercourse with her, did the qiddushin become invalid? If he performed ḥaliṣah with her companion but then had intercourse with her, were qiddushin validated retroactively? Rabbi Shammai said, did not Rabbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 elders voted, from where do we know that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says,“the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man,” that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥaliṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rabbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,”Isaiah 46:6 “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,”Proverbs 3:21 “get wise, my son, and make me happy,”Proverbs 27:11 “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,”Proverbs 9:9 “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.”Proverbs 1:5 Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rabbi Akiva since Rabbi Akiva said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! 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!
Rabbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got ḥaliṣah but he is guilty for the co-wife, ḥaliṣah is freeing; is intercourse freeing? As you say, if he performed ḥaliṣah with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rabbi 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! Rabbi Yose said, what do you think? That ḥaliṣah is the same as intercourse? Once he performed ḥaliṣah, 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 Rabbi 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 half-brother. “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 half-brother’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. Rabbi Jonathan said, it is said here dwelling and it says there dwelling. “You will inherit and dwell there.”Deuteronomy 17:13 Since with “dwelling” mentioned there, inheritance is connected. so with “dwelling” mentioned here, inheritance is connected. Rabbi Abun bar Bisna in the name of Rabbi Jonathan from Bet Gubrin: “they dwell.”Deuteronomy 25:5 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. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rabbi 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. 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.” Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Mamal: Assi follows Rabbi Meir since Rabbi Meir said, in any case where you cannot take me in levirate you cannot take my co-wife.
“And his daughter-in-law.” Rabbi Yose said, this implies that a man is permitted to marry his brother’s son’s wife.
Mishnah
2 All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥaliṣah and levirate forever. 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 ḥaliṣah and levirate, etc.” Rabbi 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. Rav and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish 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 Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish 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.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you. Rav and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi 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. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate.
Rabbi Yudan, the father of Rabbi 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 ḥaliṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” So is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not dies, her co-wife performs ḥaliṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rabbi Abba Mari said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if her father is the only levir.
Rabbi Jonah said, only after qiddushin. Rabbi Yose said, even after final marriage. In the second repetition, Rabbi Yose changed his mind. Rabbi Phineas said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us “after final marriage”? He answered him, is that fixed in you like a nail?
Rabbi Zeʿira said before Rabbi Mana, did not Rabbi 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 ḥaliṣah 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”Deuteronomy 22:16? Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Explain it by a minor, who was married off by her father and divorced, who is like an orphan while her father is alive.
Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥanina, in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: 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 of Rabbi Ishmael repudiated while her son was on her shoulder. Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Simeon, and Rabbi Ishmael said the same. It was stated: Until when may the daughter repudiate? Until she grows two pubic hairs, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says until the black covers most. Rabbi Simeon says until the hill of Venus expands. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Until the mons Veneris enlarges and the black be more than the white.
Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Eleazar, in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rabbi Judah. A case came before Rabbi Yasa; he said, go to Rabbi Abbahu since he has learned that practice follows Rabbi Judah; we did not learn that practice follows Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Joḥanan said to the Sepphoreans, you say in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina that practice follows Rabbi Judah, but it is not so. How is it? The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Rabbi Judah agrees that if she had intercourse after she grew two hairs, she cannot repudiate. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Rabbi Judah agrees that if she received qiddushin after she grew two hairs, she cannot repudiate. According to Rabbi Zeʿira 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. 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 Rabbi Redifa, Rabbi Jonah, say in the name of Rabbi Hila: 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? Rabbi Ishmael follows RebbiJudah, until the black covers most and Rabbi Simeon, that intercourse occurred with the idea of the prior qiddushin. Following the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah who say that her status depends on the signs of development, it fits. Following the opinion of Rabbi Simeon who says, if he adds another act of acquisition, then even if she is an adult! Rabbi Isaac said, that is so. Only that the daughters of Israel should not be unbridled in breaking tabus.
There came a case before Rabbi Yose. He said: One should examine her breasts. How? Following Rabbi Judah! Since Rabbi Judah said, until the black covers most. Is not that what Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, between maidenhood and adulthood there are only six months, and Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, one does not act on this? This means during that period. But after that period one acts. 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.
Mishnah
3 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 ḥaliṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”
Mishnah
4 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 ḥaliṣah but cannot be married in levirate.
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 ḥaliṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”
Mishnah
5 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 Rabbi Ḥiyya stated thus: For all women who may be married to the brothers without transgression, their co-wives are free from ḥaliṣah and levirate.
Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “A co-wife is only from a brother.” Rabbi Yose said, our Mishnah says the same: “Since they must be married to others, their co-wives are permitted.” Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Why can there not be a co-wife from the market place? Rabbi Yose said, did Rabbi Jeremiah not hear what Rabbi 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.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If one has intercourse with a co-wife, is he guilty because of his brother’s wife? Rabbi 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.
Is the brother’s wife not his sister-in-law? Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, explain it if she had children from a brother.
Mishnah
6 The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers, but the House of Hillel forbid. If they took ḥaliṣah, the House of Shammai disqualify them for the priesthood but the House of Hillel declare them qualified. 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. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Yose in the name of Nehorai: The reason of the House of Shammai, “the outside wife of the deceased shall not belong to a strange man,”Deuteronomy 25:5 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.” How do the House of Shammai confirm “when he has no child”Deuteronomy 25:5? Rabbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rabbi Yose, “when he has no child” from the married one, “the outer one shall not belong outside to a strange man.” He said to him, will not the Samaritans love you that you confirm their interpretations! Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: I told the learned Samaritans, what did cause you to err? That you did not explain following Rabbi Neḥemiah, since it was stated in the name of Rabbi 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 Seir שְׂעִירָה, to Succoth סוּכּוֹתָה. They objected to Rabbi Neḥemiah, is it not written: “The wicked shall return to the pit לִשְׁאוֹלָה.”Psalms 9:17 Rabba bar Zabda said, to the lowest living space in Sheol.
Rabbi 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 following the words of the House of Shammai. Come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥaliṣah but not be admitted to levirate. 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?
Rabbi 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. Rabbi Tarphon said, I would love to have a daughter’s co-wife to marry her into priesthood. They asked Rabbi 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 ʿAnubai from Bet Ṣebaʿim and the family Neqipai from Bet Meqošeš that they were sons of co-wives and their grandchildren were High Priests officiating on top of the altar.
Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that the Sages visited Rabbi 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 sharp-minded 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, 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 Rabbi Joshua and said to him: “To whom will one teach knowledge?”Isaiah 28:9 I remember that his mother brought his crib to the Synagogue that his ears should cling to the words of the Torah. He saw Rabbi Akiva, and said to him: “Lion cubs will be poor and hungry.”Psalms 34:10 I know of him that he is a man strong in Torah. He saw Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah and said to him: “I was a youth but became an elder.”Psalms 37:25 I know of him that he is the tenth generation from Ezra and their eyes are similar. Rabbi Ḥanina from Sepphoris said, Rabbi Tarphon also was with them and he addressed him as he did Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah.
Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, one accepts proselytes from Kurds and Palmyrenians. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A Mishnah said that the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable. There, we have stated: “All stains coming from Petra are pure.” Therefore, the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable.
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Naḥman bar Jacob: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the zrvq canal. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said up to the zrvq canal, the other said up to the Wani canal. Rav Judah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Judah: The people of Mesene are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women. The priests among them did not care about divorcees. There, they called Mesene dead, Media sick, Elam and gbby dying. The maritime district is the purple-blue of Babylonia. Šny,’ “gbby,’ and ṣrry” 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, and a woman doubtfully married, and one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, 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: ‘Love truth and peace.’Zechariah 8:19” 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. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. 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. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi 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. Rabbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before,” but not in the future. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi 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: “About anybody who wants to take on himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said: ‘The fool walks in darkness.’Ecclesiastes 2:14 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.”Tosefta Sukkah 2:3 And any who transgresses the words of the House of Hillel is deserving of death. 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 Rabbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh.
Mishnah
1 In which way “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? There were two brothers, one of them died, then a brother was born to them, and after that the second brother took his brother’s wife in levirate, and died. The first woman leaves as widow of his brother who did not live in his world and the second one because she is her co-wife. If he had “bespoken” her, the second performs ḥaliṣah but not levirate.
Halakhah
Why “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? “Together,” this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. Because if it were not so, what would we say? If he died childless, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, for maybe his father would have another son and his widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Even if the deceased’s mother had died, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, because maybe the father would go and marry a new wife who could have a son and the widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Then the verse would have to read: “He has neither father nor son”! One would compare this to the case that he left his widow pregnant; does she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Here also, should she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Therefore it was necessary to say “together”; this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world.
“Her levir shall come upon her,”Deuteronomy 25:5 that is cohabitation. “And take her as wife for himself,” that is “bespeaking.” I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “and act as levir toward her.” This directs the entire paragraph toward levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers.
Rabbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire. What is the argument of Rabbi Simeon? “Her levir shall come upon her,” that is cohabitation. “And take her as wife for himself,” that is “bespeaking.” Just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final. Or “her levir shall come upon her,” then she has been acquired by him and “bespeaking” was of no use to her.
Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as wife for himself,” the same expression is used as for qiddushin of a woman. Just as qiddushin acquire completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”
Both the rabbis and Rabbi Simeon agree to the following. According to the rabbis, the aspect which “bespeaking” acquires is forbidden in the co-wife, the aspect which “bespeaking” does not acquire is permitted in the co-wife; therefore, the latter has to have ḥaliṣah but not levirate. According to Rabbi Simeon, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are permitted. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second one permitted. Out of doubt, she has to have ḥaliṣah but not levirate. What is the difference between them? If he slept with the second one. In the opinion of the rabbis, an incestuous intercourse because he had “bespoken.” Therefore, if he had not “bespoken” she may have levirate and there is no candidacy at all. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, I explained that following what Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him. He had in her an interest of candidacy. When she died, the candidacy was eliminated. And here, when he died, the candidacy was eliminated.
Mishnah
2 There were two brothers, one of them died and the second took his brother’s widow in levirate; afterwards a brother was born to them, and he died. The first woman leaves as wife of his brother who did not live in his world and the second one as her co-wife. If the second brother had bespoken the widow of the first when he died, the second performs ḥaliṣah but cannot have levirate. Rabbi Simeon says, he may take in levirate any one he wants or performs ḥaliṣah with any one he wants.
Halakhah
“If there were two brothers, one of them died,” etc. Rabbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, and you say so? May one permit levirate with the “bespoken” woman? One should suspect that “bespeaking” does not acquire; then he would be guilty because of “wife of his brother who did not live in his world.” Can the “bespoken” one perform ḥaliṣah? Should one not suspect that “bespeaking” does acquire; then the second widow is a candidate for the third brother. It must be that Rabbi Simeon refers to the first case.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Simeon agrees in the first case. It was found stated, that also is in disagreement. What is the difference between the first and second cases? In the first case he came and found her forbidden, in the second he came and found her permitted. Rabbi Joḥanan asked, if he found his father’s wife married to an outsider, what does Rabbi Simeon say about her? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rabbi Simeon said that only relative to paternal brothers. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish asked: His maternal half-brother’s wife which he found married to an outsider, what does Rabbi Simeon say about her? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rabbi Simeon said that only relative to paternal brothers. Rabbi Yudan asked, a co-wife of his maternal aunt which he found married to an outsider? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rabbi Abin asked, if a divorcee became a widow? You have to say that Rabbi Simeon referred to the first case.
What does Rabbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman? Let us hear from the following: “Rabbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥaliṣah of one of them frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥaliṣah with the ‘bespoken’ woman, her colleague also needs ḥaliṣah.” You say, the cohabitation or the ḥaliṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥaliṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥaliṣah, but if he performed ḥaliṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥaliṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥaliṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥaliṣah. What is the difference between them? If he performed ḥaliṣah with the first and cohabited with the second. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥaliṣah. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥaliṣah.
Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Sheshet: There, one stated: The words of Rabbi Simeon are that both are forbidden. This is difficult. If “bespeaking” acquires, are not both permitted? This is a question of acquiring not by “bespeaking” but by candidacy. This is difficult. If candidacy acquires, both are permitted. If candidacy does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second permitted. Maybe candidacy for Rabbi Simeon is like “bespeaking” for the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but leaves a remainder, so Rabbi Simeon says, candidacy acquires but leaves a remainder. This is difficult. That aspect which is acquired by candidacy implies a prohibition of an equal part of the co-wife, that part which is not acquired by candidacy implies permission of an equal aspect of the co-wife! Shammai said, is this kind of argument applicable to incest prohibitions? What does he mean? As Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, the aspect acquired in any sister-in-law which is not totally inside the family is considered to be under the incest prohibition and an incest prohibition frees her co-wife.
Mishnah
3 They formulated a principle about a sister-in-law: Any woman forbidden by an incest prohibition has neither ḥaliṣah nor levirate. If she is forbidden by a commandment prohibition or one of sanctity, she has ḥaliṣah but not levirate. Her sister who is also her sister-in-law has either ḥaliṣah or levirate.
Halakhah
“They formulated a principle about a sister-in-law: Any woman forbidden,” etc. Rabbi Zeʿira said: When I was still there, we extracted fourteen cases from “her sister which is also her sister-in-law has levirate,” except his daughter. When we came up here, we heard what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, since Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: His daughter from a woman he raped was married to a paternal half-brother; she also has a maternal sister from a different father married to a second brother who died childless. His daughter is forbidden to him but her sister, who is her sister-in-law, is permitted to him. That is, “her sister which is also her sister-in-law has levirate.”
It is obvious that if somebody had ḥaliṣah with a woman forbidden by a commandment or because of sanctity, the co-widow was freed. When he had intercourse with her? Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joḥanan disagree; they say the co-widow was not freed. Rabbi Shammai switches the names of this tradition. The position of Rabbi Shammai is reasonable since everywhere Rabbi Eleazar seeks support from the great Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Ḥiyya stated for women forbidden by a commandment or because of sanctity, if he had ḥaliṣah or intercourse with her, the co-widow was freed.
Mishnah
4 Commandment prohibition: Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim. Holiness prohibition: A widow for the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had ḥaliṣah for a simple priest, a bastard or a Gibeoness to an Israelite, a Jewish woman to a Gibeonite or a bastard.
Halakhah
Commandment prohibition: Incest prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim; it is a biblical commandment to listen to the words of the Sopherim. And Holiness prohibition: A widow for the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had ḥaliṣah for a simple priest. “These are the commandments,”Leviticus 27:35 all commandments are one. “ You should sanctify him, for he brings the bread of your God.”Leviticus 21:8 But some do switch: A widow for the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had ḥaliṣah for a simple priest, “you should sanctify him, for he brings the bread of your God.” “These are the commandments,” all commandments are one. And holiness prohibitions, incest prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim.
Rabbi Judah ben Pazi said, why did Scripture put the incest chapter next to the holiness chapter? To teach you that every one who shies away from incest is called “holy.” In this sense, the woman of Shunem said to her husband: “I know that he is a holy man of God.” Rabbi Jonah said, “he is holy,” but not his student. Rabbi Abin said, that he never looked at her. But the rabbis say that he never had an involuntary emission. The slave girl of Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, I never saw a bad thing on my master’s garments. It is written “Gehazi drew near to push her away.” What is לְהָדְפָהּ? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, he put his hand on her beauty spot, between her breasts.
How can one prove secondary prohibitions? Rabbi Ḥuna said: “These,”Leviticus 18:27 the strong ones. This implies that there are weaker ones. The following are the secondary prohibitions: His paternal grandmother and his maternal grandmother, his paternal grandfather’s wife and his maternal grandfathers wife, his grandson’s wife whether from son or daughter, the wife of his mother’s brother and the wife of his father’s maternal brother.
It was stated: Rabbi Ḥanin said, all of them have no limit except for the wife of his maternal grandfather. Bar Qappara said, all of them have a limit, since Bar Qappara added the mother of his maternal grandfather and the mother of his paternal grandfather. Rav said, his son’s daughter-in-law is the limit. Why does he disagree? His son’s daughter-in-law comes under a different category. Rav said, his grandson’s issue from her is forbidden. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, the reason of Rav is that all Jewish women are forbidden for Abraham and all Jewish men are forbidden for Sarah.
Rav said: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rabbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rabbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother. His son’s wife is biblical. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rabbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal half-brother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.
Rabbi Ḥuna understood all of them from this verse: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover; her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter.” Taboo - taboo, for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, so there is a prohibition upwards. Since upwards one requires marriage, so downwards one requires marriage. Since upwards they are burned, so downwards they are burned. Since downwards, He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards He gave the male’s mother the same status as the female’s mother. What is this about? His father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother. Should not his father’s mother be like his father-in-law’s mother? Should not his mother’s mother be like his mother-in-law’s mother? They forbade his father’s father’s wife because of his father’s mother. They forbade his mother’s father’s wife because of his mother’s mother. Should not his son’s son’s wife be like his wife’s son’s daughter? Should not his daughter’s son’s wife be like his wife’s daughter’s daughter?
Rabbi Ḥaggai objected before Rabbi Yose: Does not a baraita contradict Rav? “A person’s stepson’s wife is permitted to him but the latter’s daughter is forbidden.” Is his stepdaughter not forbidden to him? The stepson is the corresponding male but his wife is permitted!
Rabbi Zeriqan in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: His father-in-law’s wife is forbidden because of the bad impression. If you want to say it is biblical, did not David marry Rizpah bat Ayyah? As it was said: “I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives in your bosom.” Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Two stepchildren who grow up in the same house are forbidden to marry because of the bad impression. A case came before Rabbi Ḥanina ben Rabbi Abbahu. He said, they should marry in a place where they are not known.
There, we have stated: “Rabbi Yose says, if the grandfather transgressed and married her.” What did he transgress? He transgressed the words of the Sopherim. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Abbahu, he asked Rabbi Joḥanan: Does this mean that secondary prohibitions have no limit? He said to him, did we learn “secondaries to secondaries”? No. Secondaries to the words of the Torah, and all of them because of his son’s daughter-in-law. Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Abbahu did not say so, but Rabbi Eleazar asked Rabbi Joḥanan, did we not learn of eight secondaries, and here they are nine! But all of them because of his son’s daughter-in-law.
Mishnah
5 Any male who has a brother anywhere makes his brother’s wife a candidate for levirate and he is his brother in every respect, except if he were from a slave woman or a non-Jew.
Mishnah
6 Any person who has a child anywhere frees the child’s father’s wife from levirate; the child would be guilty for wounding or cursing the father; he is his child in every respect except if he were from a slave woman or a non-Jew.
Halakhah
“Any person who has a child anywhere,” etc. Rabbi Avin asked: “His child in every respect,” even for being fruitful and multiplying? Is there no difference between a Gentile who came to a Jewish woman and she gave birth and a Jew who came to a Gentile woman and she gave birth? “When she became Jewish and gave birth it is a first-born for inheritance but not a first-born for the Cohen.”Mishnah Bekhorot 8:1
A Gentile came to a Gentile woman and she gave birth. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Gentiles have family relationships. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, Gentiles have no family relationships. But is it not written: “At that time, Merodakh-Baladan, son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a gift to Ḥizqiah.” Since he honored his elder, he was honored with a family relationship. But is it not written: “At that time, king Asa sent to Ben-Hadad, son of Tabrimon, son of Ḥezayon, king of Damascus, as follows.” Destroyer son of a destroyer. As you say: “For Haman ben Hamedata was.” Was he the son of Hamedata? That means, oppressor son of an oppressor. So here also, destroyer son of a destroyer. Rabbi Tanḥuma said, so did Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish answer Rabbi Joḥanan, but is there not written: “Ṣiba had sixteen sons and twenty slaves.” Do slaves have family relationships? It is to enumerate those who served Mephibosheth together.
A slave woman: “The woman and her children shall belong to her owner.”Exodus 18:4 A Gentile woman. Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Sineon ben Yoḥai, it is written: “You shall not conclude marriage with them.” And it is written: “For he will divert your son from after Me.” Your son from a Jewish woman is called your son; but your son from a Gentile woman is not called your son but her son.
Jacob from Kefar Naboraia went to Tyre. They came to ask him, may one circumcise the son of a Gentile woman on the Sabbath? He wanted to permit it from the verse: “They determined their genealogies for their families according to their fathers’ houses.” Rabbi Ḥaggai heard it and said, he shall come. They brought him in order to be whipped. He said to him, for what reason do you whip me? He said, from what is written: “Now we shall make a covenant for our God.” He said, you want to whip me based on tradition? He said, “and it should be done according to the Torah.” He said to him, from which teaching? He said, from that which Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, it is written: “You shall not conclude marriage with them.” And it is written: “For he will divert your son from after Me.” Your son from a Jewish woman is called your son; but your son from a Gentile woman is not called your son but her son. He said to him, whip your whipping, because it is good to impress.
Mishnah
7 If somebody gave qiddushin to one of two sisters but he does not know to which one of them, he gives a bill of divorce to each. If he died and has one brother, that one has to perform ḥaliṣah with both sisters. If he had two brothers, one performs ḥaliṣah and one may marry in levirate. If both married without asking, one does not remove the women from them.
Halakhah
“If somebody gave qiddushin to one of two sisters but he does not know to which one of them, he gives a bill of divorce to each. If he died and has one brother, that one has to perform ḥaliṣah with both sisters.” Everywhere else you say “there cannot be ḥaliṣah after ḥaliṣah” but here you say so? There if it is certain, here one is in doubt. “If he had two brothers, one performs ḥaliṣah and one may marry in levirate.” Everywhere else you say, in any case one asks him to perform the levirate one does not say perform ḥaliṣah; but here you say so? There if it is certain, here one is in doubt. “If both married without asking, one does not remove the women from them.”
Mishnah
8 If two men gave qiddushin to two sisters and neither of them knows to which one he gave his, each one of them gives two bills of divorce. If they died and each one had a brother, each brother performs ḥaliṣah with both sisters. If one had one brother but the other had two, the single one performs ḥaliṣah with both sisters, but of the two brothers one performs ḥaliṣah and the other may marry in levirate. If both married without asking, one does not remove the women from them.
Halakhah
“If two men gave qiddushin to two sisters,” etc. It was stated: These rules apply both for Israel and for priests. That is, if ḥaliṣah was performed first and the levirate afterwards. But to perform levirate first is forbidden; maybe his brother will die and it will turn out that he cohabited with the sister of his sister-in-law. Rav Ḥisda said, that means that having relations with the sister of his sister-in-law does not make her unfit for marriage into priesthood. Rabbi Yose bar Abba said, Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: He who cohabited with the sister of a woman for whom he had performed ḥaliṣah did not make her unfit for marriage into priesthood.
“If they died and each one had a brother, each brother performs ḥaliṣah with both sisters.” Everywhere else you say “there cannot be ḥaliṣah after ḥaliṣah” but here you say so? There if it is certain, here one is in doubt. “If one had one brother but the other had two, the single one performs ḥaliṣah with both sisters, but of the two brothers one performs ḥaliṣah and the other may marry in levirate.” Everywhere else you say, in any case one asks him to perform the levirate one does not say perform ḥaliṣah; but here you say so? There if it is certain, here one is in doubt. “If both married without asking, one does not remove the women from them.”
Mishnah
9 If each of the deceased had two brothers, one brother of each of the deceased performs ḥaliṣah with one of the sisters and the other brother takes the other sister in levirate. If two brothers both performed ḥaliṣah, the other two should not both marry in levirate but one of them performs ḥaliṣah and the other one may take in levirate. If both married without asking, one does not remove the women from them.
Halakhah
“If each of the deceased had two brothers.” That is, for Israel, but for priests they are forbidden.
Mishnah
10 The obligation of levirate is on the oldest brother but if a younger one got the start on him, he acquired. If somebody is accused in matters of a slave woman and she was manumitted, or of a Gentile and she converted, he should not marry her but if he married her one does not remove her from him. If somebody is accused in matters of a married woman and she was forcibly divorced from her husband, even if he married her he must divorce her.
Halakhah
“The obligation of levirate is on the oldest brother but if a younger one got the start on him, he acquired, etc.” “The obligation of levirate is on the oldest,” since it is said, “the firstborn she will bear shall ...” How do we hold? If about the newborn, the verse should read “he should rise in the name of his dead father.” But it must be that the newborn is a firstborn. In that case, even if he had children and they died before he died, his widow should not be a candidate for levirate! Then the verse should have said, “he never had children.” But if it cannot refer to the newborn; let it refer to the levir, “the obligation of levirate is on the oldest.”
“If somebody is accused in matters of a slave woman and she was manumitted, or of a Gentile and she converted, he should not marry her but if he married her one does not remove her from him.” If he agreed lawfully not to marry her and nevertheless married her, she is forcibly removed from him. If he divorced her, may he take her back? If you would say that, would you not defame her children? “If somebody is accused in matters of a married woman,” Rav said, that is, he was accused by witnesses. Rabbi Yose asked, if he was accused by witnesses, is that what was stated: If he divorced her, even if he married her, he must divorce her? If somebody else divorced her, he can keep her! If he was accused by witnesses, even if somebody else divorced her, he must divorce her! But that is what we deal with: If he was accused not by witnesses, if somebody else divorced her, he may keep her.
Mishnah
11 If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says “it was written and signed in my presence,” he shall not marry the wife. “He died,” “I killed him,” or “we killed him,” he shall not marry the wife. Rabbi Judah said, “I killed him,” the wife cannot be married, “we killed him,” the wife can be married.
Halakhah
“If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says,” etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case. What does it mean, one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In qiddushin, the same holds. “I betrothed one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I gave her qiddushin,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry the wife.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “This one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says, I gave her qiddushin. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if the father says, I did betroth her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Yasa, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says. I gave her qiddushin and one of them jumped the gun and married her. But if he said, I gave her qiddushin and married her, and another one comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way.
As you take it, if he killed him, a suspect in a case can neither judge nor testify in it. If he did not kill him, the person is alive.
“We killed him,” she should be married to others but not to him. “They said before Rabbi Judah, it happened that a robber was caught in Kappadokian Caesarea. When he went out to be executed, he said to them, go and tell the wife of Simeon ben Kahana that I killed him when he was coming into Lydda. The case came before the Sages and they confirmed his words. Rabbi Judah said to them: Is that a proof? He only said, we killed him.”
Mishnah
12 A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow cannot marry her. If she repudiated or performed ḥaliṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court. And all who had wives who subsequently died may marry them. And to all who were married to others and were divorced or widowed, they can be married. All are permitted to their sons or brothers.
Halakhah
“A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow,” etc. “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow cannot marry her.” I would say, that was his intention from the start. “If she repudiated or performed ḥaliṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court,” because two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third. There, we have stated: “If somebody deposits fruit with another person, that one should not touch it even if it spoils. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he shall sell it under the supervision of a court because one is obliged to return a find to its owners.” Rabbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. What does one do with the money? Rav Judah said, the disagreement of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ṭarphon. It is a condition that the members of the court cannot buy. Rabbi Akiva said, Rabbi Ḥiyya ben Rabbi Sabbatai asked: Here, you say, “if she repudiated or performed ḥaliṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court,” and here, you say so? Rabbi Yose said, there, the buy could be in thirds, but here, two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third.
“And all who had wives who subsequently died may marry them.” It only says “who died”; therefore, not if they were divorced. “And to all who were married to others and were divorced or widowed, they can be married,” since usually nobody sins for an uncertain future. “All are permitted to their sons or brothers,” since usually nobody sins for the benefit of either his son or his brother.
Mishnah
1 There are four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters. If those married to the sisters died, the sisters have ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If the remaining brothers jumped the gun and married, they must divorce them. Rabbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce.
Halakhah
“Four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters,” etc. If there were four brothers, two of whom are married to unrelated women, would they not be subject to levirate? There is a difference, since here there is the prohibition of sisters. In that case, they should not need ḥaliṣah from them! Rabbi Mattaniah said, it is because of candidacy and the prohibition of sisters is not clear.
There, we have stated: “If a brother gave qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥaliṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥaliṣah.” It says only: If the sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him. But if his wife died, his sister-in-law is forbidden to him. Rabbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Sages hold that for anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for Rabbi Eliezer, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains.
Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, you say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him, and here you say so? He said to him, I do not know the reason for the rule regarding sisters. Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: I do not know the reason for the rule regarding sisters who are sisters-in-law. Rabbi Hila, Rabbi Yasa, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law cannot be compared to the prohibition of sisters who are not sisters-in-law. Rabbi Jeremiah said, explain it that the house fell on both brothers at the same time. Rabbi Yose asked, did Rabbi Joḥanan say, I do not know the reason for the rule regarding sisters who are sisters-in-law if the house fell on both brothers at the same time? Only if they died one after the other. They wanted to say, what was the problem of Rabbi Joḥanan? If the second one died, why should the first one not be permitted to him? But if the first one died, the second should be forbidden to him. Rabbi Yudan said, both cases are the same problem for him. And candidacy counts for nothing since if there are three brothers,two of them paternal but not maternal halfbrothers, and two maternal but not paternal halfbrothers. If the paternal half-brother died first and the second brother had no time to perform ḥaliṣah or levirate before he died, and she became eligible for his maternal half-brother, may he not take her? This shows that candidacy is nothing, otherwise she should be forbidden as the maternal half-brother’s wife.
What if there is a co-wife? Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Avina: It is an inference “from the lesser to the greater.” If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman with whom one performed ḥaliṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more? It is obvious that the rule of co-wives applies to his daughter. Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Avina: One has stated there, “if the co-wives performed ḥaliṣah, the sisters were freed; if the sisters performed ḥaliṣah, the co-wives were not freed.” But as you say, if the co-wives performed ḥaliṣah, the sisters were freed, so it should be that even if the sisters performed ḥaliṣah, the co-wives should be freed. But it must follow Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥaliṣah without being admitted to levirate. Did they institute that? Was it not stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. But it must follow the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. Rabbi Phineas said to Rabbi Yose: If it follows the House of Shammai, even if the co-wives performed ḥaliṣah, the sisters should not be freed! But we have stated: Rabbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce. There are two Tannaim interpreting the House of Shammai, one said if the co-wives performed ḥaliṣah, the sisters were freed, the other one said if the co-wives performed ḥaliṣah, the sisters were not freed.
It was stated: “Abba Shaul says, the House of Hillel made this easy.” Is that a criticism? It is a praise, since people were saying, what is the prohibition here? It was found stated in the name of Rabbi Simeon: “If they jumped the gun and married, they should keep them.” But that is only if they had intercourse at the same time. In the opinion of Abba Shaul it is permitted to have intercourse without asking. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon only if he transgressed and had intercourse. If the first brother married and had intercourse, he tells the second also to have intercourse. If that one did not have intercourse, the first brother is forbidden to have intercourse a second time; maybe one of them will die and it turns out that he had intercourse with the sister of his sister-in-law. It was stated: If the second brother died, the first one had to divorce his wife with a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥaliṣah. Even if the second one died? Does this not follow Rabbi Simeon? But Rabbi Simeon frees the second sister from ḥaliṣah and levirate! Rabbi Zeʿira said, I confirmed this: Any sister-in-law who was to be freed by ḥaliṣah will never be permitted without ḥaliṣah.
If the first sister had a co-wife, one of the brothers performs ḥaliṣah, the co-wife is freed. If then he had intercourse with her, this is forbidden intercourse and the co-wife is not freed. If he performed ḥaliṣah and then had intercourse with her, as you look at it, either ḥaliṣah should free or intercourse should free! Rabbi Yudan said, I confirmed it following “If somebody married his sister-in-law and she turns out to be pregnant,” as you say there, the co-wife should not marry until she knows by which means she is permitted, whether through the fetus or through intercourse; so here also the co-wife should not marry until she knows by which means she is permitted, whether through ḥaliṣah or through intercourse.
If the first sister had a co-wife, he can marry the co-wife, keep his wife, but the second sister is forbidden to him. That is “the sister of the co-wife of one for whom he performed ḥaliṣah is permitted to a person.” Should the co-wife not be forbidden to him as co-wife of the sister of one for whom he performed ḥaliṣah? Rabbi Yudan said, if he wanted to have intercourse with the co-wife before he married, would he not have been permitted? At the start, he is permitted; at the end, he is prohibited? If you say so, you are making a co-wife after death and there can be no co-wife after death.
