# dafyomi

lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim holds that since there is no room, he 
               steps on them and they harm him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a man fell into a furnace, we may testify 
          on him;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If he fell into a cauldron of boiling wine or oil, we may 
          testify;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Acha says, if he fell into oil, we may testify, since 
          oil burns. If he fell into wine we may not testify, since 
          it extinguishes the flame (underneath when it splashes).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim At first it (partly) extinguishes, but 
               later, it burns.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> A man fell into the great reservoir 
          (and came out after three days).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Chachamim (to R. Meir)):</font></b> We cannot bring a 
          proof from miracles.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What was the miracle?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He survived without eating or drinking 
               for three days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> This is not a miracle. All the Yisraelim 
               in Shushan fasted three days on Esther's command!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He went three days without sleeping.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If a man swore that he will not sleep 
               for three days (this is a vain oath, for this is 
               impossible) he is lashed immediately. He may sleep 
               when he wants.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Meir's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Kahana):</font></b> There were structures for him to 
          sleep on;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim hold that since they were of marble, he 
               would slip and could not sleep.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir holds that he could sleep for a short time.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The daughter of Nechunya the reservoir-digger 
          fell into a reservoir. They informed R. Chanina ben Dosa. 
          The first hour he said 'Shalom'; also, the second hour. 
          The third hour, he said that she has already escaped.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chanina ben Dosa:</font></b> Who took you out?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The girl:</font></b> There were two sheep, and an old man 
               leading them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabanan (to R. Chanina ben Dosa):</font></b> Are you a prophet?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chanina ben Dosa:</font></b> I am not a prophet, nor the 
               Talmid (or son) of a prophet. I knew that since 
               Nechunya toiled for this, his seed would not die 
               through it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba):</font></b> Nevertheless, his son died of thirst;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'U'Svivav NiS'ARaH Me'od' - Hash-m is exacting with 
               His Tzadikim like a Sa'ARaH (hair).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chanina:</font></b> We learn this from 'Hash-m is feared 
               among the Holy, and awesome among all around Him.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>SECOND-HAND TESTIMONY OF A DEATH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Even if Reuven heard women saying 'Ploni died' 
          (he may testify that Ploni died);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, even if he heard children saying 'we are 
          going to bury and eulogize Ploni'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  It doesn't matter whether or not the one who mentioned 
          his death intended to testify;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ben Bava says, we rely on a Yisrael (who said 
          that Ploni died) said even if he intended to testify. We 
          rely on a Nochri only if he did not intend to testify.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Perhaps the children never went to the 
          funeral (and he did not die)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> They said 'we are coming from 
          eulogizing and burying Ploni.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps they buried an ant, and named it Ploni!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They mentioned the number of Chachamim and 
          eulogizers who were there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Bava):</font></b> If a Nochri intended to 
          testify, we may not rely on this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah and Reish Lakish):</font></b> This is only if he 
          intended to permit. If he intended (only) to testify, he 
          is believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we know his intention?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> If he comes to Beis Din and says 
          'Ploni died; let his wife remarry', he intends to permit. 
          If he says only 'Ploni died', he intends to testify.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yochanan, against Reish Lakish):</font></b> A case 
          occurred in which Oshaya b'Ribi said like you, and 85 
          Chachamim opposed him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If he is never believed with intention, 
               when is he believed? (The Mishnah implies that 
               sometimes he is believed!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He is believed when he speaks l'Fi Tumo 
               (unaware of consequences of his words).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  A Nochri was saying 'Who is from Chivai's house? Who is 
          from Chivai's house? Chivai died!' Rav Yosef permitted 
          his wife to remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  A Nochri was saying 'Woe to the soldier' of Pumbadisa who 
          died'. Rav Yosef (or Rava) permitted his wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  A Nochri was saying, 'Who is from Chasa's house? Chasa 
          drowned!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 - Rav Nachman:</font></b> Ha'Elokim (this resembles 
               an oath)! Fish ate Chasa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chasa's wife remarried based on hearing Rav Nachman 
               say this. No one commented.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference (Rav Ashi):</font></b> This shows that the Isur to 
               remarry when a man fell into endless water is only 
               l'Chatchilah. B'Di'eved, if she remarried she may 
               remain married.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> Rav Nachman permitted Chasa's wife to 
               remarry.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  He reasoned that Chasa is a great man, so had 
                    he come to safety we would have heard.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> This is wrong. Whether or not he is great, 
                    l'Chatchilah his wife may not remarry. 
                    B'Di'eved, she may stay married.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HASH-M EXACTS JUSTICE FROM THE RIGHTEOUS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that the daughter of Nechunya 'Chofer Shichin' (the digger of water wells) fell into a deep water cistern. News of the tragedy was brought to Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa. After the first hour, he said, 'Shalom.' After the second hour, he said, 'Shalom.' After the third hour, he said, 'She has arisen [from the pit].' When the people asked him whether he is a prophet, he replied that he is not a prophet, but that he knew that Nechunya's daughter would emerge unharmed because it is not possible that 'the matter in which the Tzadik excels should cause his offspring to suffer.' The Gemara adds that despite this axiom, Nechunya's son died of thirst. Even though Nechunya dedicated his life to providing water to the people who came to Yerushalayim during the festivals (Rashi), his son died of thirst because Hash-m is 'exact in justice with those who are close to Him, like the thread of a hair.' When a person has perfected himself in an area of Avodas Hash-m, Hash-m demands from him more exacting standards.
</p><p>
If Hash-m does not punish a Tzadik with the same thing in which he excels in his service of Hash-m, as Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa expressed and as the first incident demonstrates, why did Hash-m allow Nechunya's son to die of thirst?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> here and in Bava Kama (50a) explains that the death of Nechunya's son by thirst is not considered a form of justice with the same matter with which Nechunya excelled. His son suffered from a <i>lack</i> of water, while Nechunya excelled in <i>providing</i> water. In contrast, if his daughter would have died by drowning in a water cistern, that decree would have been carried out with the same action in which Nechunya excelled -- the provision of water. Hash-m does not punish a person in such a way.
</p><p>
Alternatively, although Nechunya dug wells, he did not provide the water to fill them. The water came naturally through rainfall. Consequently, it was possible for his son to die from a lack of <i>water</i>, while it was not possible for his daughter to die in the pit of a <i>well</i>. (This is the explanation of <b>RASHI</b> here (DH Chofer Shichin), according to the understanding of the <b>ETZ YOSEF</b>. This explanation does not conform with the Yerushalmi's description that 'he honored his Creator <i>with water</i>.')
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> in Bava Kama (50a) suggests that there is no such rule that Hash-m does not exact justice from a person with the object of the Mitzvah in which he excels. Hash-m has His own considerations based on His infinite wisdom which mortals cannot comprehend.
</p><p>
When Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa said that it is not possible that 'the matter in which the Tzadik excels should cause his offspring to suffer,' he was not explaining why Nechunya's daughter suffered no harm, but rather he was describing his <i>prayer</i> to Hash-m on behalf of Nechunya's daughter.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MISHNAS ELIYAHU</b> explains that the axiom that Hash-m does not permit harm to befall a person from the object of the Mitzvah in which he excels applies only to a person who performs the Mitzvah entirely l'Shem Shamayim, for the sake of Hash-m, with no other motives. No harm befell Nechunya's daughter when she fell into the water cistern because Nechunya's motivation for providing water for the visitors to Yerushalayim was entirely pure and l'Shem Shamayim. Perhaps, however, at a later time the purity of his motivation was compromised in a small way and he did not do the Mitzvah solely for the sake of Hash-m. As a result, Hash-m was 'Medakdek k'Chut ha'Se'arah' with the righteous, and Nechunya's son died of thirst. (See Insights to Shekalim 14:1.)
</p><p>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN WE MAY RELY ON A 'NOCHRI'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A Nochri told a Yisrael 'Cut fodder and give it to my 
          animals on Shabbos. If not, I will kill you like I killed 
          Ploni the Yisrael, because he refused to cook for me on 
          Shabbos.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Ploni's wife heard this and came before Abaye. He 
          required her to wait until Chachamim gather to learn 
          Halachos of the festival.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Ada bar Ahavah (to the woman):</font></b> Ask Rav Yosef, he is 
          very sharp.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> The following Beraisa shows that she is not 
          permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Nochri was selling fruit and said 
               'it is Orlah (within the first three years of the 
               tree), or of Azika (a place where fruits were 
               guarded in Shemitah), or it is fourth year produce 
               (which must be eaten in Yerushalayim in Taharah, or 
               redeemed)', his words have no effect, since he 
               intended only to praise his fruit. (Similarly, this 
               Nochri just wanted to scare the Yisrael.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Aba Yudan):</font></b> A case occurred in which a Yisrael and 
          Nochri traveled together. The Nochri said 'Woe to the 
          Yisrael that traveled with me. He died and I buried him.' 
          Chachamim permitted his wife to remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  There was also a case of a company of men going to 
          Antuchya. A Nochri said, 'Woe to this company of men. 
          They died and I buried them.' Chachamim permitted their 
          wives to remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  There was a case of 60 men going to Beitar. A Nochri 
          said, 'Woe to the 60 men who were going to Beitar. They 
          died and I buried them.' Chachamim permitted their wives 
          to remarry.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST THE DECEASED BE SEEN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may testify if the deceased was seen by 
          candlelight or by moonlight. We may testify based on a 
          voice, even if no body was seen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in which a man was on a mountain top. He 
          gave his name and place, and said that he is dying. 
          People went and did not find anyone. His wife was 
          permitted to remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in Tzalmon in which a man gave his name 
          and said that he is dying from a snakebite. They were 
          unable to identify the body. His wife was permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rabah bar Shmuel - Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</font></b> We 
          cannot permit a woman based on a voice alone;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did Rabah teach this? We already know that 
          it is permitted from our Mishnah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He teaches that if we find a Stam Beraisa that 
          does not permit through a voice alone, it is Beis Shamai.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> They went and did not find him ... (his wife 
          was permitted).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps they heard a Shed (a being that has 
          similarities to people and to angels)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> (When he was speaking) they saw 
          a human form.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shedim also have human forms!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He had a shadow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shedim also have shadows!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He had a shadow of a shadow. (A Gaon says that we 
          are not proficient about this. Pischei Teshuvah connotes 
          that it is a shadow longer than the person's height, or a 
          dark shadow inside a lighter shadow.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps Shedim also have shadows of shadows!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chanina):</font></b> Yonasan Sheida (a Shed, or an expert 
          about Shedim) told me that Shedim have shadows, but not 
          shadows of shadows.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it was a Tzarah (intending that her 
          Tzarah remarry and later be forced to leave her husband)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> At a time of danger, we 
          may write and give a Get even if we do not recognize the 
          husband (who commands. Here also, there is no other way 
          to permit his wife, so we overlook this concern.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DO WE RELY ON ONE WITNESS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> When I went to Nehardai to make a 
          leap year, I encountered Nechemyah of Beis Deli.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nechemyah:</font></b> I heard that in Eretz Yisrael, only R. Yehudah 
          ben Bava permits a woman based on one witness.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Akiva:</font></b> That is correct.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nechemyah:</font></b> Tell them in my name that the roads are 
          perilous because of soldiers; I received from R. Gamliel 
          the Elder that a woman may remarry based on one witness.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Akiva:</font></b> When I told this to R. Gamliel (the grandson of 
          R. Gamliel the Elder), he rejoiced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Gamliel:</font></b> We have found a colleague (support) for R. 
          Yehudah ben Bava!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Gamliel recalled that men were killed in Tel 
               Arza, and R. Gamliel the Elder permitted their wives 
               based on one witness. It became established to 
               remarry based on second hand testimony, and based on 
               a slave or woman;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua say, a woman may not remarry 
          based on one witness;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, she may not remarry based on a slave or a 
          woman or relatives.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> R. Akiva permits her to remarry based 
          on a woman!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar citing R. Akiva):</font></b> A 
               woman is believed to bring her own Get (from Chutz 
               la'Aretz, and to testify that it was written and 
               signed in front of her) from a Kal va'Chomer:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The women who are not believed to say that 
                    Leah's husband died (e.g. her mother-in-law - 
                    117a) are believed to bring Leah's Get. All the 
                    more so Leah herself, who is believed to say 
                    that her husband died, is believed to bring her 
                    own Get!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Only those women are not believed to say 
               that Leah's husband died, but other women are 
               believed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Akiva's opinion at the end of our Mishnah was 
          taught before it was established to remarry according to 
          invalid witnesses. The Beraisa is after this became the 
          practice.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> They told R. Akiva about a case in which 
          Leviyim went to Tzo'ar. One got sick, and they left him 
          at an inn. When they returned, they asked where he is. 
          The innkeeper said that he died, and she buried him. 
          Based on this, they permitted his wife to remarry.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Kohenes (a Kosher woman) should be believed no 
               less than an innkeeper!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Akiva:</font></b> In a case like that of the innkeeper, she is 
          believed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The innkeeper gave them the man's staff, bag and 
               Sefer Torah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) FRUIT THAT WAS GUARDED DURING THE SHEMITAH YEAR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that when a Nochri sells fruit in the market during the Shemitah year and proclaims that 'these fruits are of Azeikah,' he is not believed to prohibit the fruit. His description of the fruit as 'fruits of Azeikah' is assumed to be merely an attempt to impress potential buyers with its quality, and thus he likely is lying.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Shel Azeikah) cites an explanation that 'Azeikah' refers to a field protected by a fence during the Shemitah year. Since the fruits of that field were guarded during the Shemitah year, they are forbidden. Rashi rejects this explanation on the grounds that guarding fruits during the Shemitah year does not render them forbidden.
</p><p>
The Toras Kohanim, however, states explicitly that the verse, 'Invei Nezirecha Lo Sivtzor' -- 'Do not harvest the grapes that you guarded' (Vayikra 25:5), means that one is permitted to harvest only fruit that is Hefker, ownerless, which implies that fruit guarded during Shemitah is forbidden. How does Rashi understand the teaching of the Toras Kohanim?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b>, who maintains that there is no prohibition against eating fruit that was guarded during Shemitah, apparently understands that the Toras Kohanim does not mean that the fruit becomes prohibited when it is guarded during Shemitah. Rather, the Toras Kohanim means that one is not permitted to guard the fruit but must leave it as Hefker. If, however, one transgressed and guarded the fruit and did not make it Hefker, he is permitted to eat it.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> writes that fruit guarded during Shemitah indeed becomes prohibited to be eaten. This ruling is in accordance with the straightforward understanding of the Toras Kohanim.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (84a, DH Shomrei) explains that the verse forbids <i>harvesting</i> fruit that was guarded. The verse does not forbid <i>eating</i> such fruit. (Rashi may understand that this is the intention of the Toras Kohanim as well.)
</p><p>
Tosfos adds that the Rabanan prohibited harvesting even fruit of Hefker (in the normal manner of harvesting) during Shemitah, and they prohibited <i>eating</i> fruit that was <i>guarded</i> during Shemitah. (See also Tosfos to Sukah 39b, DH ba'Meh.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why should an innkeeper be worse than 
          a regular woman? (They said 'a Kohenes should be believed 
          no less than an innkeeper.')