If there were five brothers of whom three married three sisters and died: Rav said, each one of the remaining brothers performs ḥaliṣah for one of them, and the third sister performs ḥaliṣah with whom she wants. Samuel says, each one of the remaining brothers performs ḥaliṣah for one of them, and the third performs ḥaliṣah with both of them. Rav said that ḥaliṣah is acquisition. Samuel said that ḥaliṣah is freeing. Rabbi Zeʿira said that ḥaliṣah is acquisition. Rabbi Hila said that ḥaliṣah is freeing. The words of the rabbis mean that ḥaliṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥaliṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥaliṣah is acquisition, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥaliṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.” Levi said, candidacy is acquisition and each sister has to perform ḥaliṣah with both brothers.
A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥaliṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥaliṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥaliṣah is acquisition, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rabbi Eleazar, since Rabbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free brother ‘bespoke’ her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce and ḥaliṣah, and his wife’s sister with ḥaliṣah.” This supports him who says that ḥaliṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥaliṣah is acquisition, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rabbi Eleazar, since Rabbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥaliṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥaliṣah.” This supports him who says that ḥaliṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥaliṣah is acquisition, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rabbi Eleazar, since Rabbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥaliṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥaliṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥaliṣah is acquisition, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rabbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.
Mishnah
2 If one of them was forbidden to one of them by an incest prohibition, that one is forbidden for him but her sister is permitted to him. Both are forbidden to the second brother. In case of a commandment prohibition or a holiness prohibition, they have ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If one of the sisters was forbidden to that one brother by an incest prohibition and the other sister was forbidden to the other brother by an incest prohibition, the one who is forbidden for one might be permitted to the other and vice-versa. That is what they said, “Her sister who is her sister-in-law can have ḥaliṣah or be married in levirate.”
Halakhah
“If one of them was forbidden,” etc. If a man raped a woman and she had a daughter who married one of his brothers while the daughter’s half-sister from another man is married to a second brother: When they died without children, his daughter is forbidden to him but her sister is permitted to him. This exemplifies: “Her sister who is her sister-in-law can be married in levirate.”
“If one of them was forbidden,” etc. If one of them raped a woman and she had a daughter, the woman in turn was raped by his brother and also had a daughter and both daughters married thesebrothers who were paternal but not maternal halfbrothers: Each one of them is forbidden his own daughter but permitted her sister. That exemplifies: The one forbidden for one is permitted to the other and vice-versa.
Mishnah
3 Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter: These perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate, but Rabbi Simeon frees them. If one of them was forbidden to one of them by an incest prohibition, that one is forbidden for him but her sister is permitted to him. In case of a commandment prohibition or a holiness prohibition, they have ḥaliṣah but not levirate. But Rabbi Simeon frees them.
Halakhah
“Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters,” etc. Ulla bar Ishmael said, so explained Rabbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah: Rabbi Simeon frees the second one from ḥaliṣah and levirate. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the group asked, would anybody think that a man could acquire two sisters together? Rabbi Ḥanina said before Rabbi Mana and disagreed: Why does Rabbi Simeon free the second one from ḥaliṣah and levirate? He said to him, because nobody thinks that a man could acquire two sisters together. There they said, the words of Rabbi Simeon imply that no candidacy can come after another candidacy. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Only if he sinned and had intercourse. What is the difference? If somebody from the market gave qiddushin to the second sister. Following the rabbis, perfect qiddushin. Following Rabbi Eleazar, suspended qiddushin. When he has intercourse with the first, the qiddushin become valid for the second. If he had intercourse with the second, following the rabbis it is an incestuous act. Following Rabbi Eleazar, it is not an incestuous act. If the first one died, following the rabbis the second is permitted to him.
If the first sister had a co-wife, he can marry the co-wife, keep his wife, but the second sister is forbidden to him. That is “the sister of the co-wife of one with whom he performed ḥaliṣah is permitted to a person.” Should the co-wife not be forbidden to him as co-wife of a relative of one with whom he performed ḥaliṣah? Rabbi Yudan said, if he wanted to have intercourse with the co-wife before he married, would he not have been permitted? At the start, he is permitted; at the end, he is prohibited? If you say so, you are creating a co-wife after death and there can be no co-wife after death.
The argument of Rabbi Simeon seems to be inverted. There, he says, “he marries in levirate the one he wants and performs ḥaliṣah with the other,” and here, he says so? Rabbi Zeʿira said, when I was still there, I learned the reason: There, the candidacy for two brothers-in-law does not interfere and one candidacy can be added to another, but here it is candidacy for one levir and no candidacy can come after a “bespeaking.” Rabbi Mattania said, are not sisters different from unrelated women? If you want a difficulty, find it in what Rabbi Zeʿira said in the name of RavSheshet: They stated there that Rabbi Simeon forbade both of them. The argument of Rabbi Simeon seems to be inverted. There he says, both are forbidden, and here you says, both are permitted.
Mishnah
4 Three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters and the third is a bachelor. One of the sisters’ husbands died; the bachelor “bespoke” her; then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce, and his wife’s sister with ḥaliṣah. That is what people say, he is unlucky with his wife and with his brother’s wife.
Halakhah
“Three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters,” etc. Do the House of Shammai follow Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh, since Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely? If they would follow Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh, in case he had divorced the “bespoken” widow, she would not need ḥaliṣah! But Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, the House of Shammai agree that if he divorced the “bespoken,” she needs ḥaliṣah! It must be they follow Rabbi Simeon, since Rabbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire. If they would follow Rabbi Simeon, in any case, if “bespeaking” acquires, nothing follows it. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, why “his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister”? Maybe “bespeaking” for the House of Shammai is like candidacy for Rabbi Simeon in the interpretation of the rabbis there. As the rabbis there say, “bespeaking” acquires and leaves a remainder, so Rabbi Simeon says, candidacy acquires and leaves a remainder. Rabbi Simeon says, no candidacy can come after a candidacy, so the House of Shammai say here, no candidacy can come after a “bespeaking.”
Rabbi Yudan asked: If somebody gave qiddushin to a woman “from now and after thirty days” and her sister became a candidate for levirate with him during these thirty days, is even in this “his wife with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister”? He said, the House of Shammai said that only after candidacy and “bespeaking.” But that what Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, even a hundred qiddushin are valid for her, does not follow the House of Shammai.
Mishnah
5 Of three brothers, two are married to two sisters and one to an unrelated woman. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the husband of the unrelated married his widow, and died. The dead brother’s second wife leaves as his wife’s sister, the first one as her co-wife. If he had “bespoken” her, the unrelated woman performs ḥaliṣah but cannot have levirate.
Halakhah
“Of three brothers, two are married to two sisters,” etc. Both the rabbis and Rabbi Simeon will agree in this case. For the rabbis, the part of the co-wife parallel to that which “bespeaking” acquired in the widow is forbidden. Also, the part of the co-wife parallel to that which “bespeaking” did not acquire in the widow is still forbidden. Therefore, she performs ḥaliṣah but cannot have levirate. Following Rabbi Simeon, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are permitted. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first is forbidden but the second permitted. Because of the doubt, she performs ḥaliṣah but cannot have levirate.
Mishnah
6 Of three brothers, two are married to two sisters and one to an unrelated woman. The husband of the unrelated died, one of the sisters’ husbands married his widow, and died. His first wife leaves as his wife’s sister, the second one as her co-wife. If he had “bespoken” her, the unrelated woman performs ḥaliṣah but cannot have levirate.
Halakhah
“Of three brothers, two are married to two sisters,” etc. Both the rabbis and Rabbi Simeon will agree in this case.
Mishnah
7 Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and one to an unrelated woman. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the husband of the unrelated married his widow, the wife of the second brother died and then the husband of the unrelated died. She is permanently forbidden to him since she was forbidden one moment.
Halakhah
“Of three brothers,” etc. Rabbi Avina said, that is what Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law does not compare with the prohibition of sisters who not are sisters-in-law.
Mishnah
8 Of three brothers, two are married to two sisters and one to an unrelated woman. If one of the sisters’ husbands divorced his wife, when the one married to an unrelated woman died and the divorcer married her and then died, that is what they said: Of all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or turned out to be she-rams, the co-wives are permitted.
Halakhah
“Of three brothers,” etc. Rabbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira, not only if he divorced and after that married, but even if he married and after that divorced. That is what we had stated: “Of all of these, if they died or were divorced, their co-wives are permitted.”
Rabbi Yudan said, even Rabbi Eliezer agrees. Rabbi Yose said, that is correct. Because, if somebody had children but they died before he died, is his widow not a candidate for levirate? There, if he had children at the moment of death. Here, if they were co-wives after his death.
Mishnah
9 In all cases in which there were questionable qiddushin or divorces, the co-wives must perform ḥaliṣah but cannot have levirate. What are questionable qiddushin? If he threw the betrothal gift to her and there is a doubt whether it fell closer to him or to her, that are questionable qiddushin. What is a questionable divorce? If the divorce document was written in his handwriting but without witnesses, or there are witnesses but no date, or there is a date but only one witness, these are questionable divorces.
Halakhah
“In all cases in which there were questionable qiddushin or divorces, the co-wives must perform ḥaliṣah but cannot have levirate,” etc. There really is no questionable divorce here. What are questionable qiddushin? If he threw the betrothal gift to her and there is a doubt whether it fell closer to him or to her, that are questionable qiddushin. And here, if he threw the divorce document to her and there is a doubt whether it fell closer to him or to her, that is a questionable divorce.
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.
It was stated: A claim based on any of these three types of documents can be collected only from unincumbered property, not from mortgaged property. Rabbi Abba said, that means, if the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed. But if the document in the hand of the lender has been confirmed, he may collect. Rabbi Yose asked: If the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed, he should not be able to collect even from unincumbered property! But one must deal with a document confirmed in the hand of the lender. And why can he not collect? Rabbi Bisna said, because of action in partnership. Rabbi Abun said, because it is invalid. So far, if the old man took the loan and later the old man mortgaged. But if the old man took the loan and later the son mortgaged, can you say because of a conspiracy? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid. Rabbi Abun said, and was it not stated: The same holds for bills of divorce. Can you say there, because of action in partnership? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid.
Mishnah
10 Three brothers are married to three unrelated women. If one of them died, his second brother “bespeaks” her and then dies, these perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate, as it is said: “Her levir shall come to her,”Deuteronomy 25:5 if on her is the candidacy from one brother but not from two. Rabbi Simeon says, he takes in levirate the one he prefers and performs ḥaliṣah with the other.
Halakhah
“Three brothers married to three women,” etc. Can a woman waiting for a levir who became available to several brothers-in-law not be married in levirate? Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one dead husband is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. One understands that he has to perform ḥaliṣah with the “bespoken” because the wife of one dead husband is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. Why can the other one not be married in levirate? Rabbi Eleazar said, this follows Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir said, of any one you cannot marry in levirate, you cannot marry the co-wife in levirate. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if Rabbi Eleazar formulated this, he formulated what he had heard from me. Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “A boy at least nine years and one day old who had intercourse with his sister-in-law and when he grew up he married another wife; if he never had intercourse with the first again after he became an adult, the second wife may perform ḥaliṣah or be married in levirate. The first one must perform ḥaliṣah and cannot be married in levirate.” Here you say, she performs ḥaliṣah; there you say, she is married in levirate! Where you say she performs ḥaliṣah, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon; where you say, she is married in levirate, Rabbi Simeon and the rabbis. Rabbi Abun bar Bisna in the name of Rabbi Aḥa, but only if first he married in levirate and then performed ḥaliṣah. But if he performed ḥaliṣah first, it is forbidden; perhaps “bespeaking” acquired and she was freed by her co-wife’s ḥaliṣah.
Mishnah
11 Two brothers are married to two sisters. If one of them died and then the wife of the other died, she is eternally forbidden to him since she was forbidden one moment.
Halakhah
“Two brothers married to two sisters,” etc. Rabbi Avina said, that is what Rabbi Hila, Rabbi Yose, said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law does not compare with the prohibition of sisters who not are sisters-in-law.
Mishnah
12 If two men gave qiddushin to two women and when they entered the bridal chamber they switched each of them to the other, they are guilty of adultery with a married woman. If they were brothers, they also are guilty because of the prohibition of the brother’s wife. If they were sisters, they are guilty also because of the prohibition of “a woman in addition to her sister.” If they were menstruating, they are guilty also because of the prohibition of menstruating women. And all of these one separates for three months to see whether they are pregnant. If they were minors not able yet to have children one returns them at once. If they were from priestly families they are disabled for heave.
Halakhah
If he had intercourse with the second he is two times guilty, for the brother’s wife and for “a woman in addition to her sister.”
Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: Sometimes four times, sometimes eight times, sometimes twelve times, sometimes sixteen times. They are guilty under the heading of adultery with a married woman, each couple for two. If they were brothers, under the heading of “brother’s wife,” each couple for four. If they were sisters, under the heading of “a wife together with her sister,” each couple six. If they were menstruating, under the heading of “menstruating,” each couple eight. If the men are minors and the women adults, they are free. If the men are adults and the women minors, they are obligated two by two because of menstruation. If their father married them off, for all eight. If one of the men was an adult and the other a minor, the one who had intercourse with the minor is guilty as wife of the adult but the one who had intercourse with the adult is free as wife of the minor.
Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: A rape victim does not have to wait three months. But did we not state: “One separates them for three month to see whether they are pregnant. If they were minors not yet able to have children one returns them at once.” That is different, it is for the benefit of the child.
“If they were from priestly families they are disabled for heave.” Rabbi Yose said, this implies that rape disables in priestly families like adultery.
Mishnah
1 If somebody performed ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant and gives birth, if it is a live birth her relatives are permitted to him and his relatives are permitted to her; he has not disabled her from marrying into priesthood. If it is a still birth, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her; he has disabled her from marrying into priesthood.
Halakhah
“If somebody performed ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” etc. If he transgressed, but not from the start. That follows the Mishnah: “The widow should not perform ḥaliṣah or have levirate until after three months.” Why can she not have ḥaliṣah immediately? As you take it, if she has a live birth, ḥaliṣah did not affect her. If she has a still birth, she holds ḥaliṣah in her hand. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood. Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Jacob bar Idi, in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah, that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood. Rabbi Hoshaiah stated: “My levir refuses.”Deuteronomy 25:7 To the one to whom one says: perform levirate, to him one says: perform ḥaliṣah; but to the one to whom one cannot say: perform levirate, to him one cannot say: perform ḥaliṣah! What is the difference between them? If she had been acceptable and was desecrated, e.g., a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who had performed ḥaliṣah for a common priest. According to him who says that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood; that one, who does not need a proclamation for the priesthood, should have ḥaliṣah. According to him who says that to the one to whom one says: perform levirate, to him does one say: perform ḥaliṣah?
If there was ḥaliṣah during these three months, does she need another one after three months? Let us hear from the following: “A minor who performed ḥaliṣah should perform ḥaliṣah after she grows up; if she performed only one ḥaliṣah, the ḥaliṣah she performed is valid.” Rabbi Mana said it anonymously, Rabbi Isaac the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya brought it in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan; this is Rabbi Meir’s, since Rabbi Meir says one does neither perform ḥaliṣah nor levirate with a minor: maybe she would turn out to be a she-ram. As you say there, even though she already performed ḥaliṣah, she again performs ḥaliṣah; so here also though she did perform ḥaliṣah, she performs ḥaliṣah.
Rabbi Yudan asked: If he performed ḥaliṣah with a pregnant woman and she had a miscarriage? Let us hear from the following: If somebody died and left a pregnant widow, should I think that she must have recourse to her levir? The verse says, “that his name should not be extinguished from Israel,” only one whose name is extinguished. The verse says, “to establish a name in Israel for his brother,” until you know whether there is a live child or not. I could think that the wife of an eunuch should need levirate, the verse says “that his name should not be extinguished from Israel,” only one whose name is not extinguished; this excludes this one whose name was already extinguished.
Could I say, her co-wife may remarry? “He who marries his sister-in-law and she turns out to be pregnant,” as you say, “her co-wife cannot marry until you know by which means she is permitted, whether by pregnancy or by intercourse” The same is valid for the one who performed ḥaliṣah. Ḥaliṣah frees and intercourse frees. As you said it for intercourse so it was said for ḥaliṣah.
Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses; Rabbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to fetuses. Rabbi Yose said, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of the fetus’s head and body must come out alive. That is the Mishnah, “if somebody performed ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” as you say here, retroactively ḥaliṣah did not touch her, so retroactively the child is a son and receives the benefit. There, we have stated: “If somebody says, if my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina, if she gave birth to a male, the male baby will take a mina. If a female, 200 drachmae, if she gave birth to a female, that one will take 200.” Rabbi Eleazar said, this is only for his son, but not for any other. Rabbi Yasa said, even any other. In the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, only from a sick person, but not a healthy one; only movables but not real estate. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Eleazar. “If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son overseas or that his wife was pregnant, everybody is required to return what he took.” What does Rabbi Eleazar do with this? There is a difference because it is his child. The second part of the Mishnah disagrees with Samuel in the interpretation of Rabbi Yose: “If they returned everything and then the son died or she had a miscarriage, anybody who takes first after that acquires it.” The first group did not acquire. Even at the beginning they should not have acquired! Did not Rabbi Yose say, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of the fetus’s head and body must come out alive. He was not living! Rabbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, because of abandoning. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rabbi Abba bar Natan: Rabbi Natan changed his mind because of that Mishnah: “If a male, a mina, if a female, 200.” Is a female in this situation not like an outsider? Bar Qappara stated: “On transfers benefit to a one day old.”
Mishnah
2 If somebody marries his sister-in-law but she turned out to have been pregnant and gave birth. If the child is alive, the levir has to divorce her and they must bring a sacrifice. If the child is not alive, he may keep her. If it is doubtful whether the child is a nine-month child of the first brother or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated to bring a reparation offering for an uncertain case.
Halakhah
Rabbi Yose said, in any case where the true fact can be ascertained, one does not have to bring a reparation offering because of doubt. How is that? If there were before him two olive-sized pieces, one of suet and one of fat, he ate one of them and the other is locked up.He says, since I could determine the true fact if I would find the key, does one have to bring a reparation offering in this case of doubt? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody marries his sister-in-law but she turned out to have been pregnant,” as long as it is not known whether the child lives or does not live, does he have to bring a reparation offering because of the doubt? This means that he does not bring.
Rav said, in any case where the true fact can never be established, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. How is that? If there were before him two olive-sized pieces, one of suet and one of fat, he ate one of them, and then a raven ate the other. Since he cannot ascertain the true fact, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for this doubt. But if the raven ate first and then he ate, since he could have ascertained the true fact, one has to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. But did not Rav say, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet? Even though Rav said, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet, he agrees here that he could have ascertained the true fact. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “As Rabbi Eleazar says, one must bring a reparation offering for the doubt of suet.” What does Rav do with that? They disagree with the words of Rabbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “If there were both a piece of profane meat and a piece of sacrificial meat, he ate one of them and it is not known which one, he brings a reparation offering for the doubt. If he then ate the second piece, he brings a reparation offering for a certain transgression. If he ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second, each one brings a reparation offering for the doubt.” One understands that the first brings a reparation offering for the doubt. Why the second? Rabbi Yose said, explain it that the piece was large, he ate half of it and left the other half. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If it is doubtful whether the child is a nine-month child of the first brother or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt.” Here it is impossible to ascertain the true fact and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt! Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Zeʿira explained it before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rabbi Zeʿira explained it before us. Since he could just have touched her and then separated, he could have known whether it is his or the other’s, it is as if he could have ascertained the true fact!
How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥaliṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for a child of the first brother and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines,” from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rabbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.
From where the two creations? Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Huna: “He created,”Genesis 2:7 a creation for seven and a creation for eight. If he was created for seven but born at eight, he lives; so much more if born by nine. If he was created for nine and born at eight, he does not live. If he was created for nine and born at seven? Come and see, if he does not live at eight, so much less at seven! They asked before Rabbi Abbahu. From where do we know that a seven-month baby lives? he said to them, from yours I am giving to you: ζῇ τὰ ἑπτὰ, ζῇ τὰ ἑπτὰ.
If the uncertain son comes to take his part in his father’s inheritance. one says to him, the other one is your father. If the levir comes to take his part in his brother’s inheritance, one says to him, that one is his son. How is that? They compromise between themselves and split the property of the deceased. One finds, compromise with his brother is loss to the brothers; competition between the brothers is a catastrophe for the brothers. If the old man dies, one finds that certain sons and an uncertain grandson come. If the uncertain son dies there exists a certain son of his father’s brother and an uncertain mother. If one of the brothers dies, there is a certain son and an uncertain son of a brother. If the mother of the uncertain son dies, there is a certain son and an uncertain husband. If first the uncertain son dies and after that his mother, a son of the mother’s brother is certain but the husband uncertain. If the levir dies and the uncertain son comes to take his part in his father’s inheritance, if the first one was poor, they tell him, that one is your father. If he was rich, the tell him, we all are brothers, sons of his brother. Come and let us inherit our father’s part and the part of our father’s brother.
It was stated: “The first son could be High Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.” Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees in cases of doubt of Samaritans and desecrated persons. This refers to what we have stated there: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia.”Mishnah Kiddushin 4:1 In the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten.
Mishnah
3 If property came to a woman waiting for her levir, the House of Shammai agree with the House of Hillel that she may sell or give away and it is valid. If she dies, what does one do with her ketubah and property that enters and leaves with her? The House of Shammai say, the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs. But the House of Hillel say that all property remains where it is; the ketubah in the hands of the husband’s heirs and property that enters and leaves with her in the hands of her father’s heirs.
Halakhah
“If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid. If she dies, what does one do with her ketubah?” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, that revenue is as if they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rabbi Zeʿira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.
Rabbi Hoshaia stated: The heirs of her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rabbi Yose said, if Rabbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has a ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.
Mishnah
4 If he married her, she is his wife in every respect except that her ketubah is a lien on the property of her first husband.
Halakhah
“If he married her, she is his wife in every respect,” etc. What does he do? “He marries her, he may divorce her and take her back, and she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rabbi Yose said, the baraita has two possibilities. “Or she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: If he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband. Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, a Mishnah said so: “For he who takes back his wife, takes her back under the terms of her first ‘ketubah.’Mishnah Ketubot 9:9” At the end, if he married her, divorced her, and took her back? He tells you something new. Even if he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband.
Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Hamnuna said: A betrothed woman who died does not have a ketubah since she was not permitted to marry outside. That you should not say the case should be considered as if he divorced her and she should have a ketubah; therefore it was necessary to say that she does not have a ketubah.
Mishnah
5 The obligation of levirate is on the oldest brother. If he refuses, one goes to all the other brothers. If they refuse, one returns to the oldest and tells him, the obligation is yours, either give ḥaliṣah or marry in levirate.
Mishnah
6 If he made it dependent on a minor until he grows up, or on the oldest when he returns from overseas, or on a deaf-mute or on an insane brother, one does not listen to him but tells him, the obligation is yours, either give ḥaliṣah or marry in levirate.
Mishnah
7 He who performs ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law is like any of the other brothers for the inheritance and, if there is a father, the property goes to the father. He who marries his sister-in-law acquires his brother’s property. Rabbi Judah says, in any case if there is a father, the property goes to the father.
Halakhah
“He who performs ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law is like any of the other brothers for the inheritance,” etc. That one should not say, ḥaliṣah is freeing, intercourse is freeing; just as you say, “he who marries his sister-in-law acquires his brother’s property,” so he who performs ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law acquires his brother’s property. Therefore, it is necessary to say “he is like any of the other brothers for the inheritance.”
Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: He who “bespeaks” his sister-in-law does not acquire his brother’s property. Even the House of Shammai agree to that; even Rabbi Simeon agrees to that, but not Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh. As Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh said, “bespeaking” acquires the sister-in-law totally. If there were two sisters-in-law, he “bespoke” one and came to the other. As you take it, either by “bespeaking” he acquires or by intercourse he acquires. Rabbi Yose said, since he cannot keep either one, he did not acquire his brother’s property.
Rabbi Isaac ben Tevele in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: The reason of Rabbi Judah: “ The first-born whom she will bear shall be”Deuteronomy 25:6; He compared it to a first-born. Since the first-born does not inherit during his father’s lifetime, so this one does not inherit during his father’s lifetime. But since the first-born inherits after his father’s death, does this one inherit after his father’s death? Rabbi Zeʿira said, since the first-born does not inherit when it was time to inherit, so this one does not inherit when it was time to inherit. Afterwards he cannot inherit. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia, practice follows Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Joḥanan said, many times I sat before Rabbi Hoshaia and never heard that from him. He said to him, does nobody exist who heard something his partner did not hear?
Mishnah
8 He who performs ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law is forbidden her relatives and his relatives are forbidden to her. Forbidden to him are her mother and her mother’s mother, her father’s mother, her daughter, her daughter’s daughter and her son’s daughter, and her sister as long as she is alive. The brothers are permitted. Forbidden to her are his father, his father’s father, his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son. The relative of a co-wife of a person who had ḥaliṣah with him is permitted to him, but the co-wife of a relative of a person who had ḥaliṣah with him is forbidden.
Halakhah
“He who performs ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law,” etc. Because he performed ḥaliṣah with her. Therefore, if he did not perform ḥaliṣah with her but she died, her mother is permitted to him. That is what Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him. He had in her an interest of candidacy. When she died, the candidacy was eliminated. And here, when he died, the candidacy was eliminated. Rabbi Abun understood it from what follows: “And her sister as long as she is alive, but the brothers are permitted.” Is her sister’s position relative to the brothers not as if she herself had died?
“Forbidden to her are his father, his father’s father, his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son.” Does this imply that secondary prohibitions are imposed on the one performing ḥaliṣah? That says it, “his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son.” That implies that secondary prohibitions are imposed on the one performing ḥaliṣah.
So is the Mishnah: “The relative of a co-wife of a person who had ḥaliṣah with him is permitted to him, but the co-wife of a relative of a person who had ḥaliṣah with him is forbidden.” Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Avina: It is an inference “from the lesser to the greater.” If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman for whom he performed ḥaliṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more?
Mishnah
9 If somebody performs ḥaliṣah with his sister-in-law while his brother had married her sister and then died, she must perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate. Similarly, if somebody divorces his wife while his brother had married her sister and then died, she is free.
Halakhah
“Similarly, if somebody divorces his wife,” etc. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥaliṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥaliṣah is acquisition, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥaliṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.”
Mishnah
10 If a brother gave qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra: One says to him wait until your older brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥaliṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry. If the levir died, he has to remove himself from his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥaliṣah.
Halakhah
It says only: If the sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him. But if his wife died, his sister-in-law is forbidden to him. Rabbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Sages hold that for anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for Rabbi Eliezer, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains.
Mishnah
11 No sister-in-law should be a party to ḥaliṣah or levirate until after three months. Similarly, no woman should be married or receive qiddushin until after three months, whether virgin or not virgin, widow or divorcee, married or betrothed. Rabbi Judah says, those that had been married may receive qiddushin and those that had received qiddushin can be married except those that had received qiddushin in Judea because he is familiar with her. Rabbi Yose said, any woman may receive qiddushin except a widow because of her mourning.
Halakhah
“No sister-in-law should be a party to ḥaliṣah,” etc. How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? Symmachos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months.”Genesis 38:24 Rabbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind,”Isaiah 26:18 “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw.”Isaiah 33:11 Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete. Rav Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness. A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rabbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated: “How long can labor be? Rabbi Meir said, even 40 to 50 days. Rabbi Judah said, her month is sufficient. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon say, no labor is longer than two weeks.” Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months. Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.”
Rabbi Yudan asked: Does this hold until she gives birth? No, even if she had a miscarriage.
Rabbi Mana said, I heard in the name of Samuel that there is no difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth, but I do not remember from whom I heard this. Rabbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Jeremiah said this. Rabbi Ḥizqyah said to him, Rabbi Jeremiah did not say this; Rabbi Yose was offended by him. He said to him: Even Joshua who was bound to Moses would not have said so, but you said so! He checked himself and said, it is true that he said that but as a person who quotes something and questions it; does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rabbi Berekhiah in the name of Samuel: A woman gives birth only either after 271, 272, 273, or 274, days. Rabbi Mana said to him, from whom did the rabbi hear this? He said to him, from Rabbi Abba. The position of Rabbi Abba seems inverted. There, he says, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth, and here, he says so? Rabbi Abba bar Zuṭra in the name of Samuel: If with ה Rabba, with א Rava. Everything which is “many” is 208.
Rab Ḥiyya bar Ashi was sitting before Rav who saw him disturbed. He said to him, what is the matter? He said to him, my female donkey is pregnant and will give birth; then I have to get her to copulate before she is out of heat. He said to him, when did the male mount her? He said, on day X. He calculated and said, she still has some time until then. It was stated so: A quick female donkey does not need less than the days of the moon and one who is late is not later than the days of the sun. The words of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi disagree, since Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, the cattle herd of the government was there for copulating and those of the house of Rabbi took bulls from them to copulate. Some of them gave birth soon and some of them later. Here it is about a pure animal, there about an impure animal. But is it not written, “do you know the time the mountain goats will give birth, etc.” “Count months, make them complete, you will know the time of their giving birth.”Job 39:1–2 “Do you know the time of giving birth?” A pure wild animal is like a domestic impure animal.
Rabbi Meir is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rabbi Judah is suspicious about a child. Rabbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. Could you say that Rabbi Meir is not suspicious about bills of divorce, as we have stated: “Those that had received qiddushin can be married.” Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Gedula: The one who repudiates does not have to wait three months; the one who leaves by a bill of divorce needs to wait three months. This supports Rabbi Meir since Rabbi Meir is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months. This supports Rabbi Yose, since Rabbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. It was stated: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood, Rabbi Judah says, makes impure 24 hours retroactively; Rabbi Yose says, from its moment onwards. Rabbi said, the words of Rabbi Judah are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rabbi Yose for the child. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Rabbi Abbahu said, my father had a case and he asked Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Yasa, and Rabbi Immi, and they instructed him following Rabbi Yose for the child. For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yose, practice does not follow Rabbi Yose? But because Rabbi said, “they are reasonable.” Did not Rabbi Abba say in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira, every time Rabbi taught “they are reasonable,” the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument. Rabbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rabbi Ḥanina ben Rabbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex? Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rabbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, one disregards the anonymous Mishnah and follows an isolated opinion! He found that Rabbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rabbi Meir. He understood that following Rabbi Simeon, he found that Rabbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rabbi Meir. He said, the old man certainly understands the chapters about bills of divorce.
Rabbi Mana asked before Rabbi Yudan: There Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu, said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Every place where Rabbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous Mishnah. And here, you say so? He said to him, if not Rabbi, maybe somebody else said it? Since when Rabbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous text. It must be that Rabbi did not find a disagreement in the Mishnah; but if others taught it in disagreement and Rabbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice follows the anonymous text. There come Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Jacob bar Abba and Rabbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Even if others taught a disagreement but Rabbi taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous text. Why does he agree here with a dissenting opinion? Rabbi Samuel ben Inaya in the name of Rabbi Aḥa. That means, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous text, but if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous text, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Aḥa. That is, if individual disagrees with individual. But if an individual disagrees next to the anonymous Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous text.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, everywhere one taught anonymous Mishnaiot, it follows the rabbis unless one’s teacher explains it differently. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish says, all anonymous Mishnaiot follow Rabbi Meir unless one’s teacher explains it differently. Rabbi Zeʿira said before Rabbi Yasa, not that Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish disagrees, only he saw that most anonymous Mishnaiot follow Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Mana: What kind of teacher? The teacher of the baraita or the teacher of study? Does not the story of Rabbi Eleazar imply, the teacher of the baraita? “Following Rabbi Simeon, he found that Rabbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rabbi Meir. He said, the old man certainly understands his chapters.” We have to say that he received instruction from the teacher of the baraita when he understood that Rabbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rabbi Meir.
The woman who performs ḥaliṣah counts from the moment of death. The one who leaves by a bill of divorce counts from the moment of delivery of her bill. Rabbi Ḥanina said, from the moment of delivery of her bill. Rabbi Joḥanan said, from the moment of writing. Rav and Samuel, Rav like Rabbi Ḥanina, Samuel like Rabbi Joḥanan. Samuel objected to Rav: According to you, since you say from the moment of delivery, about what are you suspicious? Because in the meantime she was alone with him! Then one should worry about an old bill of divorce! Rabbi Ḥanina objected to Rabbi Joḥanan: According to you, since you say from the moment of writing, if there were two bills of divorce, one written now and one later, and both delivered on the same day. This one you prohibit and that one you permit! What Rav objected to Samuel, Rabbi Ḥanina objected to Rabbi Joḥanan. What Rabbi Joḥanan objected to Rabbi Ḥanina, Samuel objected to Rav. Practice: She counts from the time of writing if he never was alone with her.