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Kahana and Aba brei d'Rav Minyomi's Beraisa):</font></b> 
          The innkeeper was a Nochris. She spoke l'Fi Tumo, 'this 
          is his staff and bag, and this is the grave I buried him 
          in.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> They asked her 'where is our friend?' (so she 
          was not l'Fi Tumo)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> When she saw them, she cried even before they 
          asked.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST WE INTERROGATE THE WITNESS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> Reuven came before R. Tarfon for Edus 
          Ishah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Tarfon:</font></b> How do you know that the man died?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> We were travelling together; a troop chased 
               us. He broke off an olive branch and chased them 
               away. I said 'Aryeh (lion), your strength should be 
               increased!'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Aryeh:</font></b> How did you know my name? In my city, 
                    they call me Yochanan b'Rebbi Yonasan Aryeh, of 
                    the village Shichya.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> Later, he fell sick and died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Tarfon permitted Aryeh's wife to remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction:</font></b> R. Tarfon requires interrogating the 
          witness!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa #2):</font></b> Reuven came before R. Tarfon for Edus 
               Ishah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Tarfon:</font></b> How do you know that the man died?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> We were travelling together; a troop chased 
               us. He broke off an olive branch and chased them 
               away. I said 'Aryeh, your strength should be 
               increased!'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Aryeh:</font></b> You guessed my name! In my city, they 
                    call me Yochanan b'Rebbi Yonasan Aryeh, of the 
                    village Shichya.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> Later, he fell sick and died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Tarfon:</font></b> Didn't you say Yochanan b'Rebbi Yonasan 
               of the village Shichya Aryeh?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> No, I said Yochanan b'Rebbi Yonasan Aryeh, 
               of the village Shichya.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> R. Tarfon tested Reuven two or three times. When he 
               saw that his story was consistent, he permitted 
               Aryeh's wife to remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Resolution:</font></b> Tana'im argue about whether or not 
          interrogation is required (and about R. Tarfon's 
          opinion):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> We do not interrogate witnesses 
               testifying to permit a woman to remarry;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva and R. Tarfon say, we interrogate them. 
               (Almost all Meforshim had this text. Our text 
               attributes the first opinion to R. Akiva.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The Tana'im argue about R. Chanina's law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chanina):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, both monetary and capital 
               cases require interrogation - 'You will have one 
               law';
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Chachamim said that we do not interrogate in 
                    monetary cases, lest people be discouraged from 
                    lending money (out of fear lest the witnesses 
                    be disqualified).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The first Tana (in the Beraisa) considers Edus Ishah 
               to be a monetary case, since she receives her 
               Kesuvah (if we allow her to remarry);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva and R. Tarfon hold, since we permit a 
               married woman to remarry, it is like a capital case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> Chachamim increase Shalom in the world - 
          'All your children are learned of Hash-m, great is the 
          Shalom of your children'.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) INTERROGATING WITNESSES FOR 'EDUS ISHAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which the Tana Kama states that the witness who testifies about the death of a woman's husband does not need to be interrogated with Derishah v'Chakirah. Rebbi Tarfon disagrees and says that the witness must be interrogated.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains the logic of the dispute as follows. The Torah requires Derishah v'Chakirah for Dinei Nefashos, cases of capital punishment. Although the Torah also requires Derishah v'Chakirah for Dinei Mamonos, cases of financial matters, the Rabanan removed that requirement in order to encourage people to be more willing to lend money to those in need ('she'Lo Tin'ol Deles Bifnei Lovin'). The Tana'im who disagree about whether 'Edus Ishah' (testimony about the death of a woman's husband) needs Derishah v'Chakirah disagree about whether permitting a woman to remarry is comparable to Dinei Nefashos or to Dinei Mamonos. Perhaps it is comparable to Dinei Nefashos because a woman who lives with another man while her husband is still alive is Chayav Misah. On the other hand, perhaps it is comparable to Dinei Mamonos because it involves giving the woman the money of her Kesuvah.
</p><p>
Why should 'Edus Ishah' be comparable to a case of Dinei Mamonos merely because it involves payment of the Kesuvah? The primary subject of the case is whether the woman may remarry or not. The Kesuvah is merely a secondary consequence of the primary ruling in the case. Why should the secondary consequence alter the status of the case and render it a case of Dinei Mamonos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers that when the Rabanan enacted that Derishah v'Chakirah is not required in cases of Dinei Mamonos, they also sought to enact a leniency with regard to a woman's Kesuvah (which is also Dinei Mamonos). In order to allow the woman to collect her Kesuvah without Derishah v'Chakirah, the Rabanan needed to enact the leniency with regard to the marriage in general, because the Kesuvah stipulates that '<i>when she gets married to someone else</i>, she will receive her Kesuvah.' Since she receives her Kesuvah only if she is permitted to remarry, the Rabanan permitted her to remarry without Derishah v'Chakirah.
</p><p>
(Although the reason why the Rabanan were lenient in all other cases of Dinei Mamonos is 'she'Lo Tin'ol Deles Bifnei Lovin' -- which does not apply in the case of a Kesuvah, the Rabanan still wanted to be lenient with the Kesuvah in order not to differentiate between monetary laws ('Lo Plug'), or because of 'Chen' -- to help ensure that the woman will be committed to her husband, with the knowledge that it is easy for her to get her Kesuvah.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> suggests a second explanation. He points out that 'Edus Ishah' is not exactly like Dinei Nefashos, because the case involves whether the woman may remarry and <i>not</i> whether she is to be punished. On the other hand, 'Edus Ishah' is not exactly like Dinei Mamonos, because the subject of the testimony is the marriage, and not the Kesuvah. Therefore, the question is, which type of case does 'Edus Ishah' more closely resemble?
</p><p>
The Tana who rules that 'Edus Ishah' does not need Derishah v'Chakirah maintains that since today Dinei Mamonos are far more common than Dinei Nefashos (Beis Din does not judge cases of Dinei Nefashos today), it is logical to assume that the Rabanan enacted that 'Edus Ishah' be treated like Dinei Mamonos, the more common type of case. (That is, 'Edus Ishah' is compared to Dinei Mamonos not only because of the Kesuvah, but because Dinei Mamonos is the more common type of case.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> in the name of the <b>RE'AH</b> writes that <i>mid'Oraisa</i> 'Edus Ishah' does not need Derishah v'Chakirah. The verse mentions the requirement for Derishah v'Chakirah only with regard to Dinei Nefashos and Dinei Mamonos, but not with regard to 'Edus Ishah.' (The Gezeirah Shavah of 'Davar Davar' from Dinei Mamonos does not apply to 'Edus Ishah' to teach that it needs Derishah v'Chakirah.)
</p><p>
Why, then, does Rebbi Tarfon maintain that 'Edus Ishah' requires Derishah v'Chakirah? The Re'ah explains that mid'Oraisa the testimony for the <i>Kesuvah</i> indeed requires Derishah v'Chakirah (since it is Dinei Mamonos). However, the Rabanan enacted that in all other cases of Dinei Mamonos, Derishah v'Chakirah is not required because of 'she'Lo Tin'ol Deles.' They applied that enactment to testimony about the Kesuvah because of 'Lo Plug.' However, since this basis for the exemption from Derishah v'Chakirah is weak, the Rabanan will utilize any valid reason to <i>require</i> Derishah v'Chakirah for the Kesuvah. Accordingly, the Rabanan instituted Derishah v'Chakirah for 'Edus Ishah' because of its similarity to Dinei Nefashos so that the testimony -- which affects the Kesuvah -- will have Derishah v'Chakirah.