“Except the widow because of her mourning.” How much does mourning last? Thirty days. That is, for women. But for men, three holidays. If he has children; but if he does not have children immediately. If he has somebody to serve him; but if he has nobody to serve him, immediately. If he does not have small children; but if he has small children, immediately, as in the following: It happened that Rabbi Ṭarphon’s wife died. While he still was in the cemetery, he said to her sister: Come into my house and raise your sister’s children. Even though he married her, he did not know her until 30 days had passed.
Mishnah
12 If four brothers were married to four women and died, if their oldest brother wants to marry all of them in levirate, he is permitted to do so. If somebody was married to two women and he died, intercourse or ḥaliṣah with one of them frees the co-wife. If one was acceptable and the other blemished, if he performs ḥaliṣah, he performs it with the blemished; if he takes in levirate, he takes the acceptable one.
Halakhah
“Four of the brothers,” etc. Explanation: There were thirteen brothers, of whom twelve died childless. They the widows came and wanted to be married in levirate before Rabbi. He said to him, go and take in levirate. He said to him, it overtaxes my means. But each one of them said, I will support during my month. He said, and who will support during that intercalary month? Rabbi said, I shall support during that intercalary month. He prayed for them and they went from him. After three years they came, carrying 36 toddlers. They came and stood in front of Rabbi’s dwelling. People went in and told Rabbi, outside are rural toddlers who want to greet you. Rabbi looked down from the window and saw them. He asked them, for what are you here? They said to him, we beg that you give us support for that intercalary month; he gave them support for that intercalary month.
It is written: “The ark of the Eternal dwelt in the house of Obed Edom for three months, and the Eternal blessed,” etc. By what did he bless him? With sons. That is what is written: “ All these were from the sons of Obed Edom, they, their sons and relatives, strong men for the service, sixty”1 Chronicles 26:8 etc., because each one of them gave birth to two every month. How was that? She was impure for seven days, pure for seven days, and gave birth, was impure for seven days, pure for seven days, and gave birth. Sixteen every month, in three months 48. And he, six. This makes 54 together. And those eight, sum total 62. That is what was written: “62 for Obed Edom.”1 Chronicles 26:8
Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said, it is written: “His house should be called in Israel the house of the shoe-stripped.” A house which was permitted by one stripping. The same is true for intercourse. Stripping frees and intercourse frees. What you say about stripping you say about intercourse.
May one apply a trick? Did Rabbi Ṭarphon, the father of all of Israel, not apply a trick? He gave qiddushin to 300 women in times of famine to let them eat heave! There, every one of them was able to eat heave. But here, is each one able to perform levirate? Rabbi Yudan the son of Rabbi Ishmael: One deals with him is such a way.
Mishnah
13 He who takes back his divorcee, or marries the woman with whom he performed ḥaliṣah, or marries a relative of the woman with whom he performed ḥaliṣah, has to divorce her and any child is a bastard, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say, it is not a bastard. But they agree that the child of one who marries a relative of his divorcee is a bastard.
Halakhah
“He who takes back his divorcee,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He who takes back his divorcee after she had remarried makes her blemished for the priesthood. Without that, is she not blemished for the priesthood? But, she is blemished in that she cannot eat heave. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The daughter of a man who takes back his divorcee after she had remarried is acceptable for the priesthood. What is the reason? “She is an abomination.”Deuteronomy 24:4 She is an abomination, the child is not an abomination.
Mishnah
14 And what is a bastard? Any child of a blood-relation to whom he is forbidden to come, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Simeon from Timna says, any child of a relation for which one is subject to extirpation by heaven’s action, and practice follows him. Rabbi Joshua said, any child of a relation which is a capital crime.
Mishnah
15 Rabbi Simeon ben Azai said, I found a genealogical list in Jerusalem and it was written in it: The man X is a bastard from a married woman, to support the words of Rabbi Joshua.
Halakhah
“What is a bastard,” etc; “Rabbi Simeon ben Azai said,” etc. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, all of them learned from the father’s wife. “A man shall not take his father’s wife and not uncover his father’s garment’s wing.”Deuteronomy 22:30 Rabbi Akiva explains: Just as his father’s wife is special in that she is a forbidden relation from which the child is a bastard, so in any case there is a forbidden relation, the child is a bastard. They objected, is there not a widow for the High Priest? There is a difference, since desecration is spelled out. Simeon from Timna explained: Just as his father’s wife is special in that one is subject to extirpation for her, the child is a bastard, so in any case that one is subject to extirpation for her, the child is a bastard. They objected, is there not the menstruating woman? There is a difference, since “blood-relation” is not written in reference to her. Rabbi Joshua explained: Just as his father’s wife is special in that one is subject to the death penalty for her, the child is a bastard, so in any case that one is subject to the death penalty for her, the child is a bastard.
Even though Rabbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female that she is blemished for the priesthood. Even though Rabbi Simeon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood.
Why did they say, practice follows Rabbi Simeon from Timna? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set of sins causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard. The method of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members. As we have stated: “The commandments of the Eternal,”Leviticus 4:2 I could think that this includes also those who eat abominations and crawling things. You argue, saying that here it says “from the eyes” and there it says “from the eyes.” Just as “from the eyes” mentioned there means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin, also “from the eyes” mentioned here means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin. But since “from the eyes” mentioned there is a case involving the death penalty, does “from the eyes” mentioned here involve the death penalty? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation, there was no mention of anything but extirpation. But the death penalty is written elsewhere. The method of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members! There, all incest prohibitions were taken together as to the duty of sacrifice. Idolatry was singled out to teach who is obligated for a sacrifice. What can you say? Here, all incest prohibitions were taken together concerning of bastards. The father’s wife was singled out to teach about the bastard.
Mishnah
16 If his wife died, her sister is permitted to him. If he divorced her and she died, her sister is permitted to him. If she had married another man and died, her sister is permitted to him. If his sister-in-law died, her sister is permitted to him. If he performed ḥaliṣah with her and she died, her sister is permitted to him.
Halakhah
“If his wife died, her sister is permitted to him,” etc. That means, her mother is forbidden to him. Did not Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him. But since we stated: “If he performed ḥaliṣah with her and she died, her sister is permitted to him,” therefore he stated “her sister.”
Mishnah
1 Rabban Gamliel says, there is no bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking,” no copulation after copulation, and no ḥaliṣah after ḥaliṣah. But the Sages say, there is a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce and “bespeaking” after “bespeaking,” but nothing after copulation or after ḥaliṣah.
Halakhah
“Her levir shall come upon her,” that is cohabitation. “And take her as a wife for himself,” that is “bespeaking.” I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “her levir shall come upon her.” This directs the entire paragraph toward levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers.
Rabbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire. What is the argument of Rabbi Simeon? “Her levir shall come upon her,” that is cohabitation. “And take her for himself,” that is “bespeaking.” Just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final. Or “her levir shall come upon her,” then she has been acquired by him and “bespeaking” was of no use to her.
Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as wife for himself,” the same expression is used as for qiddushin of a woman. Just as qiddushin acquire completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”
Since the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but not completely, so they say, a bill of divorce frees but not completely. Should not a bill of divorce completely free a sister-in-law by an argument “from the lesser to the greater?” Since ḥaliṣah does not free a wife but a bill of divorce does, is it not logical that a sister-in-law, who is freed by ḥaliṣah, should be freed by a bill of divorce? The verse says, “she shall pull off.” By pulling off she is freed; she is not freed by a bill of divorce. So it should free anything! It is written: “She shall not belong ... to a strange man.” Where do we hold? If he slept with her, she is his wife. If he performed ḥaliṣah with her, she should go and marry an outsider. So we must hold that he gave her a bill of divorce. Also Ḥizqiah stated thus: From where do we know that the sister-in-law is forbidden to himself and his brothers if he gave her a bill of divorce? For him, I read “whom he had sent away.”Deuteronomy 24:4 For the brothers, I read “whom he had sent away.” Then should not ḥaliṣah free a wife by an argument “from the lesser to the greater?” Since a bill of divorce does not free a sister-in-law but ḥaliṣah does, is it not logical that a wife, who is freed by a bill of divorce, should be freed by ḥaliṣah? The verse says, “ he shall write her a bill of divorce.”Deuteronomy 24:1 By a bill of divorce she is freed; she is not freed by ḥaliṣah. So ḥaliṣah should free partially! There, it is written, “she shall not belong ... to a strange man.” Here, what do you have?
Since Rabbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, does he say similarly that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi Simeon says, there is nothing after copulation if it is primary. Therefore, if it is secondary, there is something afterwards. That must deal with copulation after a bill of divorce. For if it were copulation after “bespeaking,” what could you say? If “bespeaking” acquired, there is nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse will acquire and there is nothing after that. So we must speak about copulation after a bill of divorce. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially.
Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rabbi Simeon to say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire? And here, against Rabbi Simeon that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: “Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages that there may be a bill of divorce after ‘bespeaking’ and ‘bespeaking’ after a bill of divorce, a bill of divorce after intercourse and ‘bespeaking,’ and ‘bespeaking’ after intercourse and a bill of divorce.” How can there be a bill of divorce after intercourse and “bespeaking”? There were three sisters-in-law. He “bespoke” one, had intercourse with another, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. If you would say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire then, as you take it, if “bespeaking” acquired, there can be nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. How can there be “bespeaking” after intercourse and a bill of divorce? If there were three sisters-in-law. He gave a bill of divorce to one, had intercourse with another, and “bespoke” the third. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. If you would say that a bill of divorce either frees or does not free then, as you take it, if a bill of divorce frees, there can be nothing after that. If a bill of divorce does not free, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rabbi Simeon? There is no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” a sister-in-law following Rabbi Simeon. But the argument of one is different from the argument of the other. The argument of Rabban Gamliel: any part which a “bespeaking” of the second could acquire in the future, the first already had acquired. Any part which a bill of divorce from the second brother could free in the future, the bill of divorce of the first already had freed. The reasoning of Rabbi Simeon: If the first brother acquired, so did the second. If the first brother did not acquire, neither did the second. If the first bill of divorce did not free, neither did the second.
Is there a possibility of a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking” or of “bespeaking” after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking” for Rabban Gamliel? What is a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking”? If there were two sisters-in-law, he “bespoke” one of them and gave her a bill of divorce; then he gave a bill of divorce to the second. If you say that a bill of divorce frees, anything “bespeaking” had acquired is subject to the bill of divorce; there is no bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking.” If you say that a bill of divorce does not free, for anything “bespeaking” had acquired there is no bill of divorce; there is a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking.” What is “bespeaking” after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking”? If there were two sisters-in-law, he “bespoke” one of them and gave her a bill of divorce; then he “bespoke” the second. If you say that a bill of divorce frees more than anything “bespeaking” had acquired, it is as if there were no “bespeaking” and there may be “bespeaking” after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking.” But if you say that a bill of divorce does not free more than he had acquired by “bespeaking,” there is “bespeaking” but no “bespeaking” after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking.”
In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, can there be invalid intercourse after invalid intercourse, or the intercourse of a nine-years-old after the intercourse of another nine-years-old, or invalid intercourse after the intercourse of a nine-years-old, or intercourse of a nine-years-old after invalid intercourse? Do the Sages agree with Rabban Gamliel that there cannot be “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” for one sister-in-law? How is that? If he “bespoke” his sister-in-law, gave her a bill of divorce, and “bespoke” her again. If you say, there can be “bespeaking” after “bespeaking,” she did not become free by that bill of divorce. If you say, there cannot be “bespeaking” after “bespeaking,” she was freed by that bill of divorce.
Rabbi Yudan asked: If somebody gave qiddushin to a woman “from now and after thirty days” and her sister became a candidate for levirate with him during these thirty days, is there even in this case no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking”? He said, Rabban Gamliel said only “after a bill of divorce and ‘bespeaking.’” But what Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, even a hundred qiddushin are valid for her, does not follow Rabban Gamliel.
Mishnah
2 How? If he “bespoke” his sister-in-law and gave her a bill of divorce, she needs ḥaliṣah from him. If he “bespoke” and participated in ḥaliṣah, she needs a bill of divorce from him. If he “bespoke” her and copulated, that is as it is commanded.
Halakhah
“How? If he “bespoke” his sister-in-law,” etc. That means that a bill of divorce frees more than anything “bespeaking” had acquired. If you would say that a bill of divorce does not free more than “bespeaking” had acquired, the levir could say: My bill of divorce shall not free more than my “bespeaking” had acquired. But then the bill of divorce did not even free what my “bespeaking” had acquired! “Cutting off.”Deuteronomy 24:1 That is no cutting off!
Ḥaliṣah against the rules frees. In which respect? That if an outsider comes and gives qiddushin to her co-wife, they will lay hold of her. If an outsider came and gave her qiddushin, since the candidacy from the deceased was removed from her, the qiddushin will lay hold of her, or maybe, since she still needs a bill of divorce for her “bespeaking,” the qiddushin will not lay hold of her?
Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, this means that there is an obligation first to give qiddushin and only after that to cohabit. Since here, where qiddushin are not written, you say “that is as it is commanded,” for a wife, where it is written, not so much more!
Mishnah
3 If he delivered a bill of divorce and then “bespoke,” she needs a bill of divorce and ḥaliṣah. If he delivered a bill of divorce and then cohabited, she needs a bill of divorce and ḥaliṣah. If he delivered a bill of divorce and then performed ḥaliṣah, after ḥaliṣah nothing more is needed.
Halakhah
“If he delivered a bill of divorce and then ‘bespoke,’” etc. A bill of divorce for his “bespeaking” and ḥaliṣah for her candidacy.
That means that invalid intercourse does not free. Come and see, invalid ḥaliṣah frees but invalid intercourse does not free! Since the purpose of ḥaliṣah is invalidation, it frees. Intercourse, whose purpose is not invalidation, does not free. It should not free for leniency but might free for restriction. In which respect? If somebody came and gave qiddushin to the co-wife, these should lay hold on her. Rabbi Yudan said, I explained it. Any sister-in-law who is not totally outside remains inside until she leaves for the outside.
Mishnah
4 If he performed ḥaliṣah, “bespoke” her, gave a bill of divorce, and cohabited, or cohabited, “bespoke,” gave a bill of divorce, and performed ḥaliṣah, nothing is valid after ḥaliṣah. There is no difference between one sister-in-law or two sisters-in-law.
Halakhah
“If he performed ḥaliṣah, ‘bespoke,’” etc. Even though they said there is no ḥaliṣah after ḥaliṣah, intercourse after ḥaliṣah disables her from priesthood. Is she not disabled from priesthood anyhow? But she is disabled from eating heave. If he had intercourse with the woman with whom he had performed ḥaliṣah, did he disable her from eating heave? It must be that his brothers copulated with her. That agrees with the position that he is not guilty about the woman with whom he had performed ḥaliṣah, but his brothers are guilty about the woman with whom he had performed ḥaliṣah. But following the position that neither he nor his brothers are guilty about the woman with whom he had performed ḥaliṣah? It must be that he had intercourse with the co-wife. That agrees with the position that everybody agrees that he is guilty about the co-wife. But following the position that neither he nor his brothers are guilty about the co-wife? It must be that his brothers had intercourse with the co-wife. That agrees with the position that neither he nor his brothers are guilty about the woman with whom he had performed ḥaliṣah but are guilty about the co-wife. But following the position that neither he nor his brothers are guilty about either the woman with whom he had performed ḥaliṣah or the co-wife? It must follow Rabbi Akiva, since Rabbi Akiva says that a bastard may come from a woman who had performed ḥaliṣah. Rabbi Yose said, explain it that the levir was a Cohen, had intercourse with her and desecrated her.
“If he gave a bill of divorce, and ḥaliṣah, nothing is valid after ḥaliṣah,” etc. Did we not state already “there is nothing after ḥaliṣah”? Because we stated after that, “whether there is one sister-in-law or two sisters-in-law.” If somebody gave qiddushin to the one with whom he performed ḥaliṣah, would they not lay hold on her? Explain it either following Rabbi if he did not intend it or according to everybody if he intended to acquire as “bespeaking” of a sister-in-law but she was not his sister-in-law. Rabbi Abba said, this was stated: “‘Bespeaking’ acquires whether intentional or not intentional, the words of Rabbi. But the Sages say, it acquires only with intention. Rabbi agrees that qiddushin acquire only with intention.” What is Rabbi’s reason? Intercourse acquires, “bespeaking” acquires. Just as intercourse acquires whether intentional or not intentional, so “bespeaking” acquires whether intentional or not intentional. And just as Rabbi says, “bespeaking” acquires whether intentional or not intentional, so he says the bill of divorce frees whether intentional or not intentional. And why does Rabbi say that “bespeaking” acquires whether intentional or not intentional? Since intercourse of an adult acquires whether intentional or not intentional. Even if the bill of divorce would free even if not intentional, ḥaliṣah can free only if it is intentional.
Mishnah
5 How? If he “bespoke” both of them, they need two bills of divorce and a ḥaliṣah . If he “bespoke” one and copulated with the other, they need two bills of divorce and a ḥaliṣah. If he “bespoke” one and gave a bill of divorce to the other, the first one needs a bill of divorce and ḥaliṣah. If he “bespoke” one and performed ḥaliṣah with the other, the first one needs a bill of divorce.
Mishnah
6 If there are bills of divorce for both of them, they need a ḥaliṣah. If there is a bill of divorce to one and he copulated with the other, the latter needs a bill of divorce and ḥaliṣah. If he gave a bill of divorce to one and “bespoke” the other, the second one needs a bill of divorce and ḥaliṣah. If he gave a bill of divorce to one and performed ḥaliṣah with the other, nothing follows after ḥaliṣah.
Halakhah
“How? If he ‘bespoke,’” etc. In the opinion of Rabbi, what about his “bespeaking,” may a nine-year-old “bespeak”? The intercourse of an adult is final; his “bespeaking” partially acquires. The intercourse of a minor is final; does his “bespeaking” partially acquire? What is the difference between his intercourse and his “bespeaking”? But some want to formulate: What is the difference between “bespeaking” of an adult and “bespeaking” of a minor? Samuel said, the words of Rabbi Meir: They made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult. And as you said, they made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult, they made the ḥaliṣah of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult. But the rabbis said, the ḥaliṣah of a child of nine years and one day is nothing. And why did they make the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult? Because the intercourse of an adult acquires whether intentional or not intentional. The ḥaliṣah of a child of nine years and one day was made like a bill of divorce by an adult. But ḥaliṣah by an adult can free only if it is intentional.
Mishnah
7 If he performed ḥaliṣah with both of them, performed ḥaliṣah and “bespoke,” gave a divorce document and copulated, or copulated with both of them, or copulated and “bespoke,” gave a divorce document and performed ḥaliṣah, nothing comes after ḥaliṣah, whether there are two sisters-in-law and one levir or two levirs with one sister-in-law.
Mishnah
8 If he performed ḥaliṣah and “bespoke,” gave a divorce document and copulated, or copulated and “bespoke,” gave a divorce document and performed ḥaliṣah, nothing comes after ḥaliṣah, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. But in the case of copulation, nothing comes after it when it is at the start.’ Rabbi Neḥemiah says, nothing comes after copulation or ḥaliṣah, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end.
Halakhah
“If he performed ḥaliṣah with both of them, performed ḥaliṣah and ‘bespoke,’” etc. “If he performed ḥaliṣah and ‘bespoke,’” etc. There, they say: The words of Rabbi Neḥemiah that an improper copulation frees. In the opinion of the rabbis there copulation frees, whether after “bespeaking” or after a bill of divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, intercourse after “bespeaking” frees; after a bill of divorce it does not free. They did not hear that Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Neḥemiah, Rabbi Simeon, and Rabbi Ishmael all said the same. As it was stated: “If there were three sisters-in-law for one levir, he ‘bespoke’ one, copulated with the second, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. Rabbi Neḥemiah says, the first one needs a bill of divorce and ḥaliṣah, but after copulation there is nothing. An argument ‘from the lesser to the greater.’ If nothing comes after ḥaliṣah, which excludes her from the priesthood, whether she copulated or performed ḥaliṣah, then it is only logical that nothing should come after intercourse which does not exclude her from the priesthood, whether she copulated or performed ḥaliṣah. But for the rabbis he is forbidden the relatives of all three of them and they need three bills of divorce and ḥaliṣah for one of them.”
Mishnah
1 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.” Rabbi 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 Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: Both the deaf-mute and the insane who copulated acquired the widow and freed the co-wives.
“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 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 Judah in the name of Samuel: That the finger should be seen between the lips. Rabbi Joḥanan said, until the gland enters. Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi 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. If for a bound slave girl, until he ejaculates, since Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi 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.”Leviticus 21:15
There, we have stated: “All women become impure in the outer cavity.” What is the outer cavity? Rabbi Joḥanan said, up to the place which is seen when girls sit down to urinate. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said to him, but in all impurities particular to her, she becomes impure only up to the place of teeth. Rabbi Zakkai stated: Up to the place of teeth, and from between the teeth to the inside. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi 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, ..., and to permit her co-wife to the outside. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he acquired everything. Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, when do they disagree? If he touched her. But if he completed the intercourse, everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rabbi 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. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah said: If he married her, she is his wife in every respect.
May she eat heave? Rabbi 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. Rabbi Joḥanan said, she eats even if she did not eat before. Rabbi Yose said, even if she was only able to eat. There is a baraita in support of either one. There is a baraita supporting Samuel: A hearing daughter of an Israelite who married a deaf-mute Cohen does not eat heave. If he died and she came before the levir, if he is hearing, she eats, deaf-mute does not eat. There is a baraita supporting Rabbi Joḥanan: A hearing daughter of an Israelite 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. 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
2 Similarly, anybody who sleeps with 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 ḥaliṣah for a private Cohen, a bastard or Gibeonite female for an Israelite, or an Israelite woman for a male bastard or Gibeonite, disqualified her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.
Halakhah
“Similarly, anybody who sleeps with any of the incest-prohibited women,” etc. “He should not take a widow.” 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 Rabbi Akiva. Following Rabbi Ishmael? Rabbi Ishmael stated: It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to incest prohibitions. 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. Rabbi 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. Rabbi Yosa said, for which purpose was “desecrated” written? Is not bastard worse than desecrated? Rabbi Abun bar Bisna came in the name of Rabbi 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 Rabbi 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.
Mishnah
3 A widow betrothed to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥaliṣah to a private Cohen are not permitted to eat heave; Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi 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 and “being” is mentioned there, “if a girl will be betrothed to a man.”Deuteronomy 22:23 Just as “being” there means betrothal, so “being” here means betrothal. What is the reason of Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon? “Being” is mentioned here and “being” is mentioned there, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s.”Leviticus 22:12 Just as “being” there means marriage, so “being” here means marriage. Rabbi Yosa said, from where do Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon know that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to an Israelite 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 eat. Is it not an argument “from the lesser to the greater”? Since an Israelite, 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 Israelite 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 “from the lesser to the greater” 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. What is the reason of Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon, because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rabbi Eleazar said, this follows Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he cannot enable to eat. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi 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
4 The High Priest shall not marry a widow, whether a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. He shall not marry an adult; Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon enable the adult. 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; it happened that Joshua ben Gamla had given qiddushin to Martha bat Boetos 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. If the brother of a High Priest died, he performs ḥaliṣah 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.
“He shall not marry an adult; Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi 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. Some switch: “He shall not marry one injured by a piece of wood; Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi 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, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon say, he shall not defile himself for her, but the Sages say, he must defile himself for her. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon follow well what they have stated, but the argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “a girl,” not an adult, “a virgin,” not one injured by a piece of wood; and here, they say so? Rabbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. There, “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, they say “the close one,” to exclude the betrothed one, “to him,” to exclude the divorcee. And here, they say so? Rabbi 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. 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,”Leviticus 21:13 not a minor.
He tricked her. 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 Rabbi Simeon agrees but not Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh, since Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely.
“If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥaliṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥaliṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥaliṣah is acquisition, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah?
Mishnah
5 A private priest should not marry a she-ram unless he has a wife and children. Rabbi Judah says, even one who has a wife and children should not marry a she-ram since she is the harlot mentioned in the Torah. 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 Israelite 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.
Rabbi Judah ben Pazi said, it is written: “Between their rows they make oil,”Job 24:11 “they to not turn to the way of vineyards,”Job 24:18 that their copulation was not for children. Rabbi Simon said, it is written: “They ate and were not satiated, they whored and did not spread,”Hosea 4:10 that their copulation was not for children. It is written: “Lemekh took for himself two wives,”Genesis 4:19 “Adah” who was beautifying her body. “Ṣillah,” who was sitting in the shadow of children.
They objected to Rabbi Judah: Think of it, if she was sterile and could not give birth. Think of it, if she was old. Rabbi Eleazar said, intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman not with the intent of marriage is intercourse of harlotry. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, that implies that the High Priest who performed qiddushin by copulation is not having intercourse with a deflowered one.
Mishnah
6 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.”Genesis 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. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, for both of them it says “God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply,”Genesis 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”1 Chronicles 23:15 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.”Genesis 1:27 Rabbi Abun said, one has to understand “even a male and a female.” If it were not so, it should have been a Mishnah 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.
Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. The reason of that Tanna: “At the end of ten years since Abram lived in the Land of Canaan.”Genesis 16:3 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. Rabbi Ḥanina bar ʿAgil in the name of Rabbi 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? 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 Tannaim state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaim state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not. 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 children and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaim state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaim state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise. 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: Rabbi 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, circumcised 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.
Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi 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.”Genesis 1:28 Who usually conquers? The man, not the woman. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Isaac bar Marion, in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rabbi Jacob bar Idi, Rabbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula in the name of Rabbi Judah Neśia: If she requests to be married, she has the law on her side. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rabbi 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, referring to what we have stated there: “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.” Rabbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Rabbi wanted to do away with the Ninth of Av but they did not let him. Rabbi Eleazar said to him, I was with you and it was only said that Rabbi 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: “Two are better than one.”
Mishnah
1 If a widow married to a High Priest, or a divorcee or one freed by ḥaliṣah married to a simple priest, brought him slaves as paraphernalia or as mortmain: The slaves of separate property may not eat heave, the slaves of mortmain may eat heave. These are slaves of paraphernalia: If they died, they died as her property, if they increased, they increased as her property. Even though he is responsible for their upkeep, they may not eat heave. These are slaves of mortmain: If they died, they died as his property, if they increased, they increased as his property. Since he guarantees them, they may eat heave.
Halakhah
“A widow married to a High Priest,” etc. From where do we know that a priest who married a wife or bought slaves enables them to eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,”Leviticus 22:11 etc. From where do we know that if his wife bought slaves, and her slaves bought slaves, that they may eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,” etc. Also his acquisition which bought an acquisition enables him to eat. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar. “They shall eat,”Leviticus 22:11 they shall enable to eat. The baraita speaks about a slave who acquired slaves within the power of his master. But if a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them, they are his property. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar. If a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them and he died, the first person who comes can grab them. In that case, that slave is not his property’s property.
Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “They shall eat,” they shall enable to eat. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat. Rabbi Joḥanan says, because of a fine. What is the difference between them? If an uncircumcised slave buys slaves. If you say, it is a fine, here there is no fine. If you say the one who may eat enables to eat, this one, since he is not able to eat, cannot enable to eat.
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there is disagreement about mortmain slaves. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rabbi Eleazar said to him, they are eating heave by his power and you say so? He answered, do not paraphernalia slaves also eat by his power, and one says that if he sold them, they are not sold. From your own they gave to you. It would be logical that one should not eat heave. But they said that he eats, and they said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Josiah. A baraita supports one and another baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rabbi Eleazar: Paraphernalia slaves are freed on account of “tooth and eye” from the wife but not the husband. Mortmain slaves are freed by “tooth and eye” from the husband but not the wife. What does Rabbi Joḥanan do with this? They are quick to manumit, as we have stated: If somebody mortgages a slave and later sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. A baraita supports Rabbi Joḥanan: Neither mortmain slaves nor paraphernalia slaves are under the rules of “one or two days”Exodus 21:20 and are freed by “tooth or eye” from neither the husband nor the wife. Where do they disagree? When he sold them forever or sold them for some time? If you say that he sold them permanently rather than temporarily, does everybody agree that they are sold? If you say that he sold them temporarily rather than permanently, does everybody agree that they are not sold? Let us hear from the following: If somebody mortgages his field to his wife for her ketubah or to a creditor for his claim and then sells it, it is sold and the buyer should beware for himself. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for the ketubah of the wife it is not sold since it is unthinkable that a woman should run around at courts of law. They said, Rabbi Eleazar parallels the rabbis, Rabbi Joḥanan Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. That means, we deal with a temporary sale. But if he sold permanently, everybody agrees that they are not sold.
The offspring of a paraphernalia animal belongs to the husband, that of a paraphernalia slave girl belongs to the wife. Ḥanania the nephew of Rabbi Joshua said, the offspring of a paraphernalia animal is like that of a paraphernalia slave girl. Rabbi Eleazar said to the colleagues, you should know that Rabbi Joḥanan follows Ḥanania the nephew of Rabbi Joshua. Rav and Samuel, Rav follows the rabbis, but Samuel follows Ḥanania the nephew of Rabbi Joshua. Samuel objected to Rav: According to you who says, they belong to the wife, should the first-born not take a double portion? Think of it, if she brought them when they were small and they grew up, are they not the wife’s, and you agree with me that the first-born takes a double portion!
It was stated: If she brought them when they were small, she takes them when they are lads. If she brought him two vessels. If one of them was worth the value of her marriage contract, she takes it for her marriage contract. If one and a half was the value of her marriage contract, disagreement of Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob. One of them said, he pays for the second vessel and takes it; the other one says, she pays for the second vessel and takes it. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said before Rabbi Immi, Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yasa: Even if one was worth one and a half times the value of her marriage contract, she pays for the second vessel and takes it, because it is unthinkable that others should use her vessels. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: A baraita says so: If she brought them for their monetary value, she takes them for their monetary value.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked Rabbi Mana: What is the etymology of “mĕlōg slaves”? He said to him, as you say: strip off, strip off!
There, we have stated: “If somebody receives a flock under mortmain conditions from a Gentile, the young are free, the young’s young are obligated.” Rabbi Jeremiah asked: There you say, the young are for the first, and here you say, the young are for the second! Rabbi Yosa said, there, because the property rights are with the first, the young belong to the first. But here, because the property rights are with the second, the young belong to the second.
Mishnah
2 If a daughter of an Israelite married a Cohen and brought him paraphernalia or mortmain slaves, they may eat heave. But if a daughter of a Cohen married an Israelite and brought him paraphernalia or mortmain slaves, they may not eat.
Mishnah
3 If a daughter of an Israelite married a Cohen who then died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus. A fetus disqualifies but cannot enable to eat, the words of Rabbi Yose. They said to him, after you testified before us about the daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen, even if a daughter of a Cohen was married to a Cohen who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus.
Halakhah
Rabbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: Her slaves may eat, his slaves may not eat. For if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat! Rabbi Josia in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If it is from this, she also should not eat. Rabbi Ḥaggai said before Rabbi Yose: Not that Rabbi Joḥanan disagrees, he only said, for if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat. There came a case before Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. He said, go out and look how the public behaves. Rabbi Abin said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not eat. Rabbi Yose said, this means that the fetus does not disable anybody able to eat and does not enable anybody unable to eat.
Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose stated in the name of his father: If there was a daughter, she enables to eat. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Because she is able to take her upkeep away from them. Is a wife not also able to take her upkeep away from them? She might request her ketubah be paid or lose her ketubah. This is difficult! The ketubah is a biblical institution, the upkeep of the daughters is rabbinical; do their institutions uproot a word of the Torah? It follows him who said that they accepted tithes voluntarily.
We find that Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose disagrees with his father since Rabbi Simon said in the name of Hilfai: Rabbi, Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and Ben Qappara voted on the airspace of Ascalon and declared it pure from the testimony of Rabbi Phineas ben Yair who said, we were descending to the Saracen market at Ascalon where we bought wheat, returned to our town, immersed ourselves and ate our heave. The next day they wanted to vote to free it from tithes but Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose removed his hand. He was leaning on Ben Qappara. He said to him, my son, why did you not say to me: did you not remove your hand? I would have told you that yesterday I was he who declared it impure, I am he who declared it pure. But now I am saying, maybe it was conquered within the meaning of the Torah, how can I free it from the meaning of the Torah? When is it impure because of territory of Gentiles? But we found that he stated in the name of his father that they accepted tithes voluntarily! And he said, it is correct that if tithes are from their words and the food of the daughters is of their words that their words may uproot their words.
“If there are males they enable to eat, females do not enable to eat.” If there are males, they enable to eat since there is one doubt, whether he is male or female. A doubt in biblical matters forces restriction. Females do not enable to eat since there are two doubts, whether he is male or female, ... A doubt regarding their words forces leniency. However you take it, if he is male, everything is his. Female, she takes her part with them.
Mishnah
4 The fetus, the levir, the betrothal, the deaf-and-dumb, and the male nine years and one day old disable but do not enable to eat. If there was a doubt whether or not he had reached nine years and one day; whether or not he had grown two pubic hairs; when the house fell on him and his brother’s daughter and it is not known who of them died first, her co-wife performs ḥaliṣah but not levirate.
Halakhah
“The fetus, the levir, the betrothal,” etc. Rabbi Simeon said, here the logic is deficient, for if it is action to disable it also should be action to enable, and if it is not action to disable it also should not be action to enable. Rabbi Simeon is correct; what is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall eat,” they shall enable to eat. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat. They objected: there is the bastard who may not eat and he enables to eat! There is a difference, since it is written “born in the house.”Leviticus 22:11 Then the born should enable, the not born should not enable! There is a difference, since it is written “and she returns to her father’s house,” to exclude the one waiting for the levir, “in her youth,” to exclude the pregnant one. Rabbi Yose said, that means that they considered pregnancy to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat. The words of the rabbis disagree since Zeʿira said, there they state that the betrothed, the one waiting for the levir, and the pregnant, pay the capital but not the fifth. What are we speaking about? If about the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israelite, even if she had children from him she is not an outsider for it. But we must deal with the daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen. If you say, they considered the fetus to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat, why does she pay the capital but not the fifth, should she not pay capital and fifth?
“The deaf-and-dumb disables.” Did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: “The wife of the deaf-and-dumb or the insane immerses herself from her husband’s bosom and eats”? Rabbi Abba Mari and Rabbi Mattaniah, one said, a disqualified deaf-and-dumb, the other said, a deaf-and-dumb levir.
“Whether he had reached nine years and one day or not,” he is as if he were nine years and one day old to disable; “whether he had grown two pubic hairs or not,” he is as if he had grown two pubic hairs to make her eat.
“When the house fell on him and his brother’s daughter and it is not known who of them died first, her co-wife performs ḥaliṣah but not levirate.” Why do we come here to state doubts? Since we had stated the rules for co-wives, we now state for doubts concerning co-wives.
Mishnah
5 The rapist, the seducer, and the insane do neither disable nor enable to eat, but if they are unable to marry in Israel they disable. How is that? If an Israelite slept with the daughter of a Cohen, she may eat heave, if she became pregnant she may not eat. If the fetus was cut into pieces in her body she may eat. If a Cohen slept with the daughter of an Israelite, she may not eat heave, if she became pregnant she may not eat, if she gave birth she may eat. It turns out that the son’s power is greater than the father’s.
Halakhah
“The rapist, the seducer,” etc. This means that rape does not disable an unmarried priestly woman.
This supports what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of the deaf-and-dumb or the insane immerses herself from her husband’s bosom and eats, against Rabbi Eleazar, since Rabbi Eleazar said, also if an unmarried man had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage it is copulation of harlotry.
Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months. Rabbi Jonah said this before Rabbi Yose. He said to him, do not accept that from here, they were lenient for eating heave. If a daughter of a Cohen was married to an Israelite, her husband went overseas, and she received notice that he died, does she not immediately eat heave? But because of a fetus she has to wait three months.
“If they are unable to marry in Israel they disable.” These are: “A child of nine years and one day, an Ammonite, Moabite, or Egyptian proselyte, or a bastard, desecrated, Gibeonite, Samaritan, and Gentile who had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite, a Cohen, or a Levite, disqualified her for the priesthood. Rabbi Yose said, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified; his intercourse does not disqualify those whose descendant would not be disqualified. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in all cases, if his daughter is permitted to you, so is his widow; if his daughter is not permitted to you, neither is his widow.”Mishnah Yadayim 4:4 In what do they differ? Rabbi Joḥanan says, an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte is between them. For him who says, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified, here since his descendant would be disqualified, his intercourse disqualifies. For him who says, if you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow, here since you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow. The words of the Sages? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of the rabbis, Rabbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. Rabbi Zakkai: Rabbi Alexander sent to ask about the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte and the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian. Rabbi Yose said to him, did you not hear that Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of the rabbis, Rabbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. And everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified. Do we not need it when her mother was from Israel? That you should not say that since her mother was desecrated so her daughter was desecrated. In addition, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish disagreed, the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, Rabbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, they are disqualified. Rabbi Yose ben Abun said, they disagree about the old women: Rabbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, they are disqualified.
Mishnah
6 A slave disables because of intercourse but not because of descendants. How is this? A daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen or the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israelite had a son from him. The son went and was pressed on a slave girl who had a son from him; the latter is a slave. If his father’s mother was a daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen, she cannot eat heave, the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israelite may eat heave.
Halakhah
“A slave disables because of intercourse,” etc. From where do we know that the intercourse with a slave disables? Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue,”Leviticus 22:13 from a man with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from a man with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. Rabbi Jeremiah objected: But if a widow whored she has no widowhood or divorce and she returns! Rabbi Yose did not say so, but he held that the argument of Rabbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: Because if a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. In Qiddushin one says, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says it in his own name but there he says it in the name of Rabbi Ishmael! For also according to the words of the Sages the child is a bastard. Rabbi Ḥizqiah did not say so, but: the argument of Rabbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: Because if a Gentile or slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. In Qiddushin one says, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says, from a man with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from a man with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. Rabbi Mattaniah said, I went to Seḥora and heard: Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Ishmael the sons of Jesua: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue,”Leviticus 22:13 from a man with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from a man with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. And I said, that is correct, there is no bastard, following Rabbi Joshua, for a bastard is only from a woman which is for him under an incest prohibition and for whom one is punished by divine extirpation.
Mishnah
7 A bastard disables and enables to eat. How is this? A daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen or the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israelite had a daughter from him. If the daughter went and married a slave or a Gentile and had a son from him, that is a bastard. If his mother’s mother was a daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen, she can eat heave, the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israelite cannot eat heave.
Halakhah
“A bastard disables,” etc. Does that not disagree with Rav, since Rav said that if a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is acceptable. Explain it that the Gentile disables and the slave disables.
Mishnah
8 Sometimes the High Priest disables. How is this? A Cohen’s daughter was married to an Israelite and had a daughter from him. The daughter went and was married to a Cohen and had a son from him. The latter possibly is a High Priest serving on top of the altar. He enables his mother to eat and disables his mother’s mother. The latter says, not like my son the High Priest who disables me from heave.
Halakhah
“The High Priest,” etc. Bar Kappara stated: A one-day-old disables and enables to eat.
So is the Mishnah: “Not like my son the High Priest who disables me from heave.” A Cohen’s daughter was married to an Israelite and had a daughter from him; an Israelite’s daughter was married to a Cohen and had a son from him. The two married and had a son. The latter possibly is a High Priest serving on top of the altar. He enables his mother to eat and disables his mother’s mother. The latter says, not like my son the High Priest who disables me from heave.
Mishnah
1 The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat. Someone injured in his testicles or with cut-off penis and his slaves may eat, his wives may not eat; but if he did not know her carnally after he was injured in his testicles or his penis was cut off, they may eat.
Halakhah
“The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man,”Leviticus 22:4 to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified food.”Leviticus 22:10 I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rabbi Tiufa asked before Rabbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rabbi Akiva. Following Rabbi Ishmael? Rabbi Ishmael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rabbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rabbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.
Rabbi Abun asked: Should not heave be forbidden to the mourner by an inference “from the lesser to the greater”? Since tithe, which is permitted to outsiders, is forbidden to the mourner, should not heave, which is forbidden to outsiders, be forbidden to the mourner? No. If you said it about tithe which needs an enclosure, what can you say about heave which does not need an enclosure? Therefore, since each of them has an aspect missing in the other, they cannot teach an inference from one to the other.
Are sacrifices forbidden for the uncircumcised? One cannot deduce the answer from Passover since they are not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, neither from heave since that would be inference after inference. At the end, you have to say “from it, from it.” Since “from it”Exodus 12:9 which was said in the laws of Passover implies that the uncircumcised is disqualified, so “from it”Leviticus 7:14 which was said in the laws of sacrifices must imply that the uncircumcised is disqualified. Are sacrifices forbidden for the mourner? “From it, from it.” Since “from it” which was said in the laws of tithe states that the mourner is disqualified, so “from it” which was said in the laws of Passover must imply that the mourner is disqualified.
Is it free? Has it not been used for a derivation? As it was stated: “Sojourner,” that is the one who is permanently acquired, “hireling” the one temporarily acquired. It should only say “sojourner”; why does the verse mention “hireling”? Should the one who is permanently acquired be forbidden to eat and the one temporarily acquired be permitted? But I would have said that “sojourner” means the one temporarily acquired; the mention of the “hireling” teaches that “sojourner” means the one permanently acquired. Rabbi Mathias said, since it is written “no uncircumcised person may eat from it,”Exodus 12:48 it is as if free from one side.
In the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, for which reason were “sojourner or hireling” written for heave? Like what Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Yasa, if somebody bought uncircumcised slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If somebody bought uncircumcised slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them, they still cannot eat heave even if circumcised. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If somebody bought slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them but they changed their minds, he keeps them for twelve months. If they accept, it is fine; otherwise, he may sell them to a Gentile. Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that somebody bought a village full of uncircumcised slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them but they changed their minds. He came and asked the rabbis. They said to him, keep them for twelve months. If they accept, it is fine; otherwise one follows the local customs.
Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman also said: Rabbi Joshua ben Levi was in Laodicea and met there Rabbi Judah the Patriarch. He wanted to leave early, when he said to him wait for us tomorrow to immerse this woman convert. Rabbi Zera asked Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman: Was that to honor the old man or because one does not immerse a woman convert at night? He said to him, because one does not immerse a woman convert at night. A case came before Rabbi Yose whether one may immerse converts at night. They could not agree.
A slave may be a permanent sojourner. A sojourner is like a Gentile in every respect. Rabbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Judah in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: One keeps the sojourner for twelve months. If he changes his mind, that is fine; otherwise he is like a Gentile in all respects. Rabbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Judah, Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi: The sojourner has to accept on condition that he may eat cadaver meat. Rabbi Hila said, one would then say, the words are interpreted as they are written. What does it mean, the words are interpreted as they are written? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it.”Deuteronomy 14:21 Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he accepts all commandments written in the Torah. Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. Rabbi Zeʿira said, from their consensus: unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. For if it were not so, what would we say? Since he is forbidden idolatry he cannot render profane. But are Gentiles not also forbidden idolatry and they do render profane? Rabbi Yose said, that you should not say, since he is equal to an Israelite in three respects, do not oppress, do not cheat, and he is exiled like an Israelite, that he has no power to render profane. Therefore, it was necessary to spell out that he renders idols profane like a Gentile. Who is the Tanna who includes “do not oppress”? He is Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah, as it was stated: The sojourner is protected by the prohibition, the words of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah.
Rabbi Judah says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on a holiday. Just as a Jew bakes and cooks but is forbidden to work, so is the sojourner on the Sabbath. Rabbi Yose says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on the intermediate days of a holiday. Just as a Jew on the intermediate days of a holiday collects from the field but is forbidden agricultural work, so is the sojourner on the Sabbath. Rabbi Simeon says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on the remaining days of the year. Just as a Jew on the remaining days of the year plows, sows, and harvests, so does the sojourner on the Sabbath. Rav Ada, Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Simeon.
It is written: “Any slave who is a man bought by money.”Exodus 12:44 You circumcise by force a slave who is a man, you do not circumcise by force a son who is a man. Rabbi Joḥanan asked, does this imply that you may circumcise a minor by force? Even like one of undescended testicles? Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Abba: It is so. “If he found there a foundling. If he immersed him as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; if he immersed him as a free person, he circumcises him as a free person.”Mishnah Makhshirin 2:7 Rabbi Joḥanan asked, as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; even like one of undescended testicles? Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia did not say so, but “any slave who is a man bought by money.” If your slave is a man, you circumcise him by force. If your son is a man, you do not circumcise him by force. This refers to what Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Yasa: If somebody buys uncircumcised slaves from Gentiles on condition that he will circumcise them, in any case if they are slaves who are men, you circumcise them by force. On condition that he will not circumcise them, he is like a son who is a man, you do not circumcise him by force.
The one drawn circumcised, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised before he converted may not eat heave. Rabbi Zeriqan, Rabbi Yannay ben Rabbi Ishmael, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: As a fine. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: They instituted a fence. What is the difference between them? If another person drew it, or that it regrew by itself. If you want to say, it is a fine, there is no place for a fine. If you say they instituted a fence, nevertheless they instituted a fence.
“Circumcising he shall circumcise.”Genesis 17:13 A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering. One for the uncovering, the other for the fibers. So far following Rabbi Akiva who said, these are expressions of additions. From where for Rabbi Ishmael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”Genesis 31:30? Rabbi Judah bar Pazi said, “then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions,”Exodus 4:26 from here that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering; one for the uncovering, the other for the fibers. Rav said, “circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised. “Circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise until he circumcises himself; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile. Rabbi Levi said, it is written: “But you have to keep my covenant.” You and yours.
It was stated: “A Jew may circumcise a Samaritan but a Samaritan may not circumcise a Jew since he is circumcised in the name of Mount Gerizim, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him, where do we find in the Torah that circumcision needs intent? Let him continue to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim until he dies!” “The drawn should not circumcise again in case he gets into danger, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and fathered sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn circumcised, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised before he converted. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised since that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rabbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student. There came a case before Rav, who said: Who is he who said that it is a compressed prepuce? That means, he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him. Rabbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him. A male child was born to Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in that condition. He squeezed it, he died. Rabbi Abin said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him that he should die. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his testicles became injured and he fasted for him that he should die.
A certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but a doubtful one does not push away the Sabbath. “His prepuce,”Leviticus 12:3 his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the hermaphrodite does not push away the Sabbath even though Rabbi Judah said one pushes away the Sabbath for the hermaphrodite and is punished for him by divine extirpation. “His prepuce,” his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the one born at dusk does not push away the Sabbath. “His prepuce,” his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the one born circumcised does not push away the Sabbath even though the House of Shammai say one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.
There, we have stated: “Everybody is required to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite.” What says Rabbi Judah in this respect? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rabbi Judah, “also the blind one.” Nobody says “also” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rabbi Judah seems to be inverted. There he says to exclude, but here he says to include. Rabbi Judah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain “uncircumcised,” why does the verse add “male”? Only if he is totally male. Rabbi Judah explains “male,” why does the verse add “uncircumcised”? Even if he is partially male. But here, “all your maleness,” that excludes the hermaphrodite.
There, we have stated: “One does not circumcise a sick baby until he gets well.” Samuel said, even if he runs a fever for one hour one waits with him up to one month. May one feed him with milk-substitute from heave? May one rub him with heave oil? Let us hear from the following: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat.” Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum: The prepuce is counted only from the eighth day onward. It was stated so: For the entire thirty days it is forbidden to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and forbidden to rub him with heave oil. How do you treat the night of the eighth day? Since it was stated: In the night of the eighth day it enters the corral to be tithed, that means that the night of the eighth is treated like the eighth day. It was stated so: All seven days long one is permitted to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and permitted to rub him with heave oil.
There, we have stated: “These are the fibers which invalidate the circumcision.” Rabbi Avina in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: If it covers most of the height of the corona. Rabbi Yose ben Yose said, if it covers most of the top of the corona. Rabbi Tebi in the name of Samuel: One checks at the time of an erection. “If he circumcised and did not fold back, it is as if he did not circumcise.”Mishnah Shabbat 19:6 It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left in the day to correct it. But if there is time left in the day to correct, he corrects without hesitation.
It was stated: As long as he is occupied with the circumcision, he may return both to fibers which invalidate the circumcision as also to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has stopped, he may return only to fibers which invalidate the circumcision. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rabbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Which statement of Rabbi Yose? That which we had stated there: “Rabbi Yose said, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath and somebody forgot that it was the Sabbath and took the palm branch into the public domain he is free from punishment since he took it out with permission.” Is it the same for the knife of circumcision, for a maṣṣah? Since Rabbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rabbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision, that means the same holds for the knife of circumcision, for a maṣṣah.
“If he did not know her carnally after he was injured in his testicles or his penis was cut off, they may eat.” Rabbi Eleazar said, this is Rabbi Eleazar’s and Rabbi Simeon’s. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion; there is a difference since he did not add an acquisition to disable. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the other disagreement, since they disagreed: A priestly woman waiting for her levir who became eligible to two priestly levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her but did not have occasion to bring her to the marriage chamber before he became injured in his testicles or his penis was damaged, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, since she is a candidate for disabling intercourse, she is disabled. Rabbi Joḥanan said, when he will copulate. If one of them was qualified but the other disqualified, even Rabbi Joḥanan agrees. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rabbi Mana, if the qualified one “bespoke” her? He said to him, the disagreement of Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish.
Mishnah
2 Who is injured in his lower parts? Everyone whose testicles are injured, even one of them. The one whose urethra is cut off, anyone whose penis is cut, but he is qualified if there is a thread’s breath left of the corona. The ones injured in their testicles or with cut-off urethra are permitted to marry a convert or a manumitted woman; they are only forbidden to marry into the congregation, as it was said: “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry into the Eternal’s congregation.”
Halakhah
“Who is injured in his lower parts,” etc. “Injured,” I would have said in his eye. The verse says “discharge pipe,” he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe. If he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe it might be his eye in the neighborhood of his nose! The verse says, “the lowly.” What comes between his heels. Rabbi Ḥaggai said before Rabbi Mana, a man’s lowest part when he sits down are his testicles. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, that is correct. You should know that this is so since in all other cases “generations” are written except in this case since he is infertile. And not only if a testicle is injured but also if it is gangrenous, or dried up, or missing. It was stated: Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says: I heard in the vineyard at Jabne that nobody born with only one testicle can be fertile and he is a “sun eunuch.” Rabbi Yose said, I heard that practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa but I do not remember from whom I heard it. Rabbi Immi said, certainly Rabbi Yose did not hear it from a minor personality. Samuel said, if a person with only one testicle will come before me, I shall declare him qualified. Rabbi Ḥuna said, because he thinks like Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Joḥanan. Rabbi Yudan ben Ḥanin said, but only the one of the right hand side. There came a case before Rabbi Immi. He said, yes, my daughter, you are permitted to him. But you should know that he is infertile. Rabbi Zeʿira praised him for making the case clear.
Some Tannaim state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified. Some Tannaim state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rabbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, follows the rabbis. Rabbi Aḥai bar Pappaios said before Rabbi Zeʿira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.
“The one whose urethra is cut off, anyone whose penis is cut, but he is qualified if there is a thread’s breath left of the corona,” etc. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Of the upper side of the corona. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Of the lower side of the corona. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, of the lower side of the corona. There, they said, if it has the shape of a drainpipe, he is qualified. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, if it has the shape of a writing reed, he is qualified, of an inverted writing reed, he is disqualified. If it is punctured, from the inside he is disqualified, from the outside he is qualified. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah, “inside” means from the corona toward the body; “outside” means from the corona away from the body. If it is punctured, he is disqualified; if it became blocked, he is qualified. If the urethra is punctured, he is disqualified, because it pours out; if it became blocked, he is qualified because he can be fertile. That is a disqualification which can revert to a qualification. The only difference between one injured in his lower parts and one whose testicles are injured are medical rules since an injured testicle may heal, an injured urethra does not heal. What can he do? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Judah: He brings ants, lets them bite, and cuts them off.
Rabbi Ḥilqiah, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: One did state this only for an Israelite with an injured testicle, but not a Cohen with an injured testicle. There, we have stated: “All those forbidden to marry into the congregation may marry one another; Rabbi Judah forbids.” Rabbi Jeremiah said, as a matter of principle, an Israelite with an injured testicle may marry a female bastard. Rabbi Yose said, it applies only to family blemishes, not to bodily defects. The strength of Rabbi Yose comes from the statement of Rabbi Ḥilqiah, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: One did state this only for an Israelite with an injured testicle, but not a Cohen, since, as you say there, if he is certainly a Cohen it is disabling if he married a convert; here also, he is certainly an Israelite and forbidden to marry a female bastard.
In the opinion of Rabbi Judah, may a male bastard not marry a female bastard? Let us hear from the following, as Rabbi Immi said, Rabbi Jacob from Gebal stated before Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Rabbi Judah stated that a male bastard should not marry a female bastard so that bastards should disappear from the world. Similarly, is an Ammonite man forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman? Was that needed for the rabbis? For if Rabbi Judah would think that disqualified converts form one of the Eternal’s congregations, then the Ammonite could not marry an Ammonite woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. He could not marry an Egyptian woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. Rabbi Mattania said, one frees a slave girl for him. Similarly, could an Egyptian man not marry an Egyptian woman? Let us hear from the following, as Rabbi Abbahu stated before Rabbi Joḥanan: “Rabbi Judah said, Benjamin, an Egyptian convert, was a student of Rabbi Akiva. He said, I am an Egyptian convert married to an Egyptian convert. My son is an Egyptian convert; I shall marry him to an Egyptian convert so that my grandson will be qualified to marry into the congregation. Rabbi Akiva said to him, my son, it is not so. But you marry him to the daughter of an Egyptian woman convert so that there should be three generations on every side.”
Rav Judah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Eliezer. The words of the Sages? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, it is written: “No bastard shall marry into the Eternal’s congregation.” He cannot marry into a congregation which is certain. He may marry if the membership in the congregation is questionable.
There, we have stated: “If it is doubtful whether the child is a nine-month’s child of the first brother or a seven-month’s of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for a possible sin.” It was stated: “The first son could be High Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.” Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees in cases of doubt of Samaritans and desecrated persons. This refers to what we have stated there: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia.” In the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten.
Rabbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah does not follow Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Judah said that four congregations are called “congregation,” the congregation of priests, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites, the congregation of converts. They objected to Rabbi Judah, but is it not written, “one injured in his testicles should not come”? That refers to bodily blemishes. But is it not written, “children that will be born to them, the third generation shall come from them”? That is a positive commandment. But the rabbis said, there are three congregations, the congregation of priests, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites; “they shall not come, they shall not come, they shall not come.”
Example. The elder Rabbi Hoshaia and Rabbi Judah Neśia were sitting together. Rabbi Joḥanan ran and whispered into Rabbi Hoshaia the elder’s ear: May a Cohen who is injured in his testicles marry the daughter of converts? He asked him, what did he tell you? He answered, a question which a carpenter, son of carpenters, cannot resolve. He did not ask me about a convert, since she is like a whore for him. He did not ask about an Israelite daughter, for she will be desecrated. He asked only about the daughter of converts! Is the daughter of converts not an Israelite? You have to explain it following Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Judah says, the daughter of a male convert has the status of a desecrated male.
If a Cohen had intercourse with a divorcee and had a daughter, and the daughter a daughter, what is her status? Rabbi Ḥanania and Rabbi Mana, one said she is qualified, the other said she is disqualified. The one who said she is qualified objected to the one who said she is disqualified: The daughter of a desecrated male is desecrated for the priesthood. Is this one not from an Israelite? Why do you declare her disqualified?
Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in Rhodes was in bad reputation. Rabbi sent Rabbi Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Zeїra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rabbi Zeїra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rabbi Judan brings it in the name of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. “But he shall take a wife in her virginity,”Leviticus 21:13 which is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. Similarly, “only a virgin from among his people he shall take as wife,”Leviticus 21:14 not a proselyte. Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Rabbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is under a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rabbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for an Israelite cannot be compared to a positive commandment for priests. A positive commandment for an Israelite implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for priests implies a prohibition for priests but a permission for Levites and Israel.
Mishnah
3 Ammonites and Moabites are eternally forbidden but their females are immediately permitted. Egyptians and Edomites are forbidden only for three generations, both males and females. Rabbi Simeon said, is it not an argument “from the lesser to the greater”? If He permitted the females immediately in a case where the males are eternally forbidden, should we not permit the females in a case where He forbade the males only for three generations? They said to him: If it is practice, we shall accept this; if it is a logical argument, there is a counter-argument. He said to them, in fact, I am declaring practice. Bastards and Gibeonites are eternally forbidden, both males and females.
Halakhah
“Ammonites and Moabites are forbidden,” etc. “Ammonite,”Deuteronomy 23:3 but not female Ammonite. “Moabite,”Deuteronomy 23:3 but not female Moabite. Similarly, “Edomite”Deuteronomy 23:7 but not female Edomite, “Egyptian”Deuteronomy 23:7 but not female Egyptian? It is written: “Because they did not receive you with bread and water,”Deuteronomy 23:4 should the women have received? “Who hired against you,”Micah 6:5 “who took counsel,” who usually hires? Males but not females. Who usually sits in counsel? Males but not females.
It is written: “Shaharaim fathered children in the fields of Moab, after he had sent them, Hushim and Baara his wives.”1 Chronicles 8:8 “Shaharaim,” that is Boaz who was freed from sins. “He fathered children in the fields of Moab” because he married Ruth the Moabite. “After he had sent them,” he was from the tribe of Judah, of whom it is written, “he sent Judah before him.”Genesis 46:28 “Hushim and Baara his wives,” can anybody father his wives? But it means that he was quick as a panther and explained the practice. “He fathered from New Moon his wife,”1 Chronicles 8:9 should it not have been: he fathered from Baarah, one of his wives? But through her, practice was newly defined: “Ammonite,” and but female Ammonite. “Moabite,” but not female Moabite.
One verse says, “his name was Yitra the Israelite;” another verse says, “Yeter the Ishmaelite.”1 Chronicles 2:17 Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he was an Ishmaelite. And you say, he was an Israelite? But he entered the court of Isaiah and found him sitting and explaining: “turn to me and be saved, all ends of the earth,”Isaiah 45:22 and converted. Then he gave him his daughter. But the rabbis say, he was an Israelite, and you say, an Ishmaelite? But he fastened his belt like an Ishmaelite and stuck his sword in the earth in court, to kill or be killed, to support the word of my teacher: I shall kill with this sword anybody who transgresses this practice: “Ammonite,” and not female Ammonite; “Moabite,” and not female Moabite. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, I have only what I did learn: “Naomi returned with Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the fields of Moab.”Ruth 1:22 She is the one who first returned from the fields of Moab. Afterwards, he told her: “You abandoned your father and your mother.” He said to her: If you had come to us yesterday or the day before, we would not have accepted you.
Rabbi Zakkai stated before Rabbi Joḥanan: The daughter of an Ammonite convert is enabled, the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert is disabled. Rabbi Joḥanan told him: Babylonian, you crossed three rivers on your way and got lost! But both the daughter of an Ammonite convert and the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert are enabled. Rabbi Yosa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The statement is needed only if her mother was from Israel. That you should not say, since her mother was desecrated, so the daughter is desecrated. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, she is enabled even for the High Priest. What is the reason? “In his peoples.”Leviticus 21:14 A people divided into two peoples, the males are forbidden but their females permitted. Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Pedat: Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish did not say so, but the daughter of an Ammonite convert is disabled since she comes from a disabled drop. Rabbi Joḥanan said, we have stated thus: Of Gentiles married unconverted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are immediately permitted. If they converted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are permitted after three generations. Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: A baraita states this: From where can you say that if one of any of the families of the earth cohabited with a Canaanite woman and she gave birth to a son, that you may buy him as a slave? The verse says, “whom they will father in your land,”Leviticus 25:45 not from those who dwell in your land.
Samuel bar Abba asked: Are generations counted for slaves? How is that? A converted Ammonite slave who married a converted Egyptian slave. After three generations they converted. If you say that generations are counted for slaves, the males are permanently forbidden but the females are permitted after three generations.
“They said to him: If it is practice, we shall accept this; if it is a logical argument, there is a counter-argument.” What could they have argued? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina: Are not his grandchildren forbidden for three generations, both male and female? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish questioned, does one argue a matter concerning bastardy in a matter not concerning bastardy? Rabbi Ḥaggai said that Rabbi Abbahu questioned, does one argue a matter concerning extirpation in a matter not concerning extirpation? He said to them, in fact, I am declaring practice and a verse supports me. “Sons,” not daughters.
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Josia: The eleventh generation of bastards is qualified following Rabbi Simeon; he does not use the principle of gezerah šawah. It was stated: Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon says, in the eleventh generation of bastards, the males are forbidden and the females permitted. Here also the males are forbidden and the females permitted. Rabbi Samuel ben Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, it turns out that Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon follows the argument of Rabbi Meir. As Rabbi Meir said, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse, so Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon says, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse. Here also, the males are forbidden and the females permitted. In that case, even immediately? Only from the tenth and further.
They asked Rabbi Eliezer, what is the status of the eleventh generation of a bastard? He said to them, bring to me a third generation and I shall declare him pure. What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason since he does not seem to follow Rabbi Ḥanina? As Rabbi Ḥanina said, once every sixty to seventy years the Holy One, praise to Him, brings a plague into the world to finish off the bastards and he takes the qualified ones with them in order not to publicize the sinners. This parallels what Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “In the place where the ascent offering has its throat cut before the Eternal, the purification sacrifice has its throat cut,”Leviticus 6:25 in order not to publicize the sinners. What is the reason? “ Also He is wise and brings evil;”Isaiah 31:2 should it not rather be “brings good”? But to teach you that even the evil that the Holy One, praise to Him, brings to the world, He brings in wisdom. “His word He did not remove,” why all this? “He overcomes the house of evildoers and accomplices of workers of iniquity.” That parallels what Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “In the place where the ascent offering has its throat cut before the Eternal, the purification sacrifice has its throat cut,” in order not to publicize the sinners. Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days. When Rabbi Zeʿira immigrated here, he heard voices call “he-bastard, she-bastard.” He said, what is this? There goes that of Rav Huna, since Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, I was with you when Rabbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: No bastard lives more than thirty days, when? If it is unknown. Therefore, if it is known, he lives.
Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will only deal with the tribe of Levi. What is the reason? “ The refiner will sit, the purifier of silver, and will refine them,”Malachi 3:3 etc. Rabbi Zeʿira said, like a man who only drinks from a clean cup. Rav Hoshaia said, because we are Levites, should we lose? Rabbi Ḥanina the son of Rabbi Abbahu said, also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will deal with them charitably. What is the reason? “ They will be for the Eternal presenters of an offering in righteousness.”Malachi 3:3
Rabbi Joḥanan said, one does not investigate a family in which a family disqualification has disappeared. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, a Mishnah says so: “There was a family in Bet Ṣerifa in Transjordan who was forcibly distanced by Ben Ṣion. Another family was there who was forcibly integrated by Ben Ṣion.”Mishnah Eduyot 8:7 Nevertheless, the Sages did not want to make their names public. But the Sages transmit them to their sons and students two times in a Week. Rabbi Joḥanan said, by the Temple service, I know them and the leading personalities of the generation have disappeared in them. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, Pashhur ben Immer the priest had 5000 slaves, and their traces have disappeared in the high priesthood. These are the insolent in the priesthood. Rabbi Eleazar said, their main training: “Your people is like quarrelsome priests.” Rabbi Abbahu said, Samaritans disappeared in thirteen villages in the times of persecution. They said, the village of Moshhan is one of them.
Mishnah
4 Rabbi Joshua said, I heard that the castrate performs ḥaliṣah and one performs ḥaliṣah for his wife, and that the castrate does not perform ḥaliṣah and one does not perform ḥaliṣah for his wife, and I cannot explain. Rabbi Akiva said, I shall explain it. A castrate by human action performs ḥaliṣah and one performs ḥaliṣah for his wife since he had been qualified; a congenital castrate does not perform ḥaliṣah and one does not perform ḥaliṣah for his wife since he never had been qualified. Rabbi Eliezer said, it is not so, but a congenital castrate performs ḥaliṣah and one performs ḥaliṣah for his wife since he might be healed, a castrate by human action does not perform ḥaliṣah and one does not perform ḥaliṣah for his wife since he cannot be healed. Rabbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about Ben Megisa in Jerusalem that he was a castrate by human action and they instructed that levirate be performed for his wife, to endorse the words of Rabbi Akiva.