</p><p>
The Re'ah apparently follows his own reasoning as expressed elsewhere. The Re'ah earlier (cited by the Ritva to 88a; see Insights there), proposes the novel suggestion that a single witness is believed <i>mid'Oraisa</i> to testify about the death of a woman's husband. He is believed mid'Oraisa because he is afraid to lie; he knows that if he lies he will be discovered sooner or later when the husband returns alive ('Milsa d'Avida l'Giluyei'). This logic provides sufficient grounds to assume that he is not lying.
</p><p>
The Re'ah may understand that an enactment of the Rabanan is not sufficient reason to be lenient with testimony of 'Edus Ishah,' a case which involves severe Torah prohibitions. Therefore, the requirement for Derishah v'Chakirah <i>cannot</i> be mid'Oraisa for 'Edus Ishah,' because if it would be required mid'Oraisa, the Rabanan would not have the prerogative to be lenient and remove that requirement. (The logic of 'Milsa d'Avida l'Giluyei' does not suffice to exempt 'Edus Ishah' from the requirement of Derishah v'Chakirah, since the Gemara here does not mention that possibility.) 
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RASHBA</b> infers another answer to this question from the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 13:28).
</p><p>
The Rambam writes that the reason why 'Edus Ishah' does not need Derishah v'Chakirah is that the Rabanan were lenient due to their desire to prevent women from becoming Agunos ('Hataras Agunah'). Why does the Rambam give a reason which is different from the reason the Gemara itself gives? The Gemara says that 'Edus Ishah' does not need Derishah v'Chakirah because it is considered Dinei Mamonos, since it involves the Kesuvah.
</p><p>
The Rambam must mean that the Kesuvah does not render 'Edus Ishah' a case of Dinei Mamonos. Rather, 'Edus Ishah' clearly is a case of Dinei Nefashos, since it involves permitting an Eshes Ish to remarry. However, out of concern for Agunos, the Rabanan instituted that since the Kesuvah introduces an element of Dinei Mamonos into 'Edus Ishah,' the entire case may be treated like Dinei Mamonos, with no need for Derishah v'Chakirah. (Others explain the Rambam's intention differently. See footnote #109 to the Rashba.)
</p><p>


# snc

lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k63a_1:" A coin. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k63a_2:" Isa. LVIII, 9. This refers to the preceding text: If then thou seest the naked, that thou cover him (ibid. 7), i.e., helping the poor at the hour of his need; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh (ibid.) implies benefiting relatives including the marriage of a sister's daughter and loving one's neighbours who are regarded as relatives."
,k63a_3:" The words in the mnemonic correspond to terms outstanding in the respective statements of R. Eleazar, that follow."
,k63a_4:" Gen. V, 2. Adam = man. Only when the male and female were united were they called Adam."
,k63a_5:" Ps. CXV, 16, emphasis on man and earth."
,k63a_6:" Gen. II, 18."
,k63a_7:" [H], 'help'."
,k63a_8:" [H], <i>meet for him</i> may also be rendered 'against him'."
,k63a_9:" [H] (rt. [H], 'to strike')."
,k63a_10:" [H] <I>meet for him</I>."
,k63a_11:" Gen. II, 18."
,k63a_12:" Obviously not. His wife grinds the wheat and spins the flax."
,k63a_13:" Gen. II, 23, emphasis on <I>This is now</I>."
,k63a_14:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Ibid. [Genesis] XII, 3</font>, [H]."
,k63a_15:" [H] in Hif. is of the same rt. ([H]) as [H] in Nif."
,k63a_16:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Both belonged to idolatrous nations and were 'grafted' upon the stock of Israel. The former was the ancestress of David</font> (V. Ruth IV, 13ff), <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">and the latter the mother of Rehoboam</font> (v. I Kings XIV, 31) and his distinguished descendants Asa, Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah."
,k63a_17:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Gen. XVIII, 18.</font>"
,k63a_18:" Lit., 'they shall stand upon the land'."
,k63a_19:" Ezek. XXVII, 29."
,k63a_20:" Lit., 'not to thee'."
,k63a_21:" V. <I>supra</I> note 11, emphasis on <I>down</I>."
,k63a_22:" Apparently as a measure of economy."
,k63a_23:" I.e., were it to be ploughed ever so many times."
,k63a_24:" Suggestive of a swaggering motion; pride."
,k63a_25:" Other readings and interpretations: 'Eh! thou desirest to be winnowed with the fan'; 'Thou swingest thyself like a swing'; 'Swing thyself' i.e., 'be as proud as thou wilt' (v. Aruk and Jast.)."
,k63a_26:" A coin. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k63a_27:" [H] may be compared with Arab. <i>hafire</i> 'the beginning of a thing', hence the first stage in the ripening of the corn (cf. Levy), 'unripe ears' (v. Rashi); 'grass' (Golds.); 'common vegetables' (Jast.)."
,k63a_28:" Since he must remain in his field during the night to watch the crops."
,k63a_29:" With the owners of adjoining fields."
,k63a_30:" Crops for the requirements of one's household."
,k63a_31:" Corn in the market."
,k63a_32:" Possessions or household goods."
,k63a_33:" Of starvation or begging (v. Rashi). Other readings and interpretations: 'Buy ready-made cloth and do not wind skeins' (read [H], for [H], ); 'Buy etc. and do not spin' (v. Jast. and Aruk)."
,k63a_34:" V. BaH. a.l."
,k63a_35:" A small hole in a building."
,k63a_36:" Cf., 'a stitch in time saves nine' (Eng. prov.)."
,k63a_37:" If it is too late to stop up the cracks."
,k63a_38:" A wife of superior position or rank might put on airs. or not be contented with her husband's social or financial position."
,k63a_39:" The bridegroom's best man. By associating with superior men one has a good example to emulate."
,k63a_40:" The last two words are missing in Yalkut."
,k63a_41:" Zeph. III, 6."
,k63a_42:" Ibid, 7."
,k63a_43:" Eccl. VII, 26."
,k63a_44:" So that when his mother, as usual, did the reverse of what she was requested by Hiyya in the name of his father, Rab had exactly what he had wished for."
,k63a_45:" Lit., 'improved for you', (dative of advantage)."
,k63a_46:" The expedient had not occurred to him before his son had thought of it."
,k63a_47:" Jer. IX, 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
and lends a <I>sela'</I><a id="k63a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; to a poor man in the hour of his need, Scripture says, <I>Then shalt thou call, and the Lord will answer; thou shalt cry and He will say: 'Here I am'</I>.<a id="k63a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic: <i>Woman and land help this two shoots, tradesmen inferior</i>.)<a id="k63a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar said: Any man who has no wife is no proper man; for it is said, <I>Male and female created He them and called their name Adam</I>.<a id="k63a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar further stated: Any man who owns no land is not a proper man; for it is said, <I>The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth hath he given to the children of men</I>.<a id="k63a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar further stated: What is the meaning of the Scriptural text, <I>I will make him a help meet for him</I>?<a id="k63a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; If he was worthy she is a help to him;<a id="k63a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; if he was not worthy she is against him.<a id="k63a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</P><P>
	Others say: R. Eleazar pointed out a contradiction: It is written <I>kenegedo</I><a id="k63a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but we read <I>kenegedo</I>!<a id="k63a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If he was worthy she is <I>meet for him</I>;<a id="k63a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; if he was not worthy she chastises him.<a id="k63a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jose met Elijah and asked him: It is written, <I>I will make him a help</I>;<a id="k63a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; how does a woman help a man? The other replied: If a man brings wheat, does he chew the wheat? If flax, does he put on the flax?<a id="k63a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Does she not, then, bring light to his eyes and put him on his feet!
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar further stated: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">What is meant by the Scriptural text, <I>This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh</I>?<a id="k63a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.</font>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the text, <I>And in thee shall the families of the earth be blessed</I>?<a id="k63a_14"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">14</font></sup></a>&nbsp; The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham, 'I have two goodly shoots to engraft<a id="k63a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; on you: Ruth the Moabitess and Naamah the Ammonitess'.<a id="k63a_16"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">16</font></sup></a>&nbsp; <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF"><I>All the families of the earth</I></font>,<a id="k63a_14"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">14</font></sup></a>&nbsp; even the other <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">families who live on the earth are blessed only for Israel's sake. <I>All the nations of the earth</I>,<a id="k63a_17"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">17</font></sup></a>&nbsp; even the ships that go from Gaul to Spain are blessed only for Israel's sake.</font>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar further stated: There will be a time when all craftsmen will take up agriculture;<a id="k63a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said, <I>And all that handle the oar, the mariners, and all the pilots of the sea, shall come down from their ships; they shall stand upon the land</I>.<a id="k63a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar further stated: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">No<a id="k63a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; occupation is inferior to that of agricultural labour</font>; for it is said, <I>And they shall come down</I>.<a id="k63a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar once saw a plot of land that was ploughed across its width.<a id="k63a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Wert thou to be ploughed along thy length also',<a id="k63a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; he remarked, 'engaging in business would still be more profitable'. Rab once entered among growing ears of corn. Seeing that they were swaying<a id="k63a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; he called out to them, 'Swing as you will,<a id="k63a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; engaging in business brings more profit than you can do'.
</p><p>
	Raba said: A hundred <i>zuz</i><a id="k63a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; in business means meat and wine every day; a hundred <i>zuz</i> in land, only salt and vegetables.<a id="k63a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore it causes him to sleep on the ground<a id="k63a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and embroils him in strife.<a id="k63a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa said, 'Sow<a id="k63a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but do not buy,<a id="k63a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; even if the cost is the same; there is a blessing in the former. Sell out<a id="k63a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; to avoid disgrace;<a id="k63a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; but only mattresses, [not] however, a cloak, [since one] might not always again obtain [a suitable one].<a id="k63a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Stop up<a id="k63a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and you will need no repair;<a id="k63a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; repair<a id="k63a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and you will not need to rebuild; for whosoever engages in building grows poor. Be quick in buying land; be deliberate in taking a wife. Come down a step in choosing your wife;<a id="k63a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; go up a step in selecting your shoshbin.<a id="k63a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar b. Abina<a id="k63a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; said: Punishment comes into the world only on Israel's account; for it is said, I have cut off nations, their corners are desolate; I have made their streets waste,<a id="k63a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; and this is followed by the text, <i>'I said: Surely thou wilt fear Me, thou wilt receive correction'</i>.<a id="k63a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab was once taking leave of R. Hiyya. The latter said to him, 'May the All Merciful deliver you from that which is worse than death'. 'But is there' [Rab wondered] 'anything that is worse than death'? When he went out he considered the matter and found [the following text]: And I find more bitter than death the woman etc.<a id="k63a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab was constantly tormented by his wife. If he told her, 'Prepare me lentils', she would prepare him small peas; [and if he asked for] small peas, she prepared him lentils. When his son Hiyya grew up he gave her [his father's instruction] in the reverse order.<a id="k63a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Your mother', Rab once remarked to him, 'has improved'!<a id="k63a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; 'It was I', the other replied, 'who reversed [your orders] to her'. 'This is what people say', the first said to him, 'Thine own offspring teaches thee reason';<a id="k63a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; you, however, must not continue to do so' for it is said, They have taught their tongue to speak lies, they weary themselves etc'.<a id="k63a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya was constantly tormented by his wife. He, nevertheless, whenever he obtained anything suitable wrapped it up in his scarf and brought it to her. Said Rab to him, 'But, surely, she is tormenting the Master!' &mdash; 'It is sufficient for us', the other replied, 'that they rear up our children and deliver us
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k63b_1:" BaH inserts, 'it is not so'."
,k63b_2:" Or 'satisfaction', 'contentment'."
,k63b_3:" Prov. V, 18."
,k63b_4:" Sanh. 22b. Which is apparently contradictory to the former character attributed to her!"
,k63b_5:" Cf. Jast. and Golds."
,k63b_6:" Her husband."
,k63b_7:" His meal."
,k63b_8:" Lit., 'mouth'."
,k63b_9:" Euphemism."
,k63b_10:" [H] lit., 'stopped up'."
,k63b_11:" [H] regarded to have the same meaning as [H] <i>supra</i> n. 7."
,k63b_12:" Prov, XVIII, 22."
,k63b_13:" Palestine."
,k63b_14:" Hebr. Moze or Maza."
,k63b_15:" Eccl. VII, 26."
,k63b_16:" [H] rt. [H] v. <i>infra</i>."
,k63b_17:" [H] of the same rt. as <i>supra</i> n. 13."
,k63b_18:" Prov. XXII, 10."
,k63b_19:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k63b_20:" Which the husband, should he desire to divorce her, cannot afford to pay."
,k63b_21:" I.e., a bad wife is more easily corrected by subjecting her to the unpleasantness of a rival than by chastising her with thorns."
,k63b_22:" Prov. XXVII, 15."
,k63b_23:" Eccl, VII, 26."
,k63b_24:" Jer. XI, 11."
,k63b_25:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k63b_26:" Which the husband, should he desire to divorce her, cannot afford to pay."
,k63b_27:" Lam, I, 14."
,k63b_28:" Palestine."
,k63b_29:" Having no land of his own from which to obtain his food, he is subject to the extortionate prices of unscrupulous dealers upon whom he must depend for the supply of his daily food."
,k63b_30:" Deut. XXVIII, 32."
,k63b_31:" A stepmother."
,k63b_32:" [H]."
,k63b_33:" Deut. XXXII, 21."
,k63b_34:" Which the husband, should he desire to divorce her, cannot afford to pay."
,k63b_35:" Bomberg ed., Minim, 'heretics'."
,k63b_36:" Ps. XIV, 1."
,k63b_37:" Tunis."
,k63b_38:" Britannia? v. Jast."
,k63b_39:" The followers of an expanded Zoroastrian ritual who, under the guidance of the Magians, in the reign of Ardashir I (226-241), severely oppressed the adherents of other creeds."
,k63b_40:" V. p. 424, n. 17."
,k63b_41:" Knowing as he did their intolerance and cruel religious fanaticism."
,k63b_42:" Lit., 'made (himself) straight'."
,k63b_43:" All hope, he felt, was not lost when concessions might be obtained by paying for them."
,k63b_44:" The Parsees who were accepted by Israel as a visitation sent by the divine will for their neglect of the Torah and its commandments."
,k63b_45:" Of Israel in Babylon."
,k63b_46:" Under a decree that any animal killed for human consumption must not be eaten unless certain parts of it were first offered on the Parsee altars, Jews were practically excluded from the eating of meat."
,k63b_47:" Prescribed in Deut. XVIII, 3."
,k63b_48:" One of the religious laws of the Parsees forbade the pollution of the earth by the burial of corpses. As a result, the graves in the Jewish cemeteries were broken open, and the dead exhumed and thrown to the beasts and birds of prey."
,k63b_49:" The idolaters'."
,k63b_50:" I Sam, XII, 15."
,k63b_51:" The hand of the Lord against the fathers who were no more alive."
,k63b_52:" Jer. VIII, 2."
,k63b_53:" Immediately following this text."
,k63b_54:" Jer. VIII, 3. How could it be said that such an ignominious death as described (ibid. 2) would be chosen rather than life?"
,k63b_55:" The choice of death will not be made, as was assumed, by the sufferers. It is the prophet's oracle on the destiny of the wicked."