Mishnah
5 The castrate does not perform either ḥaliṣah or levirate; similarly, the she-ram does not perform either ḥaliṣah or levirate. The castrate who performed ḥaliṣah for his sister-in-law did not disable her; if he copulated with her he disabled her because it is incestuous. Similarly, if the brothers performed ḥaliṣah for a she-ram, they did not disable her; if they copulated with her they disabled her because it is incestuous.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Joshua said, I heard,” etc. “That the castrate does not perform ḥaliṣah” etc. “Similarly, if the brothers performed ḥaliṣah for a she-ram,” etc. What is a sun-castrate? Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, anybody whom the sun did not see qualified even for one hour. If somebody stretched out his hand and castrated the not yet born baby in the womb, everybody agrees that when born he is prohibited from marrying into the congregation and he cannot perform either ḥaliṣah or levirate. One imposes on him the restrictions of both castrate by human action and sun-castrate in this disagreement.
The argument of Rabbi Eliezer is inverted. There, he says “it is not so, but a congenital castrate performs ḥaliṣah and one performs ḥaliṣah for his wife,” and you say so? Rabbi Iniah said, Rabbi Eliezer referred only to criminal responsibility.
Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Joshua. But the words of the Sages are that neither the castrate by human action nor the congenital castrate is able to perform ḥaliṣah nor does one perform ḥaliṣah for his wife. He cannot perform levirate, nor does one marry his wife in levirate. That is the Mishnah: “The castrate who performed ḥaliṣah for his sister-in-law did not disable her; if he copulated with her, he disabled her because it is incestuous.” The hermaphrodite who performed ḥaliṣah for his sister-in-law did not disable her; if he copulated with her, he disabled her because it is incestuous. “Similarly, if the brothers performed ḥaliṣah for a she-ram, they did not disable her; if they copulated with her, they disabled her because it is incestuous.”
Mishnah
6 A congenital castrate priest who married an Israelite daughter enables her to eat heave. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon say, an hermaphrodite priest who married an Israelite daughter enables her to eat heave. Rabbi Judah says, a seemingly sexless who was cut open and found to be a male does not perform ḥaliṣah since he is like a castrate. The hermaphrodite marries but is not married. Rabbi Eleazar says a male is guilty to be stoned for homosexual intercourse with an hermaphrodite as with a male.
Halakhah
“A congenital castrate priest,” etc. It was stated: He enables her to eat breast and thigh. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, there are several arguments “from the lesser to the greater” in this matter. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina asked, what does “there are several arguments ‘from the lesser to the greater’ in this matter” mean? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rabbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rabbi Abun said, he gave him an example. “Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israelite, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse says, ‘I gave them to Aaron and his sons for an eternal law;’Leviticus 7:34 since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said the argument is about the daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen: Rabbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, there are several arguments “from the lesser to the greater” in this matter. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina asked, what does “there are several arguments ‘from the lesser to the greater’ in this matter” mean? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rabbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rabbi Abun said, he gave him an example. “Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israelite, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse says, ‘I gave them to Aaron the priest and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”
Is there nobody who disagrees with Rabbi Judah? Since Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Hila, one marries his wife in levirate, that means that nobody disagrees with Rabbi Judah. If he betrothed, his betrothal is not problematic. If he was betrothed, his betrothal is problematic. If he was copulated with, he becomes disabled from heave like a woman. That is difficult. Rabbi Niḥa bar Rabbi Sava, Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Even with his own kind in any case. That is difficult, if he is a male, no male disables a male. If she is a female, no female disables a female. The male aspect of one disables the female aspect of the other. He enables his wives to eat but does not enable his slaves. He enables his wives to eat by his male aspect. But he does not enable his slaves because of his double aspect; his female aspect was desecrated.
Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, only from the place of masculinity. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: even from the female place. Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Rabbi Joshua ben Levi retracted this, from the following verse: “And with a male you should not lie in the way of a woman’s beddings,” one who may lie in two ways, including the female. Who is that? That is the hermaphrodite. Rabbi said, I looked for but did not find words of Ben Shamua about the hermaphrodite, for the entire group ganged up on me. Why? Not to make it public or because he was not worth it? What difference does it make? He usually made public. If you say, it was not to make it public, the publicity is already in his hand. The reason must be that he was not worth it. What could he made public? He inherits, he testifies, his grain offering is burnt completely, one says grace with him as with a male.
Mishnah
1 There exist women permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs, permitted to their levirs but forbidden to their husbands, permitted to both of them, or forbidden to both.The following are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs: If a simple priest was betrothed to a widow and has a brother who is High Priest, or a qualified man married a qualified woman and has a disqualified brother, or an Israelite married an Israelite woman and has a bastard brother, or a bastard married a bastard woman and has an Israelite brother, the women are permitted to their husbands and forbidden for their levirs.
Halakhah
“There exist women permitted to their husbands,” etc. Rabbi Niḥa bar Sava asked before Rabbi Jonah: Why “married”? Even “betrothed”! Why a widow? even a virgin! Are these all? She and her co-wife. I also have others: The co-wife of one suspected of adultery is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir. If his brother had slept with the sister of one who had performed ḥaliṣah with him, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir. If a qualified priest, married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir. This supports Rabbi Jonah, since Rabbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rabbi are not exhaustive.
“If a qualified priest, married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly wives? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified priest, married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly wives. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take,” which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women.“If a qualified priest, married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly wives? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated priest, married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly wives. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take,” which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.
Mishnah
2 These are permitted to their levirs and forbidden to their husbands: If a High Priest was betrothed to a widow and has a brother who is a simple priest, or qualified priest married a disqualified woman and has a disqualified brother, or an Israelite married a bastard woman and has a bastard brother, or a bastard who married an Israelite woman and has an Israelite brother; the women are permitted to their levirs and forbidden to their husbands.
Halakhah
“The following are permitted to their husbands,” etc. He only said “betrothed,” but if he copulated with her, the copulation disqualifies her. That is what we stated: “Forbidden to both of them.”
Are these all? There are others: If somebody takes back a woman he divorced after she had been married to another man, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. If he slept with the sister of a woman with whom he had performed ḥaliṣah, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. If a man with injured testicles married a qualified woman, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. This supports Rabbi Jonah, since Rabbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rabbi are not exhaustive.
Mishnah
3 Forbidden to both of them: If a High Priest married a widow and has a brother who is a High Priest or a simple priest, or a qualified priest married a disqualified woman and has a qualified brother, or an Israelite married a bastard woman and has an Israelite brother, or a bastard married an Israelite woman and has a bastard brother; these women are forbidden to both of them and all other women are permitted to their husbands and their levirs.
Halakhah
Are these all? There are others: A woman suspected of adultery is forbidden to both of them. The widow after ḥaliṣah is forbidden to both of them. If a man with injured testicles married a qualified woman and has a brother with injured testicles, she is forbidden to both of them. This supports Rabbi Jonah, since Rabbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rabbi are not exhaustive.
Mishnah
4 Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim. If she is secondarily prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. Secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband. Secondarily prohibited to both of them, she is forbidden to both of them. She may claim neither Ketubah nor usufruct nor upkeep nor wear but the child is qualified and one forces him to divorce her. A widow married to the High Priest, a divorcee of one that performed ḥaliṣah married to a simple priest, a female bastard or a Gibeoness married to an Israelite, and Israel woman married to a Gibeonite or a bastard have a claim of Ketubah.
Halakhah
“Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim,” etc. “If she is secondarily, rabbinically, prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is permitted to him, she has Ketubah, or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was forbidden to him, does she have no Ketubah?
“If she is secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is forbidden to him, she does not have Ketubah, or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was permitted to him, does she have Ketubah?
“No usufruct.” Rabbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct. Rabbi Yose the Sidonian stated before Rabbi Jeremiah, in disagreement with Rabbi Jeremiah: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What does “no usufruct” mean? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had from her property.
Rabbi Yose said: All the time Rabbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife.
Rabbi Abun asked before Rabbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden wife eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats but her slaves do not eat.
There, we have stated: “A forced bill of divorce is valid in Israel; it is invalid from Gentiles.” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. And Samuel said, publicize in your towns: It is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥaliṣah for a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him, up to 30 days he shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay Ketubah”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him?
What is the difference between these and those? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah do not need support, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have Ketubah. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have Ketubah What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has Ketubah. For those who want to say since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no Ketubah.
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Hila say that they differ about upkeep. Rabbi Joḥanan said, she may demand upkeep. Rabbi Eleazar said to him, one says to him, divorce her! And you say so? They wanted to say so, they differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah. Everybody agrees that she cannot claim support since they even punished her heirs, so much more herself. But for him who says that they differ about upkeep it follows that they do not differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah. They fined her but not her heirs.
Mishnah
5 An Israelite woman betrothed to a Cohen, or pregnant from a Cohen, or waiting for her Cohen levir, and also a Cohen woman betrothed to an Israelite may not eat heave. An Israelite woman betrothed to a Levite, or pregnant from a Levite, or waiting for her Levite levir, and also a Levite woman betrothed to an Israelite may not eat tithe. A Levite woman betrothed to a Cohen, or pregnant from a Cohen, or waiting for her Cohen levir, and also a Levite woman betrothed to a Cohen may not eat either heave or tithe.
Halakhah
“An Israelite woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,”Numbers 18:11 but she is not in his house. “From a Cohen,” for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. “And also a Cohen woman betrothed to an Israelite,” “a daughter of a Cohen when she will belong to an outside man.”Leviticus 22:12 One pregnant from an Israelite or waiting for an Israelite levir: “When she returns to her father’s house,”Leviticus 22:12 that excludes the one waiting for her levir, “as in her youth,” that excludes the pregnant one.
“An Israelite woman betrothed to a Levite,” “you and your house”Numbers 18:31 but she is not in his house. “Pregnant from a Levite,” “born in the house,” this one is not born in his house. Rabbi Yose said, is not “born in the house” written only for a Cohen? As you say there, whoever is born lets eat, whoever is not born does not let eat; here also whoever is born lets eat, whoever is not born does not let eat. “Waiting for her Levite levir,” “you and your house,” but he is not in her house. “And also a Levite woman”: “And a daughter of a Cohen when she will belong to an outside man.”Leviticus 22:12 Is there not written “daughter of a Cohen”? Rabbi Yose said “daughter,” whether she is a Cohen’s or a Levi’s. The daughter of a Cohen who was married to an Israelite may return and eat, the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a Cohen may return and not eat. One pregnant from an Israelite or waiting for an Israelite levir: “When she returns to her father’s house,” that excludes the one waiting for her levir, “as in her youth,” that excludes the pregnant one.
“A Levitic woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,”Numbers 18:11 but he is not in her house. “From a Cohen,” for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It follows him who says one does not give tithe to priests. That means, he himself says one gives heave to priests.
Mishnah
6 An Israelite woman married to a Cohen shall eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she shall eat heave. If then she married a Levite, she shall eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she shall eat tithe. If then she marries an Israelite, she may eat neither heave nor tithe.
Mishnah
7 If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat neither heave nor tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she may eat tithe. From the Levite, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat neither heave nor tithe.
Mishnah
8 A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israelite may not eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may not eat heave. If then she married a Levite, she may eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat tithe. If then she married a Cohen, she may eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat tithe; from the Levite, she may not eat tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she returns to her father’s house and for this case it was said: “She returns to her father’s house as in her youth.”Leviticus 22:13
Halakhah
“A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israelite,” etc. Rabbi Leontes asked before Rabbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israelite returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter,”Leviticus 22:13 one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,”Psalms 137:8 was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israelite returns to eat. A daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rabbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,”Leviticus 22:13 not all the food. Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated a support for Rabbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.
Mishnah
1 A woman’s husband went overseas and some persons came and told her, your husband died. If she remarried and then the husband returned, she has to leave both husbands, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate.
Halakhah
“A woman’s husband went overseas,” etc. As you say there, “these women one separates for three months to see whether they are pregnant. If they were minors not yet able to have a child one returns them at once.” Should one not say the same here? There is a difference, since there others deceived them. Did here not also others deceive them? They instituted a fine so that she should investigate carefully. Then they should fine her with respect to the second husband but not with respect to the first! Rabbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Then she should not need a bill of divorce from him! There is a difference since she was married to him in a lawful manner. Samuel said, I say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas. Rabbi Ḥaggai objected before Rabbi Zeʿira: Did we not state: “If they said to her, your husband has died, she was betrothed and then her husband came, she is permitted to return to him.” If you say, maybe he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas; should she not be forbidden to return to him? But it must follow Rabbi Yose ben Kipper, as Rabbi Yose ben Kipper said, from betrothal it is permitted. Did Rabbi Yose ben Kipper not agree that if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce that she was not disabled from priesthood? As we have stated, “even if the second husband gave her a bill of divorce, she was not disabled from priesthood.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Hila: In order to make clear the prohibition of the first.
So far if she knows that she is a married woman. What if she did not know that she was a married woman? Let us hear from the following: An underage girl who was married off by her father. She was divorced and went and married on her own. About this Rabbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rabbi Akiva says also from his wife’s sister and his brother’s wife. Is there a difference? There, whether she knows or does not know, here also whether she knows or does not know.
“Nor usufruct.” Rabbi Avina said, that she cannot recover from him the usufruct he took. That means, before the first husband returned. But if he took after the return of the first, she can recover.
“And if she took anything one takes it away from her.” That means, if she took something after the first husband returned. But if she took before the first returned, just as she cannot take from him so he cannot take from her.
“Any child from either of the men is a bastard.” One understands that the child is a bastard from the second husband. Is it a bastard from the first? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira, this follows Rabbi Akiva, since Rabbi Akiva says if a man copulates with his wife whom he accuses of infidelity the child is a bastard, if a man takes back his divorcee after she had remarried the child is a bastard. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable; the status of her bill of divorce is the status of her bastardy. What is the difference between them? If the second one gave her a bill of divorce and then the first one copulated with her. In the opinion of Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira, the child is a bastard following Rabbi Akiva; in the opinion of Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable.
“Neither of them may defile himself for her.” That is what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “A man defiles himself for his acceptable wife but he does not defile himself for his disqualified wife.”
Some Tannaim state, she leaves under thirteen disabilities, but some Tannaim state, she leaves under fourteen disabilities. He who says that she leaves under thirteen disabilities takes what she finds and what she earns as one case, but he who says under fourteen disabilities takes each one by itself.
Rabbi Jeremiah said, the promiscuous levitic woman still eats tithe. One has stated thus: If a levitic woman was kidnapped or if any one barred for her copulated with her, he is not empowered to disable her. One does not suspect even a hint of disability for Levites who were compromised from their mother’s side. But did we not state: “the daughter of a Levite from tithe”? Rabbi Yose said, explain it that an Israelite slept with her and she bore him a son.
Rabbi Bisna in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: A promiscuous priestly woman may eat tithe. Is that not the Mishnah: “the daughter of a Cohen from heave,” this implies that she eats tithe. It may follow him who says that tithe is not given to priests. Rabbi Nasa said, the words of the rabbis disagree, since Rabbi Hila, Simeon ben Yosina, in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia said: If a Cohen slept with a divorcee, had a son from her, and died. If the father died within thirty days of the son’s birth, the son must redeem himself. After thirty days, the presumption is that his father redeemed him. If he redeems for others, certainly for his son.
Had it not already been stated: “she has no ketubah”? Rabbi Yose ben Jacob said, that you should not say, they fined her but not her heirs. Therefore it was necessary to say, she has no ketubah.
Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him.” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rabbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there, as Rabbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rabbi Akiva says also from his wife’s sister and his brother’s wife. But following the rabbis here? Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him because of the rule of a married wife. He married a person forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rabbi Ḥananiah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs. Rabbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rabbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee is permitted. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: All co-wives are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted in her house. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rabbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions.
Mishnah
2 Rabbi Yose says, her ketubah is from the property of her first husband. Rabbi Eleazar says, the first husband is entitled to what she finds and earns and may annul her vows. Rabbi Simeon says, copulation with her or ḥaliṣah with her by a brother of the first husband frees her co-wives and a child from him is not a bastard; if she was married without permission she is permitted to return to him.If she married by a decision of the court, she must leave but is free from the sacrifice; without a decision of the court, she must leave but must bring the sacrifice. The power of the court frees her from the sacrifice. If the court instructed her to marry but she misbehaved, she must bring a sacrifice since they permitted her only to marry.
Halakhah
“If she married by a decision of the court,” etc. Rabbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Zeʿira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rabbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rabbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rabbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Zeʿira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. This means that Rabbi Yose does not disagree about the other matters.
What does Rabbi Eleazar say about ketubah? If you say that he is entitled to things that come to him in prohibition, then ketubah that came to him in permission certainly!
It is reasonable to say that Rabbi Eleazar agrees with Rabbi Yose but Rabbi Yose does not agree with Rabbi Eleazar; Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Eleazar agree with Rabbi Simeon but Rabbi Simeon does not agree with Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Eleazar. This means that in the opinion of Rabbi Simeon, invalid intercourse frees.
Would it not be reasonable that she should be permitted if she remarried with permission, forbidden if she remarried without permission? Rabbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rabbi Simeon imply that the court made their decision like intentional relations between man and woman, if she remarried without permission like erroneous relations between man and woman. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no “free” here but “obligated.” Rabbi Ḥaggai objected before Rabbi Yose: should it not be an act of instruction? When they instructed that it is permitted to sleep with an otherwise married woman. Is that not uprooting a principle? When they instructed that she is forbidden for five years, from then on permitted. Then it should be so if she misbehaved! Misbehaving is like eating fat or blood. When they instructed that fat is permitted and she ate blood.
Mishnah
3 A woman’s husband and son went overseas and people came and told her, your husband died and after that your son died, and she remarried. After that, they said to her, the sequence was inverted. Then she must leave and the first and the last children are bastards.
Halakhah
“If a woman’s husband and son went overseas,” etc. How do you consider this situation, comparing to witnesses of death or witnesses of divorce? If you compare it to witnesses of death, it disagrees with the rabbis there. If you compare it to witnesses of divorce, it disagrees both with the rabbis here and those there. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: Two witnesses say he died, later two witnesses said, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two witnesses say she was divorced, later two witnesses said, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave. There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rabbi Zeʿira said it without attribution, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he comes he contradicts them. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the first testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certain testimony. Rabbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two witnesses say, his father died while in possession, and two say his father died while not in possession, that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was married, divorced, and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave.
A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was betrothed, and two are saying, she was not betrothed, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rabbi Hoshaia said, Rabbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was betrothed and divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others would come and identify the man who was betrothed to her.
A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rabbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says.
If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rabbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two would say, X ate fat, and two would say, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rabbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not be married. The end disagrees with Rabbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rabbi Mana said, Rabbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rabbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.
Mishnah
4 They came and told her, your son died and after that your husband died, and she was married in levirate. After that, they said to her, the sequence was inverted. Then she must leave and the first and the last children are bastards.
Halakhah
“They came and told her, your son died,” etc. If she should not have married but entered levirate, this is the case of a sister-in-law who married without ḥaliṣah. Rabbi Jeremiah said, this man performs ḥalīṣah, the other one keeps her. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: She must leave. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila: She must leave. Rabbi Yose asked Rabbi Phineas, how does the rabbi hold? He said, with Rabbi Jeremiah. He said to him, change your mind, for otherwise I shall publicly call you a rebellious Elder. Rabbi Zevidah said, a baraita supports Rabbi Joḥanan: “She must leave both of them and the thirteen items apply to her, following Rabbi Meir who said it in the name of his teacher Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law.” They only said, “there is no bastard from a sister-in-law,” therefore she must leave. And we have stated, “she must leave.” And Rabbi Joḥanan said, she must leave.
Mishnah
5 If they told her, your husband died, and she remarried, and then they told her, he was alive but died, she must leave and the first child is a bastard, but the last is not a bastard.If they told her, your husband died; she was betrothed and after that her husband returned, she is permitted to return to him. Even though the second husband gave her a bill of divorce he did not disable her from priesthood. This Rabbi Eleazar ben Matthew explained, “a woman divorced from her husband,”Leviticus 21:7 and not a woman divorced from a non-husband.
Halakhah
“If they told her, your husband died,” etc. “If they told her, your husband died; she was betrothed,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Her only problem would be aspersion on the priesthood, but the court will not tolerate aspersion.
How do you explain these? With one witness or with two witnesses? If you explain with one witness, then one witness would permit her to the levir. If you explain with two witnesses, then it disagrees with Rav since Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said in the name of Rav, if she was married by the testimony of two witnesses, even if he returns, she says to him, you are not him.
From where do we know that no betrothal is valid for a married woman? Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Yannai: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s.”Deuteronomy 24:2 When she leaves his house she may be with another. And from where do we know that no betrothal is valid for incestuous relations? Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Huna: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s.” Why does the verse say “another”? To exclude the list of incest relations.
Mishnah
6 A man’s wife went overseas, they came and told him: your wife died, and he married her sister. If after that his wife returned, she is permitted to return to him. He is permitted to marry the relatives of the second, the second is permitted his relatives. If the first sister died, the second one is permitted to him.They said to him, your wife died, and he married her sister; if afterwards they said to him that she was still alive but died later, the first child is a bastard, the last is not a bastard.If they said to him “your wife died,” and he married her paternal sister, “she died” and he married her maternal sister, “she died” and he married her paternal sister, “she died” and he married her maternal sister, but it turned out that all were alive, the first, third, and fifth are permitted to him and they would release their co-wives; the second and fourth are prohibited to him and intercourse of any one of these does not release the co-wife.If he has intercourse with the second one after the death of the first, the second and fourth are permitted to him and they would release their co-wives; the third and fifth are prohibited to him and intercourse of any one of these does not release the co-wife.
Halakhah
“If a man’s wife went overseas,” etc. It is written: “If a man slept with ‘her’;Numbers 5:13” her sleeping prohibits her, the sleeping of another woman does not prohibit her. There, it also says “replacing your husband,” that excludes rape cases.
Rabbi Mattaniah said, they made a fence about situations that occur frequently but not about rare situations. A man frequently travels overseas; it is infrequent that a woman travels overseas.
It was stated: Rabbi Judah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that one who copulates with his mother-in-law disables his wife. Where did they disagree? If he copulates with his wife’s sister; where the House of Shammai say, he disabled her, but the House of Hillel say, he did not disable her. The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabbi Judah: “In fire they should burn him and them.”Leviticus 20:14 Where do we hold? If it is about burning, only one of them is burned. So if it cannot be relevant for burning, let it be relevant for prohibition. So far following Rabbi Akiva; following Rabbi Ishmael? Rabbi Ishmael stated: “In fire they should burn him and them,” him and the second one. And the House of Shammai was arguing: Since in a case where a slightly prohibited person copulated with a slightly prohibited person the cause of the prohibition became forbidden, if a strongly prohibited person copulated with a strongly prohibited person, it is only logical that the cause of the prohibition is forbidden. Which rule is slight? Rabbi Joḥanan said, the beginning of the chapter. But this is very strong! There is a difference since she was permitted to be married to him.
The elder Rabbi Hoshaia said, the baraita is about someone who takes back his divorcee after she had been married to another. Why after she had been married, not also after she had been betrothed? Because of Rabbi Yose ben Kipper, since Rabbi Yose ben Kipper said, she is permitted after betrothal. Rabbi Eleazar said, the baraita is about a sister-in-law who became eligible before two levirs, when one of them “bespoke” her and then the other copulated with her. Why when one of them “bespoke” her, even if he had not “bespoken” her! Why if he copulated with her, even if he did not copulate with her! Because of the House of Shammai, because of Rabbi Simeon. As it was stated, Rabbi Simeon said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one who copulates with his wife’s sister disables his wife. Where did they disagree? If he copulates with his mother-in-law; where the House of Shammai say, he disabled her, but the House of Hillel say, he did not disable her. The House of Hillel were arguing: A man is permitted all women, a woman is permitted all men. When he becomes betrothed to her, he forbids her and she forbids him. The prohibition through which he forbids her is greater than the prohibition through which she forbids him, since he forbids her to go to marry any other man but she forbids him only her relatives. And is that not an argument “from the lesser to the greater”? If she, whose prohibition is greater, transgressed the prohibition in error, is not forbidden even to the one permitted to her, he, whose prohibition is less, if he transgressed the prohibition in error, is it not logical that he should not be forbidden even to the one permitted to him? That works for an error. From where if intentional: The verse says “with her;” her sleeping prohibits her, the sleeping of another woman does not prohibit her.
Immi the father of Samuel bar Immi in the name of Rav Judah: Practice follows Rabbi Simeon. There came a case before Rabbi Mana and he removed her from him. Does he hold with Rabbi Judah? No, she regularly came to him.
Rabbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Zeʿira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rabbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rabbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rabbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Zeʿira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter.
“Rabbi Yose says, anything which disables,” etc. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: If his wife’s sister was married, since he disables her for others, he disables her for himself. But his wife’s unmarried sister which he does not disable for others, he does not disable for himself. As Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, she needs a bill of divorce from him.
“If they said to him ‘your wife died,’” etc. How can that be? A man has a daughter and a stepdaughter, a woman has a daughter and a stepdaughter. They married and had a daughter. It starts with the woman’s stepdaughter.
Mishnah
7 A male nine years and one day old disables for the brothers and the brothers disable for him; only that he disables at the beginning and the brothers disable at beginning and end.How is that? A male nine years and one day old who copulated with his sister-in-law disabled her for the brothers. If any one of the brothers copulated with her, “bespoke” her, divorced her, or performed ḥaliṣah with her, they disabled her for him.
Halakhah
“A male nine years and one day old disables,” etc. At the end he does not disable after his “bespeaking,” but after his intercourse he disables. However he can disable only by one act but they may disable by four acts.
“How is that? A male nine years and one day old.” “If he allots her to his son.”Exodus 21:9 He allots her to his son but may not allot her to the brothers. He should be able to allot her to the brothers by an argument “from the lesser to the greater”! If he may allot her to his son who may not take his place for ḥaliṣah and levirate, should it not be logical that he may allot her to his brother who may take his place for ḥaliṣah and levirate? The verse says, “if he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to the brothers. No. If you would accept the son since he will take the father’s place in a field of inheritance, what can you say about his brother who will not take his place in a field of inheritance? Would it be reasonable that he may allot her to him? The verse says, “if he allots her to his son.” He allots her to his son but may not allot her to the brothers.
“If he allots her to his son;” he allots her to his son but he may not allot her to his grandson. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: In matters of inheritance you take the grandson like the son but here you do not take the grandson like the son? Rabbi Zeʿira said, if anybody explains this matter, I shall pour him spiced wine. Rabbi Tanḥum answered: In matters of inheritance where the brother can take the place of the son and all others can take the place of the son, the grandson takes the place of the son. The rabbis of Caesarea answered: In matters of impurity you consider the brother like the son and all near relatives like the son but not the grandson like the son. He said, there went the spiced wine.
“If he allots her to his son;” with the girl’s agreement. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no agreement here. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said so, the statement follows Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say the statement follows Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah, is he not a minor? “If he allots her to his son;” with the latter’s agreement. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he allots her to his minor or adult son, with and without the latter’s agreement. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, he allots her only to his adult son with the latter’s agreement.
“A male nine years and one day old makes a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who performed ḥaliṣah for a common priest.” In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan who will explain this for allotments it is understandable; since he acquires by allotment he makes a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who performed ḥaliṣah for a common priest. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish who must explain this for a marriage, she should also be free from levirate or ḥaliṣah, as we have stated: “If he married a woman, that one is free from levirate or ḥaliṣah.” Rabbi Abin said, following Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish it comes following Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah, as it was stated so: If a male nine years and one day old up to twelve years and one day old grew two pubic hairs, they are warts. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah said, they are indicators of puberty. Rabbi Jacob ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they were still there at the time of indicators.
Rabbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? For Rabbi Abun it is obvious that he becomes a man retroactively, so certainly also for the future, for he explains the position of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish by Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah. Why does Rabbi Yose not explain the position of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish by Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah since he asked, when they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? Rabbi Mana said, because he had difficulty. Rabbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? One understands the case of a widow. But a divorcee? Explain it if he copulated with her after he became an adult and divorced her. Ḥaliṣah? Explain it if he copulated with her, died, and the adult brothers performed ḥaliṣah; she had ḥaliṣah because of him. In that case, even if he was younger than nine years! Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is correct. But because in all cases one stated “nine,” one stated this with them.
Rabbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Rabbi Yose ben Judah learned from Ahaz, as it was stated: Ahaz produced a child at age nine, Haran at age six, and Caleb at age ten following him who identifies Caleb ben Hezron with Caleb ben Yephuneh.
Mishnah
8 If a male nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and after that his brother, who also was nine years and one day old, copulated with her, the brother disabled her for the first levir. Rabbi Simeon says, he did not disable.If a male nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law, and after that he copulated with her co-wife, he disabled her for himself. Rabbi Simeon says, he did not disable.If a male nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and died, she performs ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If he married a woman and died, she is free.If a male nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and after he became an adult married another woman and died, if he never had intercourse with the first after he became an adult, the second wife either performs ḥaliṣah or levirate, the first performs ḥaliṣah but not levirate. Rabbi Simeon says, he takes in levirate the one he likes and performs ḥaliṣah with the other. It makes no difference whether he is nine years and one day or twenty years old, as long as he did not grow two pubic hairs.
Halakhah
Samuel said, the words of Rabbi Meir: They made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult. And as you said, they made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult, they made the ḥaliṣah of a child of nine years and one day like a bill of divorce of an adult. But the rabbis said, the ḥaliṣah of a child of nine years and one day is nothing. And why did they make the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult? Because the intercourse of an adult acquires whether intentional or not intentional. The ḥaliṣah of a child of nine years and one day was made like a bill of divorce by an adult. But ḥaliṣah by an adult can free only if it is intentional.
Can a woman waiting for a levir who became available to several brothers-in-law not be married in levirate? Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one dead husband is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. Rabbi Eleazar said, this follows Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir said, “any one who cannot marry me in levirate, cannot marry my co-wife in levirate.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Eleazar formulated what he had heard from me. Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “If a male nine years and one day old copulated with his sister-in-law and after he became an adult married another woman and died, if he never had intercourse with the first after he became an adult, the second wife either performs ḥaliṣah or levirate, the first performs ḥaliṣah but not levirate. The first one must perform ḥaliṣah and cannot be married in levirate.” Here you say, she performs ḥaliṣah; there you say, she is married in levirate! Where you say she performs ḥaliṣah, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon; where you say, she is married in levirate, Rabbi Simeon and the rabbis.
The following is obvious: If a person younger than twenty years of age developed two pubic hairs, he becomes a man retroactively. Older than twenty years of age, he becomes a man from that point into the future. Where do they disagree? If he is twenty. Samuel said, he becomes a man retroactively. Rav said, he becomes a man from that point into the future. A baraita disagrees with both of them: The castrate cannot become a rebellious son since he has no pubic hair. Should one not warn him, maybe he will develop two pubic hairs within the next three months? Following him who says, one does not accept conditional warnings. Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: Does it make no difference whether he is nine years and one day or twelve years and one day old, if by then he did not grow two pubic hairs, he becomes a man retroactively? Could you say: If he did grow two pubic hairs between the ages of nine years and one day until twelve years and one day, he becomes a man retroactively? Similarly, if he is older than twenty years of age and did not grow two pubic hairs, he becomes a man from that point into the future. How does Samuel handle this? He explains it: soon after he turns twenty.
Mishnah
1 One may marry relatives of a rape victim or a seduced woman. He who rapes or seduces a relative of a married woman is guilty. A person may marry his father’s rape victim or seduced woman, his son’s rape victim or seduced woman. Rabbi Judah prohibits his father’s rape victim or seduced woman.
Halakhah
“One may marry relatives of a rape victim or a seduced woman,” etc. So is the Mishnah: One may marry after a rape victim or seduced woman. If he raped a woman, her mother is permitted; if he seduced a woman, her daughter is permitted.