,k63b_56:" Ecclesiasticus,"
,k63b_57:" So BaH. Cur. edd. add, 'to her husband; and it is written, good'."
,k63b_58:" Cf. Ecclesiasticus XXVI, 3."
,k63b_59:" Lit., 'happy is her husband'. Cf. Ps. I, 1."
,k63b_60:" Cf. Ecclesiasticus XXVI, 1. Every happy day is as good as two (v. Rashi)."
,k63b_61:" Cf. Ben Sira (Ben Zeeb ed.) IX, 8, 10, 11."
,k63b_62:" His business of selling spices and perfumes to women leads him to much temptation."
,k63b_63:" Cf. Ben Sira (Ben Zeeb ed.) IX suppl. to v. 12."
,k63b_64:" Cf. Jer. V, 27 and <i>op. cit</i>., second suppl. <i>loc. cit</i>,"
,k63b_65:" Lit., 'he'."
,k63b_66:" Lit., 'his'. Cf. Ben Sira, <i>op. cit</i>., XXX, 23. 24."
,k63b_67:" The Messiah,"
,k63b_68:" Lit., 'body', the region inhabited by the unborn souls."
,k63b_69:" Isa LVII, 16. The previous section of the verse speaks of the redemption (Rashi). Hence the deduction that the redemption that is to come through the Messiah will not take place before all the unborn souls have been made, i.e., passed through the life of this world."
,k63b_70:" Gen. IX, 6."
,k63b_71:" Gen. IX, 7."
,k63b_72:" Ibid. 6."
,k63b_73:" After both <i>Whoso sheddeth man's blood</i> and <i>In the image of God made he man</i>. (Gen. IX, 6)."
,k63b_74:" He remained a bachelor."
,k63b_75:" V. <i>supra</i>."
,k63b_76:" E.V. 'of the'."
,k63b_77:" Num. X, 36. "
}

txt:
<p>
from sin'.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah was reading with his son R. Isaac the Scriptural text, <i>And I find more bitter than death the woman</i>. When the latter asked him, 'Who, for instance'? &mdash; 'For instance, your mother'. But,<a id="k63b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, Rab Judah taught his son R. Isaac, 'A man finds happiness<a id="k63b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; only with his first wife; for it is said, <i>Let thy fountain be blessed and have joy of the wife of thy youth'</i>;<a id="k63b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and  when the latter asked him, 'Who for instance?' [he answered:] 'For instance, your mother'!<a id="k63b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; She was indeed irascible but could be easily appeased with a kindly word.<a id="k63b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	How is one to understand the term a 'bad wife'? Abaye said: One who prepares for him<a id="k63b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; a tray<a id="k63b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and has her tongue<a id="k63b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; also ready for him. Raba said: One who prepares for him<a id="k63b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the tray and turns her back upon him.<a id="k63b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hama b. Hanina stated: As soon as a man takes a wife his sins are buried;<a id="k63b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said: <i>Whoso findeth a wife findeth a great good and obtaineth<a id="k63b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; favour of the Lord</i>.<a id="k63b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	In the West,<a id="k63b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; they used to ask a man who married, '<i>findeth</i> or <i>find</i>?'<a id="k63b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>Findeth</i>, because it is written, <i>Whoso findeth a wife, findeth a great good</i>;<a id="k63b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>Find</i>, because it is written, <i>And I find more bitter than death the woman</i>.<a id="k63b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: [If one has] a bad wife it is a meritorious act to divorce her,<a id="k63b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said, <i>Cast out<a id="k63b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the scoffer, and contention will go out; yea, strife and shame will cease</i>.<a id="k63b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba further stated: A bad wife, the amount of whose <i>kethubah</i><a id="k63b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; is large,<a id="k63b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [should be given] a rival at her side; as people say, 'By her partner rather than by a thorn'.<a id="k63b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba further stated: A bad wife is as troublesome as a very rainy day; for it is said, <i>A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike</i>.<a id="k63b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba further stated: Come and see how precious is a good wife and how baneful is a bad wife. 'How precious is a good wife', for it is written: <i>Whoso findeth a wife findeth a great good</i>.<a id="k63b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if Scripture speaks of the woman herself, then how precious is a good wife whom Scripture praises. If Scripture speaks of the Torah, then how precious is a good wife with whom the Torah is compared. 'How baneful is a bad wife', for it is written, <i>And I find more bitter than death the woman</i>.<a id="k63b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if Scripture speaks of herself, then how baneful is a bad wife whom Scripture censures. If Scripture speaks of Gehenna, then how baneful is a bad wife with whom Gehenna is compared.
</p><p>
	<i>Behold I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape</i>.<a id="k63b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: This refers to a bad wife, the amount of whose <i>kethubah</i><a id="k63b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; is large.<a id="k63b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<i>The Lord has delivered me into their hands against whom I am not able to stand</i>.<a id="k63b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said in the name of Mar 'Ukba b. Hiyya: This refers to a bad wife the amount of whose <i>kethubah</i><a id="k63b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; is large.<a id="k63b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; In the West<a id="k63b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; it was said: This refers to one whose maintenance depends on his money.<a id="k63b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<i>Thy sons and thy daughter's shall be given unto another people</i>.<a id="k63b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanan b. Raba stated in the name of Rab: This refers to one's father's wife.<a id="k63b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<i>I will provoke them with a vile<a id="k63b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; nation</i>.<a id="k63b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanan b. Raba stated in the name of Rab: This refers to a bad wife the amount of whose <i>kethubah</i><a id="k63b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; is large.<a id="k63b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer stated: This refers to the Sadducees;<a id="k63b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; for so it is said, <i>The fool<a id="k63b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; has said in his heart: 'There is no God'</i> etc.<a id="k63b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; In a Baraitha it was taught: This refers to the people of Barbaria<a id="k63b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and the people of Mauretania<a id="k63b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; who go naked in the streets; for there is nothing more objectionable and abominable to the Omnipresent than the man who goes naked in the streets. R. Johanan said: This refers to the Parsees.<a id="k63b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When R. Johanan was informed that the Parsees<a id="k63b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; had come to Babylon, he reeled and fell.<a id="k63b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; When however he was told that they accepted bribes he recovered<a id="k63b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; and sat down again.<a id="k63b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	They<a id="k63b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; issued three decrees as a punishment for three [transgressions]:<a id="k63b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; They decreed against [ritually prepared] meat,<a id="k63b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; because the priestly gifts<a id="k63b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; [were neglected]. They decreed against the use of baths, because ritual bathing [was not observed]. They exhumed the dead,<a id="k63b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; because rejoicings were held on the days of their<a id="k63b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; festivals; as it is said, Then shall the hand of the Lord be against you, and against your fathers,<a id="k63b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rabbah b. Samuel said that that<a id="k63b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; referred to the exhumation of the dead, for the Master said, 'For the sins of the living the dead are exhumed'.
</p><p>
	Said Raba to Rabbah b. Mari: It is written, They shall not be gathered, nor be buried, they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth</i>,<a id="k63b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is also written,<a id="k63b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>And death shall be chosen rather than life</i>!<a id="k63b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: <i>'Death shall be chosen'</i> for the wicked, in order that they may not live in this world and thus sin and fall into Gehenna.<a id="k63b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It is written in the book of Ben Sira: &mdash;<a id="k63b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A good wife is a precious gift;<a id="k63b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; she will be put in the bosom of the God-fearing man.<a id="k63b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; A bad wife is a plague to her husband. What remedy has he? &mdash; Let him give her a letter of divorce and be healed of his plague.
</p><p>
	A beautiful wife is a joy to her husband;<a id="k63b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; the number of his days shall be double.<a id="k63b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Turn away thy eyes from [thy neighbour's] charming wife lest thou be caught in her net. Do not turn in to her husband to mingle with him wine and strong drink; for, through the form of a beautiful woman, many were destroyed and a mighty host are all her slain.<a id="k63b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Many were the wounds of the spice-peddler,<a id="k63b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; which lead him on to lewdness like a spark that lights the coal.<a id="k63b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As a cage is full of birds so are [the harlots'] houses full of deceit.<a id="k63b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Do not worry about to-morrow's trouble, for thou knowest not what the day may beget. To-morrow may come and thou<a id="k63b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; wilt be no more and so thou hast worried about a world which is not thine.<a id="k63b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Keep away many from thy house; and do not bring everyone into thy house.
</p><p>
	Many be they that seek thy welfare; reveal thy secret only to one of a thousand.
</p><p>
	R. Assi stated: The son of David<a id="k63b_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; will not come before all the souls in Guf<a id="k63b_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; are disposed of; since it is said, <i>For the spirit that enwrappeth itself is from Me, and the souls which I have made</i>.<a id="k63b_69"><sup>69</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught: R. Eliezer stated, He who does not engage in propagation of the race is as though he sheds blood; for it is said, <i>Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed</i>,<a id="k63b_70"><sup>70</sup></a>&nbsp; and this is immediately followed by the text, <i>And you, be ye fruitful and multiply</i>.<a id="k63b_71"><sup>71</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jacob said: As though he has diminished the Divine Image; since it is said, <i>For in the image of God made he man</i>,<a id="k63b_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; and this is immediately followed by, <i>And you, be ye fruitful</i> etc.<a id="k63b_71"><sup>71</sup></a>&nbsp; Ben 'Azzai said: As though he sheds blood <i>and</i> diminishes the Divine Image; since it is said,<a id="k63b_73"><sup>73</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>And you, be ye fruitful and mutltiply</i>.<a id="k63b_71"><sup>71</sup></a>
</p><p>
	They said to Ben 'Azzai: Some preach well and act well, others act well but do not preach well; you. however, preach well but do not act well!<a id="k63b_74"><sup>74</sup></a>&nbsp; Ben 'Azzai replied: But what shall I do, seeing that my soul is in love with the Torah; the world can be carried on by others.
</p><p>
	Another [Baraitha] taught: R. Eliezer said, Anyone who does not engage in the propagation of the race is as though he sheds blood; For it is said, <i>Whoso sheddeth mans's blood</i>,<a id="k63b_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; and close upon it follows, <i>And you, be ye fruitful</i> etc.<a id="k63b_71"><sup>71</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: As though he diminished the Divine Image. Ben 'Azzai said etc.<a id="k63b_75"><sup>75</sup></a>&nbsp; They said to Ben 'Azzai: Some preach well etc.<a id="k63b_75"><sup>75</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: And when it rested, he said: 'Return O Lord unto the ten thousands and<a id="k63b_76"><sup>76</sup></a>&nbsp; thousands of Israel',<a id="k63b_77"><sup>77</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k29a_1:" Who are both subject to Ievirate marriage."
,k29a_2:" Owing to the levirate bond which Pentateuchally binds both sisters to the levir. Why, then, should <i>halizah</i> be performed here where Pentateuchally both sisters are subject to the levirate marriage and each is, consequently, forbidden as the sister of a zekukah?"
,k29a_3:" The provision that <i>halizah</i> shall be performed."
,k29a_4:" Were <i>halizah</i> to be discarded in this case, an erroneous conclusion might be formed that it is to be discarded in all cases where the prohibition is due to a commandment (as if it had been due to the Pentateuchal laws of incest). even if the question of the sister of a zekukah did not arise."
,k29a_5:" The sister forbidden by a commandment."
,k29a_6:" Why is she not exempt from the <i>halizah</i> as the sister of a zekukah?"
,k29a_7:" [H] or [H] 'ill-luck [H] 'her ill-luck'. Others render, 'company'. As the sister who is forbidden by a commandment is subject to <i>halizah</i> (as a preventive measure, for the reason previously stated) so must her sister (so that one case be not mistaken for the other) be also subject to the same measure."
,k29a_8:" V. our Mishnah: HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER BUT IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER, and no preventive measure against the sister was enacted."
,k29a_9:" And would know that one sister was forbidden because of incest."
,k29a_10:" The cause why the second sister is taken in levirate marriage."
,k29a_11:" Lit., 'it has a voice'. And no one would in consequence permit elsewhere the marriage of the sister of another zekukah who is not forbidden by the laws of incest."
,k29a_12:" [H] 'empty'."
,k29a_13:" The widow."
,k29a_14:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k29a_15:" The sister-in-law to whom he addressed the <i>ma'amar</i> though he had not actually married her. A <i>ma'amar</i>, according to Beth Shammai, constitutes legal marriage in this respect. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k29a_16:" From levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i>."
,k29a_17:" Since her sister is regarded as legally married she is no more the sister of the levir's zekukah but of his wife."
,k29a_18:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 4."
,k29a_19:" Since the <i>ma'amar</i> is partially regarded as marriage."
,k29a_20:" A <i>ma'amar</i>, according to Beth Hillel, does not constitute a proper marriage, and she is now the sister of a zekukah. V. following note."
,k29a_21:" v. previous note. As the <i>ma'amar</i> did not constitute a proper marriage with her sister she is the sister of a zekukah who may not contract levirate marriage but must perform <i>halizah</i>."
,k29a_22:" V. <i>infra</i> 109a. The second widow who becomes subject to him through the levirate law is not only herself forbidden to marry him (cf. note 10) but deprives him also of the first widow, his virtual wife. (Cf. note 9)-"
,k29a_23:" THIS IS implying this but not other cases."
,k29a_24:" Lit., 'that'."
,k29a_25:" <i>Infra</i> 109a."
,k29a_26:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>, i.e., perfect marriage."
,k29a_27:" The levir."
,k29a_28:" I.e., her rival who is her sister does not cause her to be forbidden to the levir as the 'sister of a zekukah'."
,k29a_29:" <i>Supra</i> 26a, in the case where the levirs married the sisters-in-law before consulting the <i>Beth din</i> as to the permissibility of their action."
,k29a_30:" If they had already married them."
,k29a_31:" Because each one is the sister of a zekukah. Lit., 'they may retain, yes; for as at the start, not'. >"
}

txt:
<p>
But did not R. Simeon state that two sisters<a id="k29a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; are neither to perform the <i>halizah</i> nor to be taken in levirate marriage!<a id="k29a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This<a id="k29a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is a preventive measure against any other case where the prohibition is due to a commandment &mdash; 4 This is a satisfactory explanation in respect of herself;<a id="k29a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; what, however, can be said in respect of her sister?<a id="k29a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; -The provision was made in the case of her sister as a preventive measure against herself.<a id="k29a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely. no such preventive measures were made in the case where one was forbidden as incest!<a id="k29a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A case of incest is different because people are well acquainted with it<a id="k29a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and it<a id="k29a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is well known.<a id="k29a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF TWO OF THREE BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS AND THE THIRD WAS UNMARRIED,<a id="k29a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; AND WHEN ONE OF THE SISTERS HUSBANDS DIED, THE UNMARRIED BROTHER ADDRESSED TO HER<a id="k29a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; A MA'AMAR,<a id="k29a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THEN HIS SECOND BROTHER DIED, BETH SHAMMAI SAY: HIS WIFE<a id="k29a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [REMAINS] WITH HIM WHILE THE OTHER IS EXEMPT<a id="k29a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; AS BEING HIS WIFE'S SISTER.<a id="k29a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THAT HE MUST DISMISS HIS WIFE<a id="k29a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE<a id="k29a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; AND BY <I>HALIZAH</I>,<a id="k29a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HIS BROTHER'S WIFE BY <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k29a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS IS THE CASE IN REGARD TO WHICH IT WAS SAID: WOE TO HIM BECAUSE OF HIS WIFE, AND WOE TO HIM BECAUSE OF HIS BROTHER'S WIFE.<a id="k29a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What was THIS IS meant to exclude?<a id="k29a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; To exclude the statement<a id="k29a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Joshua,<a id="k29a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [and to indicate] that we do not act In accordance with his view but either in accordance with that of R. Gamaliel or that of R. Eliezer.