“He who rapes or seduces a relative of a married woman is guilty.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, one stated this for marriage. If he married a woman and then raped her mother, he is guilty. If he married a woman and then seduced her daughter, he is guilty.
There, we have stated: “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterwards her daughter, he absorbs forty lashes. Symmachos said in Rabbi Meir’s name, he absorbs eighty.”Leviticus 22:28 Rabbi Eleazar said, Symmachos and Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there: “Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he who copulates with his mother-in-law may be guilty because of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him, all three fall under the same law.” Rabbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Symmachos agrees to the earlier part of the Mishnah. If was found stated, it still is in dispute. What is Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s reason? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions. What is the reason of the rabbis? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition.
It is written: “If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is taboo.” Everywhere is written “lying with” but here is written “taking,” to teach you that he cannot be guilty for the second woman unless the first one is prepared for him. Or maybe only by marriage? We already said that there is no incestuous marriage. But is it not written: “Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his father married her. But is it not written: “If a man take his brother’s wife, it is despicable”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his brother married her. This is confirmed by levirate. But is it not written: “You should not take a woman in addition to her sister to make her a co-wife”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before he married her sister. This is confirmed after her sister’s death. But is it not written: “A man who would take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter; he sees her genitals and she sees his genitals, it is ḥesed.” Rabbi Avin said, that you should not say that Kain married his sister, Abel married his sister, “it is charitable,” I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; “I said, the world was built on ‘ḥesed.’Psalms 89:2” But is it not written: “Widow, divorcee, and desecrated, these he shall not take”? This comes to tell you that if he became betrothed to her that the betrothal is valid.
Rabbi Ḥuna understood all of them from this verse: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover, etc.” Taboo - taboo, for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, so there is a prohibition upwards. Since upwards one requires marriage, so downwards one requires marriage. Since upwards they are burned, so downwards they are burned. Since downwards, He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards we give the male’s mother the same status as the female’s mother.
And following Rabbi Meir? Since Rabbi Meir said, a gezerah šawah is at the place it comes from, from where is the third generation above forbidden? And following the rabbis, who say, a gezerah šawah is said about them, from where do we know that the third generation above is punished by burning? Both for Rabbi Meir and the rabbis, from where do we know that the third generation above is forbidden? Since it is written “taboo, taboo” for a gezerah šawah, it is as if all were included; all are included.
So far his daughter’s daughter from marriage. His daughter’s daughter from a rape? “The genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter.”Leviticus 18:10 Where do we hold? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far for the warning, from where the punishment? Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, “they, they; taboo, taboo.”Leviticus 18:10 That follows Rabbi Akiva; following Rabbi Ishmael? Rabbi Ishmael stated: “they,” from “them.” So far about his daughter’s daughter, from where his daughter? Rav said, if he is forewarned about his daughter’s daughter, so much more for his daughter! If for his daughter’s daughter he is subject to extirpation, so much more for his daughter!
They asked before Rabbi Abbahu: His daughter’s daughter from a marriage; his daughter’s daughter from a rape? He said to them, every “daughter’s daughter” falls under the same category. They asked before Rabbi Abbahu: If a man came to a woman, she had a daughter, and after that he came and copulated with her. Is he guilty about her because of a woman and her daughter, her daughter’s daughter and her son’s daughter? He said to them, “they are relatives, it is taboo;” all because of taboo.
Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: Why do we not say, “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover”? He said to him, if it were written “the genitals of a woman and her daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover,” we would have said, “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover.”
Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make a compound like it.”Exodus 30:32 And it is written: “A man who would compound like it.”Exodus 30:33 Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rabbi Ishmael, since Rabbi Ishmael said one infers from an argument “from the lesser to the greater” but one does not punish from an argument “from the lesser to the greater.” Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man”Leviticus 21:9? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be under sentence of burning. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter.”Leviticus 19:29
What is the reason of Rabbi Judah? “ A man may not take his father’s wife,”Deuteronomy 22:30 that refers to his father’s wife; “and he should not uncover his father’s wing,” that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which leans on his father. Would he not anyhow be guilty for her because of his father’s wife? Rabbi Hila said, because of forewarning, that if he was warned because of his father’s wife, he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing, he will be whipped. Rabbi Judah agrees about whipping. Rabbi Judah agrees about sacrifice. Rabbi Judah agrees about all other doubtful cases that he is free. Rabbi Judah agrees that if he gave her qiddušin that these qiddušin are legally valid.
Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: Is the child a bastard following Rabbi Judah? He said to him, “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry”Deuteronomy 23:1 interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. He retorted, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Let the father’s wife be selected to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims. He said to him, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Can you say that the rape victim was in a set of all rape victims, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victims in her case? He said to him, is she is the father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; is she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.
Mishnah
2 The sons of a female convert who converted with her do neither perform ḥaliṣah nor levirate even if a first son was not conceived in holiness but born in holiness and a second son was conceived and born in holiness. The same applies to a slave girl who was freed together with her sons.
Halakhah
“A female convert who converted,” etc. Is not the convert guilty for his mother but not for his father following Rabbi Yose the Galilean? Rabbi Akiva says, “his father and mother he cursed.”Leviticus 20:9 Anybody potentially guilty for his mother is potentially guilty for his father but nobody who cannot be guilty for his mother can be guilty for his father. Rabbi Akiva agrees that the “silenced” one is potentially guilty for his mother but not for his father. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? About a convert not conceived in holiness but born in holiness. But about a convert conceived and born in holiness even Rabbi Yose the Galilean agrees.
Rabbi Yasa went to Ḥomṣ. People came and asked him about the family of Ashtin who were converts, might they marry in levirate? He said to them, so says Rabbi Joḥanan: It is prohibited. They wanted to say, if a woman has children. But if the woman has no children, what can you say? He married his brother’s wife in levirate. If she is not his brother’s wife, should he not be considered as marrying a wife from outside? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman: Even so it is forbidden, that people should not say, we saw the commandment of levirate among converts. When has this been said? When he lived with her after he converted. But if he did not live with her after he converted, everybody agrees that it is as if he married a woman from outside.
A convert who converted while married to a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister, marries one and separates from the other. When has this been said? If he did not live with either of them. But if he lived with one of them after he converted, the one he lived with is his wife. If he lived with both of them, since he lived with them, he lived with them.
A convert has to separate from his sister, whether paternal or maternal, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, he must separate from his maternal halfsister; a paternal halfsister he may keep. He must separate from his mother’s sister but may keep his father’s sister, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, he must separate from his mother’s maternal halfsister but may keep his mother’s paternal halfsister. If he married any other incest prohibited woman, he may keep her. It was only said, “if he married.” Therefore, not from the start.
A Gentile has to separate from his sister, whether paternal or maternal, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, he must separate from his maternal halfsister; a paternal halfsister he may keep. He must separate from his mother’s sister but may keep his father’s sister, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, he must separate from his mother’s maternal halfsister but may keep his mother’s paternal halfsister. Rav Ḥanin said, he explained us the words of Rabbi Meir simply: “Therefore, a man has to abandon his father and his mother.”Genesis 2:24 What is close to him from his father’s side, what is close to him from his mother’s side. Rabbi Vivian asked: Then his father’s sister should be forbidden because she is close to his father! His mother’s sister should be forbidden because she is close to his mother! Rabbi Simeon, the son of Rabbi Ayvo objected: “Amram took his aunt Yokhebed as wife.”Exodus 6:20 Does that mean that the Israelites did not even behave as descendants of Noah? Rabbi Hila said, what is close to him from his father’s side, what is close to him from his mother’s side. They objected to Rabbi Meir: “And truly she is my sister, my father’s daughter, but not my mother’s.”Genesis 20:12 He said to them: Is a proof from there? Not “she became my wife”?
What about it? Rabbi Yose said, about any incest prohibition which for a Jewish court is a capital crime, a descendant of Noah is forewarned; and about any incest prohibition which for a court is not a capital crime, a descendant of Noah is not forewarned. They objected: Is not a case involving the sister a capital crime for a Jewish court and the descendants of Noah are not forewarned? Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “Because of these abominations, the Eternal, your God, uproots them before you.”Deuteronomy 18:12 This teaches that the Holy One, praise to Him, does not punish if He did not warn.
Rabbi Idi said before Rabbi Yose, a slave is permitted his sister. He said to him, did you hear this even if she is from the same mother? He said, yes. He said to him, but did we not state: “The same applies to a slave girl who was freed together with her sons.” For ḥaliṣah and levirate. Rabbi Phineas said before Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Yasa: A slave who slept with his mother is obligated for a purification sacrifice. “You shall command them,”Leviticus 1:2 including slaves. Or should we say, this was said about fat? Do we find in his relation to his mother that her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect just as with a slave girl her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect?
Mishnah
3 If the children of five women were mixed up, and the mixed-up became adults, married wives, and died, then four perform ḥaliṣah and one marries in levirate. This one and three others perform ḥaliṣah for another one and another one marries in levirate. It turns out that there are four ḥaliṣot and one levirate marriage for every one.
Halakhah
“If the children of five women were mixed up,” etc. Everywhere you say, there is no ḥaliṣah after ḥaliṣah, and here, you say so? There, it is was sure, here it is in doubt. Everywhere you say, if one does not say to him, take in levirate, one does not say, perform ḥaliṣah, and here, you say so? There, it is was sure, here it is doubtful.
Mishnah
4 If a woman’s child was mixed up with her daughter-in-law’s child, the mixed-up children became adults, married wives, and died. The other sons of the daughter-in-law must perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate since for them it is doubtful whether the widow was a brother’s wife or an uncle’s wife. But the sons of the old woman may either perform ḥaliṣah or levirate since for them she was either a brother’s wife or a nephew’s wife. If one of the identified ones died, the mixed-up ones must perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate for a son of the old woman since there is a doubt whether the widow was a brother’s wife or an uncle’s wife. But for the sons of the daughter-in-law, one performs ḥaliṣah; the other may marry in levirate.
Halakhah
“If a woman’s child was mixed up,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said: So is the Mishnah: The sister-in-law’s sons’ wives, the old woman’s sons’ wives. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, this implies that a man may marry a nephew’s ex-wife.
Mishnah
5 If the child of a priestly woman was mixed up with the child of her slave girl then both may eat heave; they together take one part from the threshing floor, they may not defile themselves by becoming impure for the dead, and they may not marry women enabled or disabled for the priesthood.
Halakhah
“If the child of a priestly woman was mixed up,” etc. “Both may eat heave,” since slaves of priests eat heave.
“They together take one part from the threshing floor,” that is what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: One does not distribute to women and slaves on the threshing floor but one gives them the gifts of priesthood and/or those due to Levites from the barn.
“They may not marry women, whether enabled or disabled for the priesthood.” Not enabled ones because of the disabled one. Not disabled ones because of the enabled one.
May they bring one cereal offering together that would be totally burned? It was stated: They may bring one cereal offering conditionally that would be totally burned. May they bring two cereal offerings one of which should be burned totally and the other have a handful taken and the rest eaten? It was stated: They may bring two cereal offerings of one which is burned totally and of the other a handful is taken and the rest eaten. May they testify together that it should be counted as testimony of one witness? That would follow the rule of Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Assi: Since if they were to be found perjured they could not be executed, the murderer could not be executed. This applies here also.
Mishnah
6 When the mixed-up children became adults and manumitted one another they may marry women appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile themselves for the dead, but if they became defiled they do not suffer forty lashes. They may not eat heave, but if they ate they do not have to pay its value and and additional fifth. They cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor; they have to sell their heave, but the money is theirs. They have no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give them sacrifices, but one cannot take theirs from them. They are exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. Their firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. One charges them with the disabilities of an Israelite and those of priests.
Halakhah
“If the mixed-up children became adults,” after it happened. Does that mean, not from the start? So is the Mishnah: It is permitted from the start to manumit. Even Rabbi Yose the Galilean, who said that one is forbidden to manumit, will agree here that it is permitted for the benefit of children. What does “appropriate” mean? Not disabled.
From where do we know that a Cohen presents his sacrifices during the period of duty of any watch he chooses? The verse says, “he may come as his heart desires ... and serve.”Deuteronomy 18:6–7 If he was old or sick, he may give it to any watch he likes but the hide and meat are his. If he was impure or had a bodily defect, he must give it to the acting watch, and the hide and meat are theirs. These mixed-up ones, how do you treat them? Comparing them to the old or sick, or to the impure or to those with a bodily defect. It seems reasonable to compare them to the impure or those having a bodily defect; but the Mishnah compares them to the old or sick, since we have stated: “One cannot take his from him.”
Mishnah
7 A woman did not wait three months after the death of her husband, married, and gave birth, and it is not known whether it is a nine months’ child of the first or a seven months’ child of the second. If she had sons from the first and the second, they perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate. Similarly, he performs ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If he had brothers from the first or from the second not from the same mother, he may perform ḥaliṣah or levirate and they may perform ḥaliṣah or levirate.If one was an Israelite and the other a priest, he may marry a woman appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile himself for the dead, but if he became defiled he does not suffer forty lashes. He may not eat heave but if he ate, he does not have to pay its value and additional fifth. He cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor. He has to sell his heave but the money is his. He has no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give him sacrifices but one cannot take his from him. He is exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. His firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. One charges him with the disabilities of an Israelite and those of priests.If both were priests, he has to mourn intensely for them and they for him. He may not defile himself for them, they may not defile themselves for him. He does not inherit from them but they inherit from him. He is not prosecutable if he injures or curses either one of them. He may serve on the watch of either one but does not participate in distributions. If both were of the same watch, he takes one part.
Halakhah
“A woman did not wait three months,” etc. “If both were priests, he has to mourn intensely for them,” etc. Where do we hold? It is impossible after death of the first since we have stated: “He has to mourn intensely for them and they for him.” One understands that he does not defile himself for the second husband, I say that he is the son of the first. But why does he not defile himself for the first one? It must be that he divorced. Then, as you take it, if he is his son, he should defile himself for him. If he is not his son, he is desecrated, and what happens if he defiles himself? It must be that he raped. Did not Rabbi Abba say in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah that a rape victim does not have to wait three months? Should we say, following the rabbis, but we follow Rabbi Yose!
Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: One mourns deeply and defiles himself in a case of doubt. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “He has to mourn intensely for them and they for him.” Rabbi Ashian bar Yaqim had a case. He asked Rabbi Yose, who told him, you do not have to. He said to him, but did not Rabbi Ḥiyya say, one mourns deeply and defiles himself in a case of doubt? His signs were clear. But did not the colleagues say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One does not act on the signs of an eight months’ child? He had a sign that he had intercourse and then separated.
An eight months’ child is like a stone and one does not move him on the Sabbath, but his mother lies down beside him and nurses him. Rabbi Yose asked: May one push aside the Sabbath for babies that are in doubt? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, it is fine. How you take it, if he is a nine months’ child, he must be circumcised. If he is an eight months’ child, it is as if he cut flesh without need. The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rabbi Jacob ben Dositheos asked, who permitted to cut flesh without need?
It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, any human who lives for thirty days is not a still birth, “all redeemed you shall redeem at the age of one month;”Numbers 18:16 and an animal which lives for eight days is not a still birth, “from the eighth day and further it will be welcome as a sacrifice, a gift to the Eternal.”Leviticus 22:27 There, they say that practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Abba said, where do they disagree? If he was not born in his months. But if he was born in his months, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree.
“If he injured one and then injured the other, or cursed one and then cursed the other, he cannot be prosecuted.” Rabbi Ḥanania asked, does that not disagree with Rabbi Joḥanan? Since they disagree about the second day of holidays in the diaspora. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in a case of doubt, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, one does not accept forewarning in a case of doubt. Rabbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rabbi, there is no disagreement. There, it would have been possible to make a determination, here it is impossible to make the determination.
“If he injured both of them at the same time or cursed them at the same time, he is guilty. Rabbi Judah frees him.” Rabbi Joḥanan asked: Is not the argument of Rabbi Judah inverted? As we have stated there: “If he ate the volume of an olive of one of them and the volume of an olive of the other, he absorbs eighty lashes; Rabbi Judah says, he absorbs only forty lashes.” Rabbi Crispus said, it is not inverted. There, it was in doubt what is forbidden. Here, it was certain but it became doubtful for him. Rabbi Judan asked: If it is so, in case carcass meat was mixed up with slaughtered meat, since it was certain but became doubtful for him, should he be free if he ate it? Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Judah agrees for all other prohibitions that he is guilty. But here, Rabbi Judah is interpreting verses: “His father,” certain but not uncertain, “his mother,” certain but not uncertain.
“He may serve in the watch of either one.” He should not serve. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Yasa, because of the damage to the family.
It was stated: Only if they both belong to the same clan.
Mishnah
1 The commandment of ḥaliṣah is to be executed before three judges; all three may be lay people. If she performed ḥaliṣah with a shoe, the ḥaliṣah is valid, with a felt slipper it is invalid. With a sandal having a heel it is valid, without a heel it is invalid. Below the knee the ḥaliṣah is valid, above the knee it is invalid.
Halakhah
“The commandment of ḥaliṣah is to be executed before three judges,” etc. It is written “elders,” and you say laymen? The commandment is on the elders. From where do we know that even laymen are acceptable? The verse says, “stripped of shoe,”Deuteronomy 25:10 in any case.
There are Tannaim who state that ḥaliṣah in front of converts is valid. And there are Tannaim who state that ḥaliṣah in front of converts is invalid. He who says that ḥaliṣah in front of converts is valid follows him who says “in Israel” to include converts. He who says that ḥaliṣah in front of converts is invalid follows him who says “in Israel” to exclude converts.
Here, you say, to exclude converts. But there, you say, to include converts. There, “the citizen” to exclude converts, “in Israel” to exclude converts; an exclusion after an exclusion to include converts. But here, “in Israel,” not converts.
There are Tannaim who state that ḥaliṣah in the presence of two men is invalid; there are Tannaim who state that ḥaliṣah in the presence of two men is valid. Does he who says, ḥaliṣah in the presence of two men is invalid, hold that ḥaliṣah in front of converts is invalid, and he who says, ḥaliṣah in the presence of two men is valid, hold that ḥaliṣah in front of converts is valid? Even he who holds that ḥaliṣah in front of converts is valid will agree that in the presence of two men it is invalid since judgments in civil matters are valid from converts but invalid from two judges.
There are Tannaim who state that ḥaliṣah in the night is valid; there are Tannaim who state that ḥaliṣah in the presence of two men is invalid. Does he who says, ḥaliṣah in the night is valid, hold that ḥaliṣah in front of converts is valid, and he who says, ḥaliṣah in the night is invalid, hold that ḥaliṣah in front of converts is invalid? Even he who holds that ḥaliṣah in front of converts is valid will agree that in the night it is invalid since judgments in civil matters are valid from converts but invalid in the night.
Some Tannaim state, only if the judges know how to instruct what to say. Some Tannaim stated, even if the judges do not know how to instruct what to say. He who said, only if the judges know how to instruct what to say, before they found a hint in Scripture, but he who said, even if the judges do not know how to instruct what to say, after they found a hint in Scripture: “You shall answer and say;” one answers only to a single person. Rabbi Yose said, and only from the mouth of the judge, but one does not follow this.
“If she performed ḥaliṣah with a shoe, the ḥaliṣah is valid.” For whom is this statement needed? For Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir said, one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a shoe. It was stated: Rabbi Yose said, it happened that I went to Nsebin and saw there an old man to whom I said, did you ever know Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra in your lifetime? He told me, Rabbi, I was a banker in my city and he was a constant customer of my bank. I told him, did you ever see him supervising a ḥaliṣah in your lifetime and what he did use for ḥaliṣah, a shoe or a sandal? He said to me, Rabbi, is there a sandal in our place? I wondered, how could Rabbi Meir say that one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a shoe?
Rabbi Abba, Rav Judah in the name of Rav: If Elijah came and said that one performs ḥaliṣah with a shoe, one would listen to him; that one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a sandal, one would not listen to him since most people use a sandal for ḥaliṣah and usage supersedes practice. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Jeremiah, in the name of Rav: If Elijah came and said that one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a shoe, one would listen to him; that one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a sandal, one would not listen to him since most people use a sandal for ḥaliṣah and usage supersedes practice.
Rabbi Zeʿira showed the bending to Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Isaac. He said to him: Does one do this? He said to him, one does. He said to him, did not our teacher bend?
Rabbi Zeʿira showed Rabbi Abba bar Isaac how it is done. He binds the shoelaces that he can walk unaided. How is it done? Rabbi Ḥanania the son of Rabbi Hillel said, he laces it so that she will be able to untie it with one hand. How is it done? She unties with her right hand, grabs the shoe with her left hand, slips it off the heel and drags it away with her right hand, so that the slipping off and the unbinding should be done by the right hand.
Rav said, the essence of ḥaliṣah is the untying of the shoelace. Did not Rabbi Abba say in the name of Rav Judah, Rabbi Zeriqan turns to it in the name of Rav: The words of the Sages: If she slips off but did not spit, or spat but did not take off, nothing was done unless she slips off and spits. Even though Rav said “unless she slips off and spits” he agrees that the essence of slipping off is untying the shoelaces.
Rav said, the main point in acquiring squatters’ rights is the bringing in of the yield. Did not Rav say, only if one saw him hoeing and weeding? Even though Rav said, only if one saw him hoeing and weeding, Rav agrees that the main point in acquiring squatters’ rights is the bringing in of the yield.
Rabbi Yannai said, if he took off his shoe and she put it on again, or she took it off but he had untied, the ḥaliṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back, he may not go back on it. Why? Is it since the two actions are not there together or because they are not in the right order? What is the difference? If she afterwards untied the shoestrings. If you say, because the two actions are not there together? They are there together! The reason therefore must be that they are not in the right order.
Rabbi Eleazar said, in some cases they said that her ḥaliṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he may go back. And in some cases they said that her ḥaliṣah is valid and if he wants to go back he may not go back. If a woman performed ḥaliṣah with felt slippers or for an underage boy, her ḥaliṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he cannot go back. If she performed ḥaliṣah with a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥaliṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥaliṣah is invalid. He who says that the ḥaliṣah is valid, with a leather slipper; he who says that the ḥaliṣah is invalid, with a textile slipper. A shoe in a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥaliṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥaliṣah is invalid. For him who holds that the ḥaliṣah is valid, the slipper is textile but the shoe leather. For him who holds that the ḥaliṣah is invalid, the slipper is leather but the shoe textile. Some Tannaim state that one may wear a slipper of the Day of Atonement and some Tannaim state that one may not wear a slipper. Rav Ḥisda said, For him who holds that one leaves the house wearing a slipper, a textile slipper, he who says that one may not leave the house wearing a slipper, a leather slipper.
“With a sandal having a heel it is valid.” There, they say, for example those קנסרוס. But the rabbis here say, like ours. Rav said, if I had not seen my uncle, the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, performing a ḥaliṣah with a sandal with plaited straps, I would not feel competent to do so. The maternal uncle of Rav Kahana performed ḥaliṣah in the night, as single judge, on Friday night, with a cork sandal, and standing, Rabbi Zeriqa said, and she did not spit. Rav heard that and said, who would ever do that except the maternal uncle of Rav Kahana?
So is the Mishnah: “If he ties lower than the knee, it is valid, above the knee it is invalid.” It is written: “Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet from it.”Exodus 30:19 It was stated about this: The hand up to the wrist, the foot up to the calf; and here you say so? There is a difference, since it is written “from above his foot.” In that case, even higher than the knee should be valid! There is a difference, since it is written “from above his foot,” and not from higher than above his foot. Kahana objected: Is it not written, “and the afterbirth which comes out from between her feet;”Deuteronomy 28:57 does it come out from between her feet? It looks as if it was between her feet; as we have stated there: “The water pit was between the Temple hall and the altar drawn toward the South.”Mishnah Middot 3:6 Was it put between the hall and the altar? Only it looked as if between hall and altar.
Mishnah
2 If she performed ḥaliṣah with a sandal that was not his, with a wooden sandal, or with a left foot sandal on the right foot, the ḥaliṣah is valid. If she performed ḥaliṣah with a sandal that was too large but he could walk in it, or one too small which covers most of his foot, the ḥaliṣah is valid. If she performed ḥaliṣah in the night, the ḥaliṣah is valid; Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. If she performed ḥaliṣah with her left hand, the ḥaliṣah is invalid but Rabbi Eliezer declares it valid.
Halakhah
“If she performed ḥaliṣah with a sandal that was not his,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar says, a ram’s horn belonging to idolatry or to a “seduced city” is valid. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, it is valid. Rabbi Hoshaia stated, it is invalid. Everybody agrees that such a palmbranch is invalid. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a palmbranch? Rabbi Yose said, for a palmbranch it is written: “You shall take for yourselves,”Leviticus 23:40 from your own money. But here, “a day of horn blowing it shall be for you,”Numbers 29:1 from any source. Rabbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation with the article itself, but here with its sound. Is any sound forbidden usufruct? Everybody agrees that a sandal from a “seduced city” is valid. For it is written “stripped of shoe,” from any source. Rabbi Mana said, as you say there, “a day of horn blowing it shall be for you,” from any source, so you say here, “stripped of shoe,” from any source.
“A wooden sandal.” The colleagues in the name of Rav: If only the edges are wooden. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav: If only the bottom of the sole is wooden. There, they say in the name of Rav: If only the loops are wooden. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Even if it is entirely of wood it is valid. A baraita supports Rabbi Joḥanan: “A straw sandal becomes impure by being stepped on and a woman may use it for ḥaliṣah, the words of Rabbi Akiva, but the Sages do not agree about impurity by being stepped on.”
“A sandal whose holes, edges, or loops are torn or one of whose soles fell off is pure. If one of its holes, edges, or loops is torn or most of it soles fell of it is impure. Rabbi Judah says, on the inside it is impure, on the outside it is pure.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Tevele, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Jehuda as far as the Sabbath is concerned. A case came before Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. He sent Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa to ask Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He said to him, just as they disagree about impurity so they disagree about the Sabbath, and instructed him following the rabbis. Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked himself: One heard saying, practice follows Rabbi Jehuda, and he instructed him following the rabbis? A case came before Rabbi Aḥa bar Isaac. He sent to ask Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Zeʿira asked Rabbi Immi. The latter said to him: Following the words of him who declares impure, it is permitted to go out on it on the Sabbath. Following the words of him who declares pure, it is forbidden to go out on it on the Sabbath. He did not get anything out of him.
It was stated: But he may walk on it until he reaches the entrance of his courtyard. Rabbi Aḥa and Rabbi Zeʿira were walking on the highway. The sandal of Rabbi Aḥa was torn. When they came to the city gate, Rabbi Zeʿira told him, that is the entrance of your courtyard. Rabbi Aḥa wound a fiber around. Rabbi Abbahu wound a bundle of Jew’s mallow. Rabbi Abbahu was of the opinion that a bundle of Jew’s mallow is ready to be used. Rabbi Jonah threw them away before the fried food store. That is little honor. The honor of Rabbi Eleazar obliged him to take it off. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: May one switch? He said to him, it is permitted. Nevertheless, he told him: go and look for an Elder and rely on him. He went out and found Rabbi Abba bar Mamal, asked him, and he permitted. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah said that this is clothing, since we have stated: “Or with a left foot sandal on the right foot, the ḥaliṣah is valid.” That means, in width. But in length it must cover most of the foot.
What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? “Before the Elders’ eyes.”Deuteronomy 25:9 How do the rabbis uphold “before the Elders’ eyes”? That excludes a court of blind people. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rabbi Eliezer seems to be inverted. There, he says that the right hand is obligatory, but here, he says that the right hand is not obligatory. Rabbi Yose said, there it is written “the right hand,”Leviticus 14:14, 17 the right hand is obligatory, but here, where “the right hand” is not written, the right hand is not obligatory. Rabbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rabbi Jeremiah: “His ear,” “his ear.” Since “his ear” mentioned there refers to the right ear, so “his ear” mentioned here means the right ear. It also says “his foot,” “his foot.” He who infers from “his ear,” “his ear” infers from “his foot,” “his foot”; he who does not infer from “his ear,” “his ear” does not infer from “his foot,” “his foot.” But it was stated in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: “his foot,” “his foot.” That means, there are two statements about the words of Rabbi Eliezer. He who argues from “his ear,” “his ear” argues from “his foot,” “his foot”; he who does not argue from “his ear,” “his ear” does not argue from “his foot.” And this Mishnah accepts neither “his ear,” “his ear” nor “his foot,” “his foot.”
Mishnah
3 If she stripped off and spat but did not recite, the ḥaliṣah is valid. If she recited and spat but did not strip off, the ḥaliṣah is invalid. If she stripped off and recited but did not spit, Rabbi Eliezer says, the ḥaliṣah is invalid, but Rabbi Akiva says, the ḥaliṣah is valid.Rabbi Eliezer said, “so it shall be done,”Deuteronomy 25:9 anything which is an action is preventing. Rabbi Akiva said to him, is that a proof? “So it shall be done to the man,” any activity of the male is preventing.
Halakhah
“If she stripped off and spat,” etc. Samuel said, if she stripped but did not spit, she shall spit. This follows Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: If she stripped but did not recite nor spit, her ḥaliṣah is invalid. Still that is Rabbi Eliezer’s. The words of the Sages? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah, Zeriqan turned to it in the name of Rav: If she stripped but did not spit, or spat but did not strip, she did not do anything until she strips and spits. Rabbi Abba asked before Rabbi Immi: If she spat before she stripped? He said, it is as if in the correct order. If he made a betrothal with a cluster of end-of- harvest figs? He said to him, with the figs hanging there he made the betrothal. May one open an Egyptian window into a common backyard higher than four cubits? He said to him, so we are saying: He comes simply for the air. Rabbi Nasa said, that is what he said: If somebody wants to build his house in the form of a dovecot, does one not listen to him?
Mishnah
4 ḥaliṣah is invalid if performed for a deaf-mute man, or by a deaf-mute woman, or for an underage male. The underage woman who performed ḥaliṣah should repeat ḥaliṣah once she becomes of age but if she did not repeat it, the ḥaliṣah is valid.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Eliezer said, ‘so shall be done to the man,’” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if they cannot fulfill “he shall say, and she shall say.” Is the recitation essential for validity? Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, for anybody able to recite, the recitation is not essential for validity but for anybody unable to recite, the requirement of recitation is essential.
There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Eleazar “So they should hear and learn.”Deuteronomy 31:12 So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Eleazar “So they should learn,”Deuteronomy 31:12 so they should teach. Rabbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rabbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak isḥereš. But we have stated: “Ḥaliṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or for an underage male.” And Rabbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say “he shall say,”Deuteronomy 25:8 “she shall say.”Deuteronomy 25:7, 9 We also have stated: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rabbi Jonah, for Rabbi Jonah said that the principles of Rabbi are no principles.
Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose asked before Rabbi: What is the difference between underage males and females? He said to him, “a man”Deuteronomy 25:9 is written in the paragraph. But about her, “his sister-in-law shall come before him,” in any case.
Rabbi Mana said it without attribution, Rabbi Isaac the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya came to it in the name of Rabbi Jonah: It is Rabbi Meir’s who said that one does not perform ḥaliṣah or levirate with an underage girl because she might turn out to be a she-ram.
Mishnah
5 If she performed ḥaliṣah in front of two judges or of three when it turned out that one was a relative or unfit, the ḥaliṣah is invalid; Rabbi Simeon and Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian declare it valid. If happened that she performed ḥaliṣah between herself and him in jail; the case came before Rabbi Akiva and he declared it valid.
Halakhah
“If she performed ḥaliṣah in front of two,” etc. The case happened in a jail and was resolved in a jail. Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian dressed up as a pedlar. One day, he passed in front of the place of confinement of Rabbi Akiva, he cried aloud and said, “who needs needles, who needs hooks, what is if she performed ḥaliṣah between herself and him?” Rabbi Akiva pushed himself tightly to the hole and said: “Do you have spindles? You have valid!”
Mishnah
6 The commandment of ḥaliṣah: He and his sister-in-law come to the court of law and they give him appropriate counsel, as it is said: “The Elders of his city shall call him and speak to him.”Deuteronomy 25:8 She says: “My levir refuses to erect a name in Israel for his brother, my levir does not want;”Deuteronomy 25:7 and he says: “I do not desire to take her.”Deuteronomy 25:8 They have to speak in the holy language. “His sister-in-law comes to him before the Elders’ eyes, strips his shoe from his foot, and spits out before him,”Deuteronomy 25:9 spittle that is visible to the judges. She has to declare and say: “So should be done to a man who would not build his brother’s house.”Deuteronomy 25:9 Up to this sentence they were reading to them but when it was read for Rabbi Hyrkanos under the oak tree in Kefar Abus he finished the paragraph; they established to finish the entire paragraph, “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.”Deuteronomy 25:10 The obligation is on the judges, not on the students. Rabbi Judah said, everyone present has the obligation to say, “the one stripped of shoe, the one stripped of shoe.”
Halakhah
“The commandment of ḥaliṣah: He and his sister-in-law come,” etc. “They give him appropriate counsel.” What does “they give him appropriate counsel” mean? If he is old, they tell her, what do you do with an old man like him? If she is old, they tell him, what do you do with that old woman? If she is a girl and he is an old man, they say to him, she is a girl and will bring you shame. If he is a boy and she an old woman, they say to her, he is a boy and will bring you shame. If he wants but she does not, one listens to her. If she wants but he does not, one listens to him. The principle: One listens to the one who wants to prevent. If both of them want, such a case came before Rabbi Yose and he said, throw her out.
Rabbi Joḥanan asked, in the case of a sister in law, who runs after whom? Rabbi Eleazar answered: “His sister-in-law shall come to the gate.” When Rabbi Joḥanan heard this, he said, Rabbi Eleazar taught us correctly.
Is the recitation essential for validity? Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, for anybody able to recite, the recitation is not essential for validity but for anybody unable to recite, the recitation is essential. Rabbi Mana said, even though Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the recitation is not essential for validity, he agrees that if one recites, he recites in due order; in particular that it should not be said: “My levir refuses to erect, my levir does not want;” “I do not desire to take her,” but “my levir refuses to erect a name in Israel for his brother, my levir does not want;” “I do not desire to take her.”
There, they say: “She came before us, stripped his shoe from his right foot, spat before us spittle that was visible on the ground, and said: ‘So should be done to a man who would not build his brother’s house.’” Rabbi Abbahu said, since the spittle was visible when it left her mouth it is valid, even if the wind dissipated it. If she spat blood? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah, Rabbi Zeriqan turned to it, Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Abba bar Abba, Rabbi Zeʿira turned to it in the name of Samuel: If it contains some liquid spittle, it is valid. How does the handless woman perform ḥaliṣah? With her teeth.
The people of Simonia came to Rabbi and told him, please give us a man who preaches, judges, runs the synagogue, teaches reading, teaches Mishnah, and looks after all our needs. He gave them Levi bar Sisi. They made him a big platform and sat him on it. They came and asked him, how does the handless woman perform ḥaliṣah? He did not respond. If she spat blood? He did not respond. They said, maybe he is not competent in studies, let us ask him in homiletics. They came and asked him, what is that which is written: “Truly, I shall tell you what is traced in writing, it is true.”Daniel 10:21 If it is true, why is it traced, and if traced, why is it true? He did not respond. They came to Rabbi and told him, that required one we asked you for? He told them, by your lives, I gave you one who is my equal! He sent to bring him and examined him. He asked him, what if she spat blood. He said, if it contains some fluid of spittle it is valid. How does the handless woman perform ḥaliṣah? He said, with her teeth. What is that which is written: “Truly, I shall tell you what is traced in writing, it is true.” If it is true, why is it traced, and if traced, why is it true? He said, until the decision of the court is sealed, it is traced. After it has been sealed, it is true. He asked him, and why did you not give any answers? He said to him, they made me a big platform and sat me on it; by that my spirit became bloated. He quoted about him: “If you became subject to contempt when you rose, if you planned, hand to mouth”Proverbs 30:32; why did you become contemptible in the words of the Torah? That you used them to aggrandize yourself.
It was stated: A mistaken ḥaliṣah is valid. What is a mistaken ḥaliṣah? Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, a case where one told him, perform ḥaliṣah and she will be permitted to you after some time. Rabbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was sitting and learning that “if he has the intention but not she, or she has the intention but not he, ḥaliṣah is always invalid unless both of them have the intention!” What is a mistaken ḥaliṣah for Rabbi Joḥanan? A case where one told him, perform ḥaliṣah and she will pay you a hundred talents. Rabbi Mana said, if this was stipulated as a condition, she has to pay. A case came before Rabbi Huna and he followed Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. When he heard that Rabbi Joḥanan disagreed, he changed his opinion and forced a second ḥaliṣah. A case came before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He told him, my son, this woman does not want to be married in levirate; therefore perform ḥaliṣah and remove your candidacy from her, then she will marry you in a regular marriage. After the ḥaliṣah, he said to him: Even if Moses and Samuel came, they could not permit her. He referred to himself as “they are wise to do evil; they do not know how to do good.”Jeremiah 4:22
There are Tannaim who state that ḥaliṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥaliṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥaliṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥaliṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah. Rabbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥaliṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.”Deuteronomy 25:9 He who says that ḥaliṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them.”Genesis 48:16 Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.
Mishnah
1 The House of Shammai say, one makes only betrothed girls repudiate. The House of Hillel say, betrothed or married. The House of Shammai say, the husband, but the House of Hillel say, the husband or the levir. The House of Shammai say, in his presence, but the House of Hillel say, in his presence or in his absence. The House of Shammai say, in a court of law, but the House of Hillel say, in a court or outside a court. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: An underage girl may repudiate even four or five times. The House of Shammai said to them: The daughters of Israel are not abandoned property! But she repudiates, waits until she is of age, or repudiates and is married.
Halakhah
“The House of Shammai say, one permits repudiation,” etc. There, we have stated: “Rabbi Judah bar Abba testified to five statements: That one makes underage girls repudiate, ...” Does one disagree with testimony? One disagrees about the essence of the testimony. So was the essence of the testimony: “The House of Shammai say, one makes only betrothed girls repudiate, but the House of Hillel say, betrothed or married.” It is difficult following the House of Hillel! Her marriage permitted her, he has the right to what she finds and earns, to dissolve her vows, and she is his wife in every respect. And you say so? They gave you of your own. By right, her marriage should not be a marriage. They said that her marriage is a marriage and they said that she may repudiate him and leave.
What is the reason of the House of Shammai? If you say so, you make all intercourse he had with her intercourse of harlotry. Rabbi Abin said, it turns out that the House of Shammai hold with Rabbi Eleazar as Rabbi Eleazar said, intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman not with the intent of marriage is intercourse of harlotry. That means, for the House of Shammai her repudiation is nothing if she transgressed and repudiated after marriage. If she entered the bridal chamber but had no intercourse yet, what is her status? As betrothed or as married? If she is betrothed in Judea where he is familiar with her, what is her status? As betrothed or as married?
If she had been in a situation that she could not repudiate, may she go and repudiate? Let us hear from the following: An underage girl who was married off by her father but then was divorced, if she went and married by herself she nevertheless can repudiate.
What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The husband she may repudiate since she married him with her consent. The levir to whom she was given by an act of God she cannot repudiate. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? If she can repudiate the principal, so much more the levir! Rabbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother and to permit the co-wife to her father and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Rav and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother and to permit the co-wife to her father and the daughter-in- law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish 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. If she says, I can stand marriage with you but not with your brother? Rav and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi 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. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate.
Rabbi Yudan, the father of Rabbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died and did not repudiate since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so and died, her co-wife performs ḥaliṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rabbi Eudaimon said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if there is no levir besides her father.
Rabbi Jonah said, after qiddušin. Rabbi Yose said, even after final marriage. In the second repetition, Rabbi Yose changed his mind. Rabbi Phineas said to him, did the rabbi not teach us “after final marriage”? He answered him, is that fixed in you with a nail?
Rabbi Zeʿira said before Rabbi Mana, did not Rabbi 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 ḥaliṣah 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”? Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Explain it by a minor, who was married off by her father and divorced, who is like an orphan while her father is alive.
Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinnena, in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: 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 of Rabbi Ishmael repudiated while her son was on her shoulder.
Rav Hamnuna in the name of Assi: The Mishnah speaks about a sister-in-law who has two levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her, she may repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry on the market place. Why can she not repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry his brother? Explain it, if she says, I cannot stand you. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yosina in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah speaks about a sister-in-law who has five levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her, she may repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry his brother. Why can she not repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry on the market place? Explain it if her father had married her off, this was a marriage by biblical standards.
“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: It happened with the wife of the camel driver Pison that the Sages repudiated for her in her absence. The House of Shammai said to them, is that a proof? Since he measured crookedly, the Sages measured crookedly for him.” This is difficult. Because a man behaves incorrectly, does one permit his incest prohibition? Rab Ḥisda said, that means that, if she transgresses and repudiated after marriage, the House of Shammai recognize her act of repudiation.
Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: It happened that a girl went to wash at the river when they said to her, your betrothed is passing by. She said, let my mother go and marry him! When the case came before the Sages, they said that there is no repudiation stronger than that. Rabbi Ḥanina said, It happened that a girl went to buy flax from the flax dealer when they said to her, your betrothed is passing by. She said, let my mother go and marry him! When the case came before the Sages, they said that there is no repudiation stronger than that. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: “Even if she went to buy something at the store and said, I cannot endure my husband X, there is no repudiation stronger than this.”
Does a court convene for repudiation? Was it not stated: Flee from three and cling to three. Cling to ḥaliṣah, annulling vows, and making peace. But flee from repudiations, from being a guarantor, and from receiving deposits. Rabbi Simeon bar Abba said, its name is not פקדון “deposit” but פק דון “go to court.” Rabbi Berekhiah said, “My son, if you became guarantor for your neighbor.” Does a court convene for repudiation? Explain it that they were sitting in another matter and the case came before them.
So is the Mishnah: Or she should repudiate him and marry. Therefore, she cannot get herself betrothed. That means, if she transgresses and repudiated after marriage, the House of Shammai recognize her act of repudiation. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: A rumor spreads for a married woman but not for a betrothed one. A woman might hide herself and say, I was not betrothed, but she will not be able to hide herself and say, I did not marry.
Mishnah
2 Which underage girl needs to repudiate? Anyone whom mother or brothers married off with her knowledge. If they married her off without her knowledge she does not have to repudiate. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos says, any girl who is unable to watch over her marriage gift does not have to repudiate. Rabbi Eliezer says, in all legal respects, the underage girl is like one seduced: The daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen may not eat heave; the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israelite may eat heave.
Halakhah
“Which underage girl needs to repudiate,” etc? What does “with her knowledge” mean? One makes for her a canopy, dresses her in jewelry and leads the man to her.
Do they disagree with Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos? From what Rabbi Joḥanan said, which is the underage girl that needs a bill of divorce? Anyone who is given her bill of divorce together with something else and she produces it after some time. This implies that they disagree with Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos.
Rabbi Eliezer says, the actions of an underage girl have no legal standing. He has no right to what she finds or earns, nor may he dissolve her vows; she is as if not his wife in any respect except that she needs repudiation from him. Rabbi Joshua said, he owns what she finds or earns, he may he dissolve her vows; she is his wife in all respects except that she needs a bill of divorce from him. Rabbi Ishmael said, I looked around at all logical systems of Sages and did not find anybody who was consistent in the matter of an underage girl except Rabbi Eliezer, only that he requires repudiation from him.
Rabbi Abbahu said: It happened that Rabbi Eliezer’s mother was pushing him to marry his sister’s daughter. He said to the girl: go and get married, go and get married, until she said to him: Here I am your slave girl to wash the feet of my master’s servants. Even though he married her, he did not sleep with her until she had grown two pubic hairs.
According to Rabbi Eliezer, may she repudiate him and collect a fine from him? According to Rabbi Joshua, may she repudiate him and collect a fine from another man? May she repudiate this one and invalidate her bill of divorce, a desecrated or a bastard? Rabbi Isaac asked, may she repudiate and return to her father’s food? It is obvious that she does not return to her husband’s food since he writes for her: “You shall live in my house and be fed from my property,”Mishnah Ketubot 4:12 and she is not in his house. Therefore, the only question is, may she repudiate and return to her father’s food?
There, we have stated: Rabbi Judah says, the heave given by a minor who has not yet grown two pubic hairs is heave. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Meir: His heave is never heave unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rabbi Abin, Kahana in the name of the Rabbi Hila “You should not carry guilt because of it.”Numbers 18:32 He who may carry guilt can give heave, he who cannot carry guilt cannot give heave. They objected: But a Gentile cannot incur guilt, and he may give heave! Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila “Your heave will be credited to you,”Numbers 18:27 “and you shall lift.”Numbers 18:26 Anybody for whom “thought” is written may give heave. But anybody for whom “thought” is not written cannot give heave. They objected: But “thought” is not written for Gentiles, and he may give heave! Rabbi Hoshaia stated: Gentiles have no “thought” whether for preparation or for heave.
Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of Kahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rabbi Judah, for Rabbi Judah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. Rabbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rabbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he can free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rabbi Judah, for Rabbi Judah says that First Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of cereals? If he holds with Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir said “From all your tithes,”Numbers 18:28 that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rabbi Simeon, since Rabbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Kahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Kahana disagrees with Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Judah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he Kahana is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.
Rabbi Yoḥanan had a difficulty with the words of Rabbi Joshua. Is her marriage valid by biblical standards? The dissolution of her vows must be by biblical standards! And you say so! Rabbi Zeʿira said, there is no dissolution of vows here, because of what Rabbi Joḥanan had against the words of Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Nissa asked: Would it be the same for prohibitions? Rabbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions. Would that be as we stated there: “Before that time, even though they said, we know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are no vows and their dedications no dedications. After that time, even though they said, we do not know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are vows and their dedications dedications.”Mishnah Niddah 5:6 What is the status of that Mishnah? For Kahana it is in dispute, for Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish it is everybody’s opinion.
Mishnah
3 Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, every impediment that comes from the man makes her as if she were his wife; every impediment that does not come from the man makes her as if she were not his wife.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said,” etc. It was stated: “Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, every impediment that comes from the man ‘by a bill of divorce’ makes her as if she were his wife; every impediment that does not come from the man by repudiation makes her as if she were not his wife.”
Mishnah
4 If a girl repudiates a man, he is permitted to marry her relatives and she is permitted to marry his relatives; he did not disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce, he is forbidden to marry her relatives and she is forbidden to marry his relatives; he did disable her for the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce and later took her back, then she repudiated him and married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is permitted to return to him. If she repudiated him and he took her back, then he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another man from whom she became widowed or divorced, she is prohibited to return to him. That is the principle: By divorce after repudiation she is prohibited to return to him; by repudiation after divorce she is permitted to return to him.
Halakhah
“If a girl repudiates a man, etc.” Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Her only problem would be aspersion on the priesthood, but the court will not tolerate aspersion.
Mishnah
5 If a girl repudiates a man and marries another who divorces her, another and she repudiates him, another who divorces her, another and she repudiates him, she is forbidden to return to anyone who had divorce her but permitted to return to those she had repudiated.
Halakhah
“If a girl repudiates,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Her only problem would be aspersion on the priesthood, but the court will not tolerate aspersion.
Mishnah
6 If somebody divorced his wife and later took her back, she is permitted to the levir but Rabbi Eliezer forbids her. Similarly, if somebody divorced an orphan girl and took her back, she is permitted to the levir but Rabbi Eliezer forbids her. If an underage girl who was married off by her father was divorced, she is like an orphan during her father’s lifetime. If she was taken back, she is prohibited to the levir.The Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer in case he divorced her as a minor and took her back as a minor, since her divorce is a total divorce but her return was not complete. But if he divorced her as a minor and took her back as an adult or she became an adult while married to him, she is permitted to the levir.
Halakhah
“The Sages agree,” etc. What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason? That she was forbidden to him for an hour. The Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer about the underage girl who was married off by her father and divorced, that she is like an orphan during her father’s lifetime. Her betrothal and divorce were by biblical standards; her remarriage was not by biblical standards.
What is the status of her co-wife? Rav said, her co-wife is forbidden. Rabbi Joḥanan said, her co-wife is forbidden. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, her co-wife is permitted. Rabbi Eleazar said, I looked around at the rabbis here and at the rabbis there and did not find anybody agreeing with me except Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish who says, her co-wife is permitted.Rav Hamnuna was sitting before Rav Ada bar Ahava and said, what is the status of her co-wife? He said to him, she is permitted. He asked, divorce? He answered, forbidden. He said, go around. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is reasonable following him who said that her co-wife is permitted. But following him who said, her co-wife is forbidden, as you take it: The aspect he acquired in her makes the corresponding aspect forbidden in her co-wife, the aspect he did not acquire in her makes the corresponding aspect permitted in her co-wife! Rabbi Shammai said, does one admit that kind of argument in matters of incest prohibitions? What about it? For any sister-in-law who is not totally outside the family, the acquired aspect of her belongs to an incest prohibition and an incest prohibition forbids the co-wife.
“Two brothers are married,” etc. Rabbi Yudan: One may ask what one asked there. Should he not perform ḥaliṣah for the acquired aspect in her and free her co-wife? So here, should he not perform ḥaliṣah for the acquired aspect in the underage girl and free her sister? Before you find Rabbi Eleazar difficult, you might find Rabbi Eliezer difficult! You cannot find this difficult for Rabbi Eliezer, since Rabbi Eliezer is a Shammaite and the House of Shammai say, one lets only the betrothed women repudiate?
Mishnah
7 Two brothers are married to two underage orphan sisters. If the husband of one of them dies, the other one has to leave as wife’s sister. And so for two deaf-mute sisters. If one is adult and the other underage, if the husband of the underage girl died, she has to leave as wife’s sister. If the husband of the adult one died, Rabbi Eliezer said, one teaches the underage one to repudiate him. Rabban Gamliel says, if she repudiated, she repudiated; otherwise she should wait until she becomes of age and the other one has to leave as wife’s sister. Rabbi Joshua says, woe to him for his wife, woe to him for his brother’s wife! He has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥaliṣah.
Halakhah
Is the degree of acquisition of one equal to that of the other? Did we not state “underage and deaf-mute”? Rabbi Hiyya stated “underage and deaf-mute”: “If the husband of the underage girl died, the husband of the deaf-mute has to divorce her and the underage girl has to wait until she comes of age and perform ḥaliṣah.” Why can she not perform ḥaliṣah immediately? She cannot because of Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir said that one does not perform levirate or ḥaliṣah with an underage girl, since she might be found to be a she-ram. “If the husband of the deaf-mute died, the husband of the underage girl has to divorce her and the deaf-mute is permanently forbidden. If he transgressed and had intercourse with the deaf-mute, he divorces her and she becomes permitted.” This follows what Rabbi Hila said, in order to fix her status.
So is the Mishnah: The underage girl should wait until she grows up, reaches puberty, and is being married. Rabbi Eleazar said, there is no “being married” here, only “being betrothed.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabban Gamliel: If somebody gave qiddušin to his sister-in-law’s sister, his sister-in-law was freed from ḥaliṣah and levirate. It follows that what we had stated there, “if somebody gave qiddušin to the sister of a woman waiting for her levir” does not follow Rabban Gamliel.
Rabbi Ḥaggai said before Rabbi Zeʿira, Menaḥem in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabbi Eliezer, if she repudiated, she repudiated. Rabbi Eliezer said, one teaches the underage one to repudiate him, and you say so? Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabbi Joshua, if she repudiated, she repudiated. Rabbi Joshua says, woe to him for his wife, woe to him for his brother’s wife! And you say so? Rabbi Hila, Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel. Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel, if she repudiated, she repudiated; otherwise she should wait until she becomes of age. If not, he has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥaliṣah.
Mishnah
8 If somebody was married to two underage orphan girls and died, intercourse or ḥaliṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. The same holds for two deaf-mutes. An underaged girl and a deaf-mute: Intercourse of neither of them frees her co-wife.
Halakhah
Is the degree of acquisition of one equal to that of the other? What does he do? Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: “He marries the deaf-mute and divorces her; the underage girl has to wait until she can perform ḥaliṣah.” Why can she not perform ḥaliṣah immediately? She cannot because of Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir said that one does not perform levirate or ḥaliṣah with an underage girl, since she might be found to be a she-ram. “If he sleeps with the underage girl, he has to divorce her, and the deaf-mute is permanently forbidden. If he transgressed and had intercourse with the deaf-mute, he divorces her and she became permitted.” This follows what Rabbi Hila said, in order to fix her status. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Hila: What does “in order to fix her status” mean? As you say there, he should perform ḥaliṣah for the aspect that was acquired in her and marry her co-wife; could he not perform ḥaliṣah for the aspect that was acquired in the underage girl and marry the deaf-mute? He said to him, so says Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: We never find two sisters-in-law of whom one performs ḥaliṣah and one is married in levirate. Do we find two sisters-in-law of whom one performs ḥaliṣah and one is divorced? He said to him, that happens. That is what we have stated there: “If he ‘bespoke’ one and performed ḥaliṣah with the other, the first one needs a bill of divorce.”
Mishnah
9 A hearing wife and a deaf-mute: The intercourse of the hearing woman frees the deaf-mute but the intercourse of the deaf-mute does not free the hearing woman.
Halakhah
“A hearing wife and a deaf-mute,” etc.: A hearing wife and a deaf-mute. The intercourse of the hearing woman frees the deaf-mute. The intercourse of the deaf-mute does not free the hearing woman but disables the hearing woman.
Mishnah
10 An adult wife and an underage wife. The intercourse of the adult woman frees the underage girl but the intercourse of the underage girl does not free the adult woman.
Halakhah
“An adult wife and an underage wife,” etc. An adult wife and an underage wife. The intercourse of the adult woman frees the underage girl. The intercourse of the underage girl does not free the adult woman but disables the adult woman.
Mishnah
11 Somebody was married to two underage orphan girls and died. If the levir had intercourse with the first one and then had intercourse with the second, or his brother had intercourse with the second, the first one was not disabled. The same holds for two deaf-mutes. An underage girl and a deaf-mute. If the levir had intercourse with the underage girl and then had intercourse with the deaf-mute, or his brother had intercourse with the deaf-mute, the underage girl was not disabled. If the levir had intercourse with the deaf-mute and then had intercourse with the underage girl, or his brother had intercourse with the underage girl, the deaf-mute was disabled.
Halakhah
“Somebody was married.” Even if he did not have intercourse with the underage girl, the deaf-mute is disabled. If he did not have intercourse with the underage girl and she died, he would have been permitted the deaf-mute. But now that he did have intercourse with her, even if she died he had disabled the deaf-mute.
Mishnah
12 A hearing wife and a deaf-mute. If the levir had intercourse with the hearing woman and then had intercourse with the deaf-mute, or his brother had intercourse with the deaf-mute, the hearing woman was not disabled. If the levir had intercourse with the deaf-mute and then had intercourse with the hearing woman, or his brother had intercourse with the hearing woman, the deaf-mute was disabled.
Halakhah
“A hearing wife and a deaf-mute. If the levir had intercourse,” etc. Even if he did not have intercourse with the hearing woman, the deaf-mute is disabled. If he did not have intercourse with the hearing woman and she died, he would have been permitted the deaf-mute. But now that he did have intercourse with her, even if she died he had disabled the deaf-mute.
Mishnah
13 An adult wife and an underage one. If the levir had intercourse with the adult and then had intercourse with the underage one, or his brother had intercourse with her, the adult was not disabled. If the levir had intercourse with the underage widow and then had intercourse with the adult one, or his brother had intercourse with her, the underage one was disabled. Rabbi Eleazar says, one teaches the underage girl that she should repudiate him.
Halakhah
“An adult wife and an underage one” Even if he did not have intercourse with the adult one, the underage one is disabled. If he did not have intercourse with the adult woman and she died, he would have been permitted the underage one. But now that he did have intercourse with her, even if she died he had disabled the underage one.
“Rabbi Eleazar says, one teaches the underage girl that she should repudiate him.” After the fact. Therefore, not from the start! Rabbi Mana said it without attribution, Rabbi Isaac the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya the Scribe in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: This is Rabbi Meir’s, since Rabbi Meir said that one does not perform levirate or ḥaliṣah with an underage girl, since she might be found to be a she-ram.
Mishnah
14 If an underage levir had intercourse with an underage sister-in-law, they should grow up together. If he had intercourse with an adult sister-in-law, she should raise him. If the sister-in-law claims within thirty days that she was not copulated with, one forces him to perform ḥaliṣah with her. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥaliṣah with her. But if he confesses, one forces him to perform ḥaliṣah with her even after twelve months.If a woman made a vow during her husband’s lifetime forbidding herself any usufruct from her levir, one coerces him until he performs ḥaliṣah with her. After her husband’s death, one begs him that he should perform ḥaliṣah with her. If she had ḥaliṣah in mind even during her husband’s lifetime, one begs him that he should perform ḥaliṣah with her.
Halakhah
“If an underage levir,” etc. It was stated: A claim of non-virginity may be brought within thirty days, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, immediately. Where do we hold? If he copulated, immediately. If he did not copulate, even after a longer delay. But we must hold if it was not spelled out. Rabbi Meir said, it is credible that a man may hold himself back for thirty days. But the Sages say, a man does not hold himself back even for one day. Rabbi Jeremiah asked: According to Rabbi Meir, would a man be believed to assert that he held himself back for thirty days in order to make the child fatherless? Let us hear from the following: “If the sister-in-law claims within thirty days that she was not copulated with, one forces him to perform ḥaliṣah with her. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥaliṣah with her.” After thirty days. And Rabbi Eleazar said, this is Rabbi Meir’s. And Rabbi Eleazar said, that refers only to her, but not to her co-wife. As you say there, she is not believed to damage her co-wife, so here, he is not believed to damage his son.
“If a woman made a vow forbidding herself any usufruct,” etc. Consider the following: He said, I copulated, but she says, I was not copulated with. Even if he changed and then said, I did not copulate, he cannot be believed since from the start he had said, I copulated. But if from the start he said that he had not copulated, the two together can uproot the presumption. The colleagues asked: What are we talking about? If following the early Mishnah, we have understood that one may marry in levirate. If following the later Mishnah, we have understood that one may perform ḥaliṣah. Where did we hear that one coerces? Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to perform ḥaliṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥaliṣah. Rabbi Yose asked, after thirty days, the presumption is that he copulated and you say one coerces? But it must be the following: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to perform ḥaliṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥaliṣah. The following: If he says, I copulated, and she says, I was not copulated with, it is obvious that he has to sustain her. It is obvious that he does not inherit from her. The problem is whether he inherits his brother’s property. If she says, I was copulated with, and he says, I did not copulate, it is obvious that he does not have to sustain her. It is obvious that he inherits his brother’s property. The problem is whether he inherits from her.
Mishnah
1 A deaf-mute man who married a hearing woman or a hearing man who married a deaf-mute woman may divorce or stay married at will; just as he marries with sign language so he divorces with sign language. A hearing man who married a hearing woman who then became deaf-mute may divorce or stay married at will. If she became insane he shall not divorce. If he became deaf-mute or insane, he can never divorce.
Halakhah
“A deaf-mute who married a hearing woman,” etc. How does he do it? He communicates in sign language and gives her the bill of divorce. In the same way he communicates with others, others communicate with him.
The Mishnah applies if he became betrothed to her by money. But if he became betrothed to her by copulation, his betrothal is an action but his divorce is not an action.
Rabbi Eleazar asked Rabbi Joḥanan: The wife of a deaf-mute or an insane? He said to him, that does not even need a reparation sacrifice for a possible sin. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: It does not even need a reparation sacrifice for a possible sin. Since you say, it does not even need a reparation sacrifice for a possible sin; if another man came and gave her qiddušin, they take hold of her. If he divorced, is she permitted to remarry the first husband? That is what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: About the wife of a deaf-mute who after being divorced by the deaf-mute went and married a deaf-mute or a hearing person, I am reading: “Her first husband who sent her away cannot come to take her back.”Deuteronomy 24:4 About the wife of a hearing person who after being divorced went and married a deaf-mute or a hearing person, I am reading: “Her first husband who sent her away cannot ...” If a deaf-mute’s husband went overseas and they came and told his wife, your husband has died, and she went and married a deaf- mute or a hearing person, and then her husband returned, she has to leave both of them. If the husband of a hearing wife went overseas and they came and told her, your husband has died, and she went and married a deaf-mute, and then her hearing husband returned, we would think that the deaf-mute should divorce her but the hearing person can keep her. She is still under these disabilities.
“If she became insane he shall not divorce.” In the House of Rabbi Yannai they said, because of the fence. Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Hila both say, because she cannot preserve her bill of divorce. Rabbi Nehemiah bar Mar Uqban in the name of Rabbi Yose explained three cases. If he transgressed and divorced her. According to him who said because of a fence, he divorced. According to him who said because she cannot preserve her bill of divorce, it is forbidden. If she has a son, or a father, or a brother. According to him who said because of a fence, it is forbidden. According to him who said because she cannot preserve her bill of divorce, she has a father and can preserve her bill of divorce. Sometimes she is insane and sometimes of lucid mind. According to him who said because of a fence, it is forbidden. According to him who said because she cannot preserve her bill of divorce, sometimes she can preserve her bill of divorce.
Mishnah
2 Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, why can a deaf-mute woman be divorced but a deaf-mute man cannot divorce? They told him, a divorcing man is not comparable to a divorced woman since a woman can be divorced with or against her will but a man divorces only by his own will.Rabbi Joḥanan ben Gudgada testified about a deaf-mute girl who was married off by her father that she could be divorced by a bill of divorce. They said to him, that is an example.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri testified,” etc. Rabbi Ḥananiah asked before Rabbi Hila. The matters seem reasonable for a hearing woman of sound mind, that she is divorced with or without her acquiescence. But a deaf-mute woman who has no will should not be divorced except with her acquiescence. But is it not testimony “that is an example”; does one add to a testimony? But Rabbi Ḥanania is of the opinion that this deals with a hearing girl who was married off by her father and became deaf-and-dumb. Rabbi Yose is of the opinion that this deals with an underage girl who was married off by her father and became divorced.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is nothing to be learned from the beginning, but there is something to be learned from the end. What is there at the beginning? If the deaf-mute brother was the husband of the deaf-mute woman and the hearing the husband of the hearing. But if the deaf-mute brother was the husband of the hearing woman and the hearing the husband of the deaf-mute, that should have been stated at the very end.
Mishnah
3 Two deaf-mute brothers married to two deaf-mute sisters, or two hearing sisters, or two sisters of whom one is deaf-mute, the other hearing; or two deaf-mute sisters married to two deaf-mute brothers, or two hearing brothers, or two brothers of whom one is deaf-mute, these are free from ḥaliṣah and levirate. If the women are unrelated, they must marry them, and, if they want to, they may send them away.Two brothers, one deaf-mute and one hearing, married to two hearing sisters. If the deaf-mute married to the hearing wife died, what shall the hearing brother married to the hearing wife do? The widow has to leave as the wife’s sister. If the hearing brother married to the hearing wife died, what shall the deaf-mute married to the hearing wife do? He divorces his wife by a bill of divorce; his brother’s widow is permanently forbidden.
Halakhah
“Two deaf-mute brothers,” etc. What about her co-wife ? Let us hear from the following: If his hearing daughter was married to his deaf-mute brother, her co-wife is free from ḥaliṣah and levirate.
Mishnah
4 Two hearing brothers married to two sisters, one deaf-mute and one hearing. If the hearing brother married to the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the hearing brother married to a hearing wife do? The widow has to leave as the wife’s sister. If the hearing brother married to the hearing wife died, what shall the hearing brother married to the deaf-mute wife do? He removes his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥaliṣah.
Halakhah
“Two hearing brothers,” etc. What about her co-wife? Let us hear from the following: If his deaf-mute daughter was married to his hearing brother, her co-wife performs ḥaliṣah but not levirate.
Mishnah
5 Two brothers, one deaf-mute and one hearing, married to two sisters, one deaf-mute and one hearing. If the deaf-mute brother married to the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the hearing brother married to a hearing wife do? The widow has to leave as the wife’s sister. If the hearing brother married to the hearing wife died, what shall the deaf-mute brother married to the deaf-mute wife do? He removes his wife by a bill of divorce; his brother’s wife is permanently forbidden.
Halakhah
“Two deaf-mute brothers,” etc. What about her co-wife? Let us hear from the following: If his deaf-mute daughter was married to his deaf-mute brother, her co-wife is free from ḥaliṣah and levirate.
Mishnah
6 Two brothers, one deaf-mute and one hearing, married to two unrelated hearing women. If the deaf-mute brother married to a hearing wife died, what shall the hearing brother married to a hearing wife do? He performs either ḥaliṣah or levirate. If the hearing brother married to a hearing wife died, what shall the deaf-mute brother married to a hearing wife do? He marries the widow and never can divorce her.
Halakhah
“Two brothers, one deaf-mute,” etc. May she eat heave? Let us her from the following: “A hearing daughter of an Israelite who married a deaf-mute Cohen does not eat heave. If he died and she came before the levir, if he is hearing, she eats, deaf-mute does not eat.”
Mishnah
7 Two hearing brothers, married to two unrelated women, one deaf-mute and one hearing. If the hearing brother married to the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the hearing brother married to a hearing wife do? He marries the widow, and if he wants to divorce, he divorces. If the hearing brother married to the hearing wife died, what shall the hearing brother married to the deaf-mute wife do? He performs either ḥaliṣah or levirate.Two brothers, one deaf-mute and one hearing, married to two unrelated women, one deaf-mute and one hearing. If the deaf-mute brother married to the deaf-mute wife died, what shall the hearing brother married to the hearing wife do? He marries, and if he wants to divorce, he divorces. If the hearing brother married to the hearing wife died, what shall the deaf-mute brother married to the deaf-mute wife do? He marries and can never divorce.
Halakhah
“Two hearing brothers,” etc. “Two brothers, one of them deaf-mute,” etc. May she eat heave? Let us hear from the following: “A hearing daughter of an Israelite 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. 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
1 A woman went overseas with her husband. If there was peace between him and her and there was peace in the world and came and said, “my husband died,” she can remarry, “my husband died,” she can marry in levirate. If there was no peace between him and her but there was peace in the world, she cannot be believed. Rabbi Judah says, she is never believed unless she comes crying with torn clothes. They said to him, in any case she can remarry.
Halakhah
“A woman went with her husband,” etc. Just as you say,“if there are witnesses that she is a married woman and she says, I was divorced, she is not trustworthy;” would I say it is the same here? There is a difference for witnesses of death since if he comes he disproves the testimony. Then she should be trustworthy to say: “my levir died”! That is impossible since we have stated: “A woman is not trustworthy if she says ‘my levir died’ to remarry, or ‘my sister died’ to enter her house.” Rabbi Abba said, she is trustworthy for her husband whom she married out of her free will; she is not trustworthy about her levir on whom she was thrown against her will. Rabbi Hoshaia asked, think of it, then she should not be trustworthy if she was forced to marry him!
Not only according to the current Mishnah that a single witness can permit her, but even according to the earlier Mishnah that a single witness cannot permit her, she permits herself. What is the difference between herself and a single witness? A single witness is suspected to want to cause trouble to her; she is not suspected to want to cause trouble to herself.
Is a single witness trustworthy in wartime? Let us hear from the following: A person was living in the times of Rabbi. They asked him about X; he said, he died. They asked him about Y; he said, he died. They asked him, are they all dead? He answered, if they were alive would they not have come? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: The case came before Rabbi and he said, the ones married should stay married, the ones not married should not marry. Rabbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, it happened in wartime. That implies that a single witness is trustworthy in wartime.
What is the difference whether peace is in the world or war is in the world? If war is in the world, she might think that he died although he is not dead. So far if war was in the North and she came from the North, in the South and she came from the South. If there was war in the North and she came from the South; she says I am coming from the North, but I am arguing that you came from the South. If she says, I am coming from the South, it is because she thinks to free herself. If she says, he died on his bed, I am arguing that he went to war; it is because she thinks to free herself.
What is a quarrel? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi. “You never gave me qiddušin, you did not divorce me, I never was your wife,” that is not a quarrel. “You gave me qiddušin, you divorced me, but you never paid me what is owed me under my ketubah,” that is a quarrel. When Rabbi Abba said this before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, he said to him, my son, even if she clearly requests to be divorced.
“Rabbi Judah says, she is never believed unless she comes crying with torn clothes.” They objected to Rabbi Judah: Think of it, if one came crying, the other did not cry. To this one you forbid, to that one you permit. Rabbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Think of it, maybe her son went overseas and died there, she remembers that and cries.
Mishnah
2 The House of Hillel say, we heard only about one who came from the grain harvest. The House of Shammai said to them, it makes no difference whether she comes from the grain harvest, or from the olive harvest, or from overseas. The Sages spoke about the grain harvest only because of what happened. The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai.
Halakhah
“The House of Hillel say, we heard only,” etc. The House of Shammai said to them: Is there not harvest the entire year? How is that? At the end of barley harvest starts wheat harvest. At the end of wheat harvest starts grape harvest. At the end of grape harvest starts olive harvest. That means, there is some harvest the year round. They accepted this argument. And why the grain harvest? Rabbi Mana said, because there accidents are frequent, for the sun only hits a person’s head at grain harvest time. That is what is written: “The child grew and some day it went to his father, to the harvesters. He said to his father, ‘my head, my head’; who said to the servant, ‘carry him to his mother.’ He carried him and brought him to his mother where he sat on her knees until noontime, when he died.” But the rabbis say, because snakes are abundant. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, “You shielded my head at the day of kissing,” at the day summer and winter are kissing. Another explanation: “At the day of weaponry,” that is Gog’s weaponry. Another explanation, on a day when two worlds kiss one another, when this world leaves and the future world enters.
Mishnah
3 The House of Shammai say, she should remarry and collect her ketubah. The House of Hillel say, she should remarry but not collect her ketubah. The House of Shammai said to them, you permitted the stringent incest prohibition, should you not permit the lenient money matters? The House of Hillel said to them, we find that the brothers cannot access the inheritance on her testimony. The House of Shammai said, we can infer that from the text of her ketubah document in which he writes: “If you would be married to another man you shall take the amount I wrote for you.” The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai.
Halakhah
“The House of Shammai say, she should remarry,” etc. May the daughters claim upkeep based on her word?
The House of Shammai insist on interpretation of the ketubah. As the House of Shammai explain, we can infer that from the text of her ketubah document in which he writes: “If you would be married to another man you shall take the amount I wrote for you.” The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel insist on interpretation of the ketubah. Hillel the Elder explained it, using the vernacular. In Alexandria they were writing that a man there became betrothed to a woman. Another man abducted her from a public place. When this came before the Sages, they intended to declare the children as bastards. Hillel the Elder told them, bring your mothers’ ketubah. They brought their mothers’ ketubah. They found written there: “When you enter my house you shall be my wife according to the laws of Moses and the Jews.”
Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah insisted on interpreting the ketubah. “Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah explained: ‘The sons shall inherit and the daughters shall be supported.’ Since the sons can only inherit after their father’s death, so the daughters can claim support only after their father’s death.”
Rabbi Meir insists on interpreting the contract text. As Rabbi Meir said, if somebody accepts a field as a contractor, one estimates how much it is expected to yield and give to the owner. Because the standard contract reads: “If I let it lie fallow and do not work on it, I shall pay as if from the best.”
Rabbi Judah insists on interpreting the contract text. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: A person brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rabbi Judah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for she writes to him “any other obligations that come to you from earlier times.”
Rabbi Yose insists on interpreting the contract text. Rabbi Yose explained: In a place where one treats the ketubah as a loan, she collects the entire amount. Where one doubles, she collects only half the amount. Rabbi Eleazar the caper grower said, nobody is permitted to buy domesticated or wild animals or birds unless he has food prepared for them. Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa insists on interpreting the contract text, since Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, a person lending money to another person should not take pledges from him for more than the value of the loan since he writes for him: “It will be paid by the property that came to my hand that I shall acquire corresponding to this sum.”
Rav Huna insists on interpreting the contract text. Rav Huna explained: “The sons shall inherit but the daughters must be fed.”Mishnah Ketubot 4:6 Since the sons inherit movables, the daughters also are fed from movables. Samuel said, the daughters are not fed from movables. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “The female children you shall have from me shall dwell in my house and be supported from my property.”Mishnah Ketubot 4:11 It was stated on this: From real estate but not from movables. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav Huna follows Rabbi and Samuel follows Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “One uses both guaranteed property and non-guaranteed property for the support of the wife and the daughters, the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, guaranteed property may be taken by sons from sons, by daughters from daughters, by sons from daughters59If the inheritance is large, the sons may try to convince the court that the part reserved for the support of the unmarried daughters is too large., and by daughters from sons. But non-guaranteed property may be taken by sons from daughters but not by daughters from sons.” They said, Rav Huna reversed himself. They said, that was well done, ketubah is a biblical commandment but support of the daughters is from their words. May their words uproot a biblical commandment? It must be that they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah. But is the money contained in their mother’s ketubah not also real estate?
“If somebody who works his wife’s property has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of smashed persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known.” Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping the relative off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Abba, Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of smashed people. RebbiJacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Judah: Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables. Rav Sheshet asked: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting, is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested?
Mishnah
4 Everybody is accepted to be a witness for her except her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her levir’s wife, and her husband’s daughter. What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death? The document is the proof. If one witness says that he died and she remarried, then another comes and says that he is not dead, she shall not leave. If one witness says that he died but two say that he did not die, even if she remarried she must leave. If two say that he died but one said that he did not die, even if she has not yet remarried she may remarry.
Halakhah
“Everybody is accepted to be a witness for her,” etc. It was stated: “Just as they cannot be trusted for her, so she cannot be trusted about them.” Her mother-in-law’s son is like her mother-in-law’s daughter. Her husband’s son is like her husband’s daughter. Her co-wife, even if remarried. Her levir’s wife, even if she is her own sister. Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah says that they did not treat the males as they treat the females, as we have stated there: “because a woman is not trusted if she says, my levir died, that she should be free to remarry, nor that her sister died, to enter her house.” Because she has no children. But if she has children, she is trustworthy.
Does the document prove? Do we not have to believe what she says? If she did not say ‘it was written in my presence, it was signed in my presence,’ would you permit her to remarry? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, that parallels what Rabbi Abun said, one does not suspect him to vilify her in the eyes of Heaven; he is suspect to vilify her in the eyes of the court. Since he knows that if he were to come and object, his objection would not be accepted, he has the bill of divorce signed by witnesses in good standing. And here, since she knows that her word does not count for the other woman, she will be truthful.
“If one witness says,” etc. “If one witness says that he died and she remarried, then another comes and says that he is not dead, she shall not leave.” Because he said that after she had remarried. Therefore if the second witness came before she remarried, if she remarried she has to leave. Rabbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabbi Menaḥem ben Rabbi Yose. But the words of the Sages are, whether he testified after she remarried or before she remarried, she should not remarry, but if she remarried she shall not leave. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said in the name of Rav, if she was married by the testimony of two witnesses, even if he returns, one says to him, “you are not he.” Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, think of it, if he is a famous person like Immi? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, is there nobody who would look like Rabbi Immi? There came a case before the rabbis there. They said to him, “you are not he.” Abba bar Abba got up and whispered in his ear saying, by your life, give her a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rav’s students got up and beat him. Somebody said, the whip is burning and the footstool is burning. Samuel said, I was there, no whip was burning and no footstool was burning, but my father was hit and got up. There came a case before Rabbi Immi. He said to him, yes, it is sure that she is permitted to you but you should know that the child of this man is a bastard before Heaven. Rabbi Zeʿira was praising him because he made the situation clear.
Mishnah
5 One wife says, he died, the other one says, he did not die. The one who said that he died can remarry and collect her ketubah; the one who said that he did not die cannot remarry nor collect her ketubah. If one said that he died, while the other one said he was killed; Rabbi Meir says, since they contradict one another, they cannot remarry. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.
Halakhah
“A woman who went overseas with her husband,” etc. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Rabbi Meir agrees in the first case. It was found stated: That is also in dispute. What is the difference between the second and the first cases? In the first case, did they not consider her word as nonexistent for her companion? Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion? Rabbi Joḥanan said, if Rabbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it.
There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses testified about him, one group testifying that he vowed two periods of nezirut, the other group testifying that he vowed five periods of nezirut.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rabbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five.
Rav said, if testimony was contradicted in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradicted in itself, the testimony is void in the opinion of everybody. If testimony was contradicted in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rabbi Joḥanan is consistent since Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one witness said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. These say, he counted into his bosom, the others say he counted into his money-belt; everybody agrees that is contradicting testimony after the main testimony, and the testimony is not void. If one witness said, he killed him with a mace, the other witness said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion? Rabbi Joḥanan said, if Rabbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rabbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rabbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases: “Justice, justice you shall pursue.”Deuteronomy 16:20
Mishnah
6 One witness said that he died, another witness said that he did not die; a woman said that he died, another woman said that he did not die; she may not remarry.
Halakhah
“if she says ‘my husband died,’” etc. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that he died, and a woman says that he did not die; a woman said that he died and a witness said that he did not die.” In the House of Rabbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one male witness, they are like one witness.
Mishnah
7 If a woman went overseas with her husband and she returns and says “my husband died,” she can remarry and collect her ketubah, but her co-wife remains forbidden. If she was the daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen, she should eat heave, the words of Rabbi Tarphon. Rabbi Akiva says, in this way one does not remove her from sin unless she be forbidden to remarry and forbidden to eat heave.
Halakhah
She is suspected to cause trouble to herself in order to cause trouble to her co-wife. Then she should not be trustworthy even for herself! Since she knows that her word does not count for the other woman, she will be truthful. Then she should be trustworthy even for her co-wife! She is suspected to cause trouble to herself in order to cause trouble to her co-wife.
Mishnah
8 If a woman went overseas with her husband and she returns and says “my husband died and then my father-in-law died,” she can remarry and collect her ketubah, but her mother-in-law remains forbidden. If she was the daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohen, she should eat heave, the words of Rabbi Tarphon. Rabbi Akiva says, in this way one does not remove her from sin unless she be forbidden to remarry and forbidden to eat heave.
Halakhah
“If he was betrothed to one.” Should she not be trusted to say “my father-in-law died”? Did we not hold that just as they are not trusted about her so she is not trusted about them? Rabbi Ḥanina said, explain it if her father-in-law was there and she described the circumstances.
Mishnah
9 If he became betrothed to one of five women but it cannot be ascertained to which of them he became betrothed, and each one says he became betrothed to me, he gives a bill of divorce to each of them, puts up the amount of one ketubah between them and removes himself, the words of Rabbi Tarphon. Rabbi Akiva says, in this way one does not remove him from sin unless he gives a bill of divorce and pays the ketubah to each of them.He robbed one of five people, it is not known which of them he robbed and each one says “I was robbed,” he puts up the amount of the robbery between them and removes himself, the words of Rabbi Tarphon. Rabbi Akiva says, in this way one does not remove him from sin unless he pays the amount of the robbery to each of them.
Halakhah
He robbed one of five people. Rabbi Abun said, the Mishnah deals with the case that she was betrothed by a document. But if he was betrothed by money, everybody agrees that he gives a bill of divorce and pays the ketubah to each of them.
“He robbed one of five people.” Rabbi Assi said, there is a Mishnah which follows Rabbi Akiva against Rabbi Tarphon. As we have stated there: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who of you it was; I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know who of you it was; he gives to each of them a mina because he confessed himself.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: This is everybody’s opinion. One says, to be clean before Heaven. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Here if they are silent; there if they are talking. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court and hand it over to him. Rabbi Joḥanan seems to say, a court which determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Rav said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber. The strength of Rav is from the following, that Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber. Otherwise he should have kept silent. Rabbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rabbi Yose wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rabbi Yudan said, even following those who say that there is no difference between keeping silent and talking in matters of a robbery, for a deposit they agree that he who keeps silent is rewarded and he who talks loses. He who keeps silent is rewarded from the following: “Two people deposited with the same person, one a mina and one 200 tetradrachmas. This one says, the 200 belong to me, and that one says, the 200 belong to me. He gives each one a mina and the rest shall lie with him until Elijah comes.” He who talks loses, from this: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you.”
Mishnah
10 A woman went overseas with her husband and her son; if she returns and says, “my husband died and after that my son died,” she is to be believed. “My son died and after that my husband died,” she is not believed but one takes her words into account and she performs ḥaliṣah but is excluded from levirate. “I had a son overseas,” she says, “my son died and after him my husband,” she is believed; “my husband died and after that my son,” she is not believed but one takes her words into account and she performs ḥaliṣah but is excluded from levirate.“A levir was given to me overseas;” if she said “my husband died and after that my levir” or “my levir died and after that my husband,” she is to be believed. If she, her husband, and her levir went overseas, if she said “my husband died and after that my levir” or “my levir died and after that my husband,” she is not to be believed, since no woman is believed if she says “my levir died” that she might marry outside the family nor “my sister died” that she might enter his house. Also the husband is not to be believed if he says “my brother died” that he might marry his wife in levirate, nor “my wife died” that he might marry her sister.
Halakhah
“I had a son overseas.” Rabbi Ḥanania asked before Rabbi Hila: Who is the one who stated that one takes her words into account and she performs ḥaliṣah? Rabbi Tarphon, but not Rabbi Akiva! He said to him, it is the opinion of everybody and even Rabbi Akiva agrees to it. What is the difference between this statement and the first one? There, you say that she is not to be believed. But here, you say that she is believed! When she left as included in the permission of levirate. But where you say that she is not believed, when she left and was not included in the permission of levirate.
Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah says that they did not treat the males as they treat the females, as we have stated there: “because she is not trusted if she says, my levir died, that she should be free to remarry, nor that her sister died, to enter her house.” Because she has no children. But if she has children, she is trustworthy.
Mishnah
1 If a woman’s husband and her co-wife went overseas and people came and told her “your husband died,” she cannot remarry or perform ḥaliṣah until she has ascertained whether this co-wife was pregnant. If she had a mother-in-law, she does not have to suspect. If the latter left pregnant, she has to suspect; Rabbi Joshua says, she does not have to suspect.
Halakhah
“If a woman’s husband and her co-wife went overseas.” Rav asked the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya: Why can she not wait three months and then immediately perform ḥaliṣah? As the case may be, if there was a live birth, ḥaliṣah did not affect her. If there was no live birth, she has ḥaliṣah in her hand! He said to him: They taught “three months” only for herself. If so, how long does she have to wait for her co-wife? 9 months. After that, could she not immediately perform ḥaliṣah? As the case may be, if there was a live birth, ḥaliṣah did not touch her. If there was no live birth, she has ḥaliṣah in her hand? There came Rabbi Judah in the name of Rabbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya: That she would not need a proclamation with regard to priesthood.
The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The reason of the rabbis: “When brothers dwell,” certainly, not in a case of doubt.
“If the latter left pregnant, she has to suspect,” since there is one doubt, whether it was a male or a female. A doubt in biblical matters has to be resolved in a restrictive way. “Rabbi Joshua says, she does not have to suspect,” since there is a double doubt. There are doubts whether it was a male or a female, and whether it was a live or a still birth.
Mishnah
2 If each one of two sisters-in-law says “my husband died,” each one is forbidden because of the other’s husband. If one has witnesses but the other has no witnesses, the one who has witnesses is forbidden but the one who has no witnesses is permitted. If one has children but the other has no children, the one who has children is permitted but the one who has no children is forbidden. If they married in levirate but the levirs died, they are forbidden to remarry. Rabbi Eleazar said, since they were permitted to the levirs, they became permitted to any man.
Halakhah
Two sisters-in-law, of whom one has children and witnesses but the other has neither. The first one is permitted by children, the other one by her witnesses.
What is the reason of Rabbi Eleazar? Is it because she is not suspected to cause trouble to herself in order later to cause trouble to her co-wife or because she is not suspected to cause any trouble to her co-wife? Let us hear from the following: “If a woman went overseas with her husband and returns and says ‘my husband died,’ she can remarry and collect her ketubah, but her co-wife remains forbidden.” We explain it, saying that she is suspected to cause trouble to herself in order to cause trouble to her co-wife, and Rabbi Eleazar does not disagree. It is impossible that the reason be that she is not suspected to cause any trouble to her co-wife. We could suspect that perhaps her husband sent her a bill of divorce from overseas. Think of it, what if her next husband was a Cohen? Rabbi Abba bar Rabbi Zemina said, she is suspected to produce several desecrated children in order to make bastards of her co-wife’s children.
Mishnah
3 One testifies only on the appearance of the face with the nose, even though there may be marks on his body and his clothing. One testifies only up to three days. Even if one saw him cut up or crucified on the cross, or an animal eating of him, one testifies only after he has stopped breathing. Rabbi Judah ben Baba says, not all people nor all places nor all times are the same.
Halakhah
“One testifies only on the appearance of the face,” etc. Rav Judah said, the nose with the mandibles. This follows what Rabbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: “The recognition of their faces testified about them,”Isaiah 3:9 that is the nose. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if somebody does not want to be recognized, he should put a patch on his nostrils, then he will not be recognized. As in the following: In the times of king Ursicinus, some people from Sepphoris were under arrest warrants. They put patches on their nostrils and were not recognized. Finally they were denounced and all caught because of lies.
It is written: “Abijah and his people inflicted a very great slaughter on them.”2 Chronicles 13:13 Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said, he destroyed the face recognition of the men of Israel. That is what is written, “the recognition of their faces testified about them,” etc. That refers to the nose. Rabbi Immi said, he put up guards for three days until appearance was disfigured. That is what is written: “Your widows are more for me than the sand of the oceans.” It was stated in this respect: One testifies only on the appearance of the face with the nose. It is written: “Jeroboam was powerless for the rest of Abijah’s days; the Eternal struck him and he died.”2 Chronicles 13:20 Rabbi Samuel said, you think that this refers to Jeroboam, but it is Abijah. Why was he struck down? Rabbi Joḥanan said, because he insulted Jeroboam in public. That is what is written: “You are a great multitude and with you are the golden calves that Jeroboam made for you as gods.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, because he denigrated his teacher Ahijah from Shiloh. That is what is written: “And men, rascals, joined him,”2 Chronicles 13:7 that he called Ahijah from Shiloh a rascal. But the rabbis say, because an idol fell into his hand and he did not destroy it, that is what is written: “Abijah pursued Jeroboam and took from him cities, Beth El and its dependencies ...”2 Chronicles 13:19 and it is written: “He set up one in Beth El and one he dedicated in Dan.”
“Even though there are marks on his body and his clothing.” Did one not state: From where do we know that if your fellow man is lost, you return him both body and property? There is a difference, because marks are apt to change.
So is the Mishnah: “One testifies only up to after three days.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Pappai, Rabbi Joshua from Suknin in the name of Rabbi Levi: During the first three days, the soul hovers over the body because she thinks that she will return to it. Once she sees that the splendor of his face changes after three days, she abandons him and goes away. After three days, the belly breaks open in his face and says to him, there is what you have robbed and extorted. Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Joshia brings it from that verse: “I shall scatter your stomachs’ contents in your faces,” even “your holidays’ stomach contents.” At that moment,“but his flesh will hurt him, his soul will mourn for him.”
“Even if one saw him cut up,” I say he was burned by a red hot lance and survived. “Or crucified on the cross,” I say a noble lady passed by and redeemed him. “Or an animal was eating of him,” I say that in Heaven they had mercy on him. If he fell into a lion’s den one does not testify about him, I say that miracles happened for him as they did for Daniel. If he fell into a fiery oven one does not testify about him, I say that miracles happened for him as they did for Ḥanaiah, Mishael and Azariah. If he fell into a cistern full of snakes and scorpions one does not testify about him; Rabbi Judah ben Baba said, I say he was a snake charmer. If he fell into a boiling vat of water or oil, one does not testify about him. Rabbi Abba said, of oil one testifies, of water one does not testify.
“Rabbi Judah ben Baba.” Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Ḥananel in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Judah ben Baba. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rabbi Jeremiah said that it happened that someone fell into the Jordan and surfaced after seventeen days when he was recognized because the cold had shrunk him so that they permitted his wife to remarry.
Mishnah
4 If he fell into water, both enclosed and open, his wife is forbidden. Rabbi Meir said, if happened that someone fell into a large cistern and came up after three days. Rabbi Yose said, it happened with a blind man who went to immerse himself in a cave, and his guide went after him, they stayed there the time to die from drowning and they permitted their wives to remarry. It also happened in Assos that one lowered a person into the sea and only his leg was recovered. The Sages said, if from the knee and higher, she can remarry, from lower than the knee she cannot remarry.
Halakhah
“If he fell into water, both enclosed and open, his wife is forbidden, the words of Rabbi Meĩr. But the Sages say, in open waters his wife is forbidden, in enclosed waters, his wife is permitted.” Rabbi Meir said, it happened that someone fell into a large cistern and came up after three days. They said to him, one does not mention wonders. Rabbi said, it happened that two went to put fish nets into the Jordan in the evening. One of them saw a fish cave and entered it. When he wanted to leave, he was unable to find the cave’s entrance. His colleague waited at the entrance of the cave so long that he would be dead; he returned and reported to his house. Next morning when the sun shone, the man recognized the entrance of the cave, left, and found his house in mourning. Rabbi Akiva said, It happened that I was traveling on the ocean that I saw a ship sinking. I was sorry for a student Sage who was on that ship. When I came to Kappadocian Mazaga he greeted me and asked me questions. I said to him, my son, how did you escape? He told me, Rabbi, one wave tore me to another, and another to another, until it vomited me onto dry land. Then I said, how great are the words of the Sages who said, in open waters his wife is forbidden, in enclosed waters, his wife is permitted.
Rabbi Abbahu said, if the ocean was quiet, he looked around in all directions and saw that no creature was there, one lets his wife remarry.
“It also happened in Assos that one lowered a person into the sea and only his leg was recovered.” It was stated: They wanted to cut sponges and found that banker in Acco. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: Is it not reasonable that one allows time for him as for a torn animal? He answered him, that is my opinion also.
Mishnah
5 It is sufficient even if somebody heard women say, the man X died. Rabbi Judah said, even if he heard children say, we go to lament and bury X, whether intentional or unintentional. Rabbi Judah ben Baba said, if he is a Jew, only if he intends to testify; but if a Gentile intends to testify, it is no testimony.
Halakhah
“Even if somebody heard women.” If one heard lamenting women eulogizing him among the dead, there is no better testimony than that. From the king’s commentariensis, “X died, X was killed,” one does not let his wife remarry. From a Jewish court, “X died, X was killed,” one lets his wife remarry.
X was lost, X was shaken off, X is not in the world. “X was lost,” I say he was embarrassed. “X was shaken off,” I say that X vomited his food. “X is not in the world,” he is lost in thought. “His ship sank in the sea;” that parallels what Rabbi Abba bar Zavida said in the name of Rav: It happened that Abba Simai’s ship sank in the sea but he was not on it; here it is the same.
What does “intentional” mean? Rabbi Joḥanan said, anytime one mentions a woman. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, anybody one asks and he responds. Rabbi Ḥaggai said to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, does the Rabbi remember that thirty and some Elders were up in arms against Rabbi Hoshaiah to follow the rule of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish but he did not accept it
Rav Judah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rabbi Judah ben Baba in the case of an Israelite. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rabbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rabbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rabbi Tarphon, since Rabbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.”
Mishnah
6 One testifies by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon and one permits to remarry on the basis of a disembodied voice. It happened that one stood on a hilltop and called out that the man X from place Y died. They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry. It also happened at Ṣalmon that somebody said, I am X, son of Y; a snake bit me and I am dying. They went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry.
Halakhah
“One testifies by the light of a candle.” Rabbi Ḥanina said, Rabbi Jonathan taught me, only if they saw a man’s shadow. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: There, we have stated: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern and said, anybody who hears my voice should write a bill of divorce to my wife, they should write and deliver,” and Rabbi Jonathan said, only if the saw a man’s shadow. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: That means, in the fields, but in town even without a man’s shadow. But did we not state: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern and said, anybody who hears my voice should write a bill of divorce to my wife, they should write and deliver,” and Rabbi Jonathan said, only if they saw a man’s shadow? Rabbi Abun said, damaging spirits are as frequent in cisterns as they are frequent on the fields.
There, we have stated: “The seducer is a common person, the seduced is a common person.” Therefore, not a Sage? ... Since he seduces, he is not a Sage. Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage. What does one do to be sly about him? One hides two witnesses, people, in an inner room and puts him into the outer room, lights a candle near him so they can see him and hear his voice. That is what they did to Ben Satra in Lod, where they hid two Sages, brought him to court, and stoned him. And here, you say so? It is different because he said, “I am.” Here also, “I am”? That he should not flee, go away, and continue to seduce others with him.
There, we have stated: “If somebody was bringing a bill of divorce and lost it, if he found it again immediately, it is valid; otherwise it is invalid.” What is immediately? Rabbi Joḥanan said, as long as less than three people passed by. If a Gentile passed by, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana was bringing a bill of divorce when he lost it. A Saracen found it. The case came before the rabbis and they declared the bill valid. That means, if a Gentile passed by, it is valid. May we say that he had an identifying mark on the bill? But was it not stated that there are no identifying marks on bills of divorce? That means, two or three lines. But here it had a heh which was pointed. Rabbi Ezra asked before Rabbi Mana, why should it be invalid in that case? I would say, it was another bill executed for a person with the same name. Think of it, if they investigated and did not find there another person with the same name! It must be that one is very strict in matters of possible incest. But did we not state: “They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry; they went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry?” Rabbi Mana said to him: So says Rabbi Shammai, Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: This man had two bills of divorce in his hand, one valid and one invalid. He lost the valid one after he had thrown away the invalid one. When he found it, I am saying that he found the invalid one.
Mishnah
7 Rabbi Akiva said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me and said to me, I heard that in the Land of Israel one does not let a woman remarry on the testimony of one witness, except Judah ben Baba. I told him, that is so. He said to me: Tell them in my name, you know that this country is in bad shape because of armed bands; I learned from Rabban Gamliel the Elder that one lets a woman remarry on the testimony of one witness. When I came and lectured about this before Rabban Gamliel, he was happy about my words and said, we found a colleague for Judah ben Baba.During the discussion, Rabban Gamliel remembered that people had been killed at Tel Arza and Rabban Gamliel let their widows remarry on the testimony of a single witness. It was firmly established that one permits to remarry on the words of a witness reporting from another witness, and on the words of a woman or a slave girl.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Akiva said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me,” etc. If it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”; Rabbi Jeremiah said, one lets his wife remarry; Rabbi Abun bar Kahana said, one does not let his wife remarry. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rabbi Jeremiah: “‘By the mouth of witnesses,’ not on basis of their writings, not on the word of a translator, not on the testimony of a single witness.” Today, does one not let remarry on the testimony of a single witness? Therefore also one lets remarry on basis of their writings and on the word of a translator. A baraita supports Rabbi Abun bar Kahana: The power of witnesses is greater than the power of a document and the power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses. Since if witnesses say, “X died, X was killed,” one lets his wife remarry but if it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed,” one does not let his wife remarry. The power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses, since if somebody gives a loan before witnesses, he can foreclose only from unincumbered property; by a document, he can foreclose from mortgaged property.
Mishnah
8 Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua say, one does not let a woman remarry on the testimony of a single witness. Rabbi Akiva says, not on the testimony of a woman nor on that of relatives.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua say, one does not let a woman remarry,” etc. We have stated: “It was firmly established that one permits to remarry on the words of a witness reporting from another witness, and on the words of a woman, and a woman on the words of another woman, and from a slave or a slave girl.” And you say so? Our Mishnah is of the prior Mishnah.
Mishnah
9 They said to him, it happened that Levites went to Zoar the town of date palms when one one them fell ill and they left him at an inn On their return they asked the women innkeeper,where is our colleague? She told them, he died and I buried him; and they let his widow remarry. They said to him, should not the wife of a Cohen be like a women innkeeper? He retorted, if she is in the position of the women innkeeper.For the women innkeeper delivered to them his stick, his back pack and the Torah scroll that had been in his hand.
Halakhah
“For the woman innkeeper delivered to them his stick, his shoes, his money belt, and the Torah scroll that had been in his hand.” Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: They treated her like a midwife who is trusted on the spot. Rabbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated her like a Gentile speaking simplemindedly. A gentleman asked before Rabbi Mana, does that not contradict Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, for Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, anybody one asks and he responds! The statement of Rabbi Samuel bar Sosarta is impossible; one has the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina: They treated her like a midwife who is trusted on the spot.
About this book
Jerusalem Yevamot
0 connections
No connections in this book yet.