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar said: It must not be assumed that a <i>ma'amar</i> according to Beth Shammai constitutes a perfect <i>kinyan</i>,<a id="k29a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; so that, if he<a id="k29a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; wishes to dismiss her, a letter of divorce is sufficient; but rather that, according to Beth Shammai, a <i>ma'amar</i> constitutes a <i>kinyan</i> only so far as to keep out the rival.<a id="k29a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Abin: We also have learned the same thing: Beth Shammai said, 'They may retain them',<a id="k29a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies that they may only retain them<a id="k29a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but [that they may] not [marry them] at the outset.<a id="k29a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k29b_1:" To one of the sisters-in-law; since such an action is not forbidden."
,k29b_2:" v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> i.e., perfect marriage."
,k29b_3:" The prohibition 'as sister of a zekukah' would consequently be removed and both levirs could properly marry the respective sisters-in-law."
,k29b_4:" The <i>ma'amar</i>."
,k29b_5:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 181, n. 17."
,k29b_6:" v. p. 181, n. 17."
,k29b_7:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 181, n. 17, and <i>supra</i> n. 6. Why, then, was levirate marriage with the two sisters forbidden!"
,k29b_8:" One addressed to a sister-in-law in a case where levirate marriage with her was permissible at the time."
,k29b_9:" When two sisters were subject to the levirate marriage before the <i>ma'amar</i> had been addressed."
,k29b_10:" V. note 11."
,k29b_11:" The previous statement of R. Eleazar and R. Abin etc."
,k29b_12:" The sister-in-law who, like her sister (the other sister-in-law), is subject to the levirate bond."
,k29b_13:" The <i>ma'amar</i>."
,k29b_14:" So that she cannot cause the prohibition of the other to whom the <i>ma'amar</i> had been addressed."
,k29b_15:" Which necessitates her performing the <i>halizah</i> if she wishes to marry a stranger before he levir had properly married her sister."
,k29b_16:" V. <i>supra</i> p, 182, n. 1."
,k29b_17:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 182, n. 3."
,k29b_18:" v. <i>supra</i> p. 182, n. 4."
,k29b_19:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 181, n. 17."
,k29b_20:" Consequently it must be concluded that a <i>ma'amar</i> still leaves a partial bond, and that before the other sister had performed the <i>halizah</i> the first is forbidden as the sister of one's zekukah."
,k29b_21:" Which shews that no <i>halizah</i> at all is required!"
,k29b_22:" For both levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i>, as in the case of our Mishnah where the <i>ma'amar</i> was addressed to one sister before the death of the husband of the other had subjected that other also to the same levir."
,k29b_23:" To the <i>ma'amar</i> which, in such circumstances. completely keeps out the other when she also, through her husband's subsequent death, comes under the obligation."
,k29b_24:" As in the Mishnah, <i>supra</i> 26a, where both widows were equally subject to the levirs at the time the <i>ma'amar</i> had been addressed, and none was eligible for both the levirate marriage and the <i>halizah</i>."
,k29b_25:" I.e., for the <i>ma'amar</i> which, in such a case, does not keep out the sister."
,k29b_26:" As a husband who is the heir of his wife."
,k29b_27:" If he is a priest who may defile himself by attending on the dead bodies of certain relatives of whom a wife is one."
,k29b_28:" A husband may annul the vows of his wife. v. Num. XXX. 7ff"
,k29b_29:" Lit.. 'now'."
,k29b_30:" Lit., 'a betrothed in the world', i.e., ordinary betrothal which is pentateuchally valid."
,k29b_31:" But not yet married."
,k29b_32:" A mourner prior to the burial of certain relatives is called onan (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) and is subject to a number of restrictions. If his betrothed died he may, unlike one whose married wife died, partake of holy things."
,k29b_33:" She also is allowed to partake of holy things."
,k29b_34:" During a festival when not only priests but also Israelites and women are forbidden to attend on the corpses of those who are not their near relatives. (V. R.H. 16b). Others render. 'nor need she defile etc'. Cf. Tosaf. a.l., s.v. [H]."
,k29b_35:" v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>, in a case where such a document was given to her at the betrothal, prior to the marriage (v. Keth. 89b)."
,k29b_36:" A <i>ma'amar</i> is only a Rabbinical enactment. If Pentateuchal betrothal has not the force of a marriage in respect of the laws mentioned, how much less the Rabbinical <i>ma'amar</i>!"
,k29b_37:" The <i>ma'amar</i>."
,k29b_38:" She being regarded as his wife even if connubial intercourse took place against her will, and should he wish to part with her, a Get will suffice without additional <i>halizah</i>."
,k29b_39:" Deut. XXV, 5-"
,k29b_40:" Where there is, in addition to his claim as Ievir, the force of the <i>ma'amar</i>."
,k29b_41:" So BaH. a.l."
,k29b_42:" [H] V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. shomereth yabam."
,k29b_43:" Any one of the levirs."
,k29b_44:" In the latter case neither of the levirs is entitled to annul her vows."
,k29b_45:" Ned. 74a."
,k29b_46:" Hence a levir is never entitled to the privilege of a husband in respect of the annulment of vows."
,k29b_47:" Since it is not known to which of them she is really subject, the bond between them and the widow is necessarily a weak one."
,k29b_48:" Only both together. but not one only, should be allowed to annul her vows."
,k29b_49:" Cur. edd. enclose in parentheses 'b. Ahabah'."
,k29b_50:" Ned. <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k29b_51:" The <i>ma'amar</i>."
,k29b_52:" But not by her husband alone. And, since the levir alone may here annul, a <i>ma'amar</i> must have the force of marriage."
,k29b_53:" The levir and her father, as in the case of a betrothal. Hence no proof may be adduced from here as to whether a <i>ma'amar</i> has the force of a marriage or of a betrothal."
,k29b_54:" Not having the force even of a betrothal."
,k29b_55:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 8."
,k29b_56:" In the case of a yebamah to whom a <i>ma'amar</i> had been addressed."
,k29b_57:" If he did not wish to marry her."
,k29b_58:" Who holds that the father and husband jointly annul the vows of the widow to whom a <i>ma'amar</i> has been addressed."
,k29b_59:" The reading is [H] (sing.). not [H] (plur.). How, then, could he state that two jointly annul her vows!"
,k29b_60:" The levir. So BaH a.l. Cur. edd., 'she'."
,k29b_61:" Either before he addressed the <i>ma'amar</i> (according to R. Nahman b. Isaac) or after the <i>ma'amar</i> (according to R. Ammi)."
,k29b_62:" As he refused either to marry, or to submit to her <i>halizah</i>."
,k29b_63:" Since she is maintained out of his estate he is regarded by her as husband and her vows are subject to his will. Hence he may also annul them. With the whole passage cf. Ned. 74a. Sonc. ed. pp. 233ff, q.v. notes. "
}

txt:
<p>
Now, if it could be assumed that a <i>ma'amar</i>, according to Beth Shammai, constitutes a perfect <i>kinyan</i>, let the one levir address a <i>ma'amar</i><a id="k29b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and constitute thereby a <i>kinyan</i>,<a id="k29b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and let the other also address a ma amar<a id="k29b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and thereby constitute a <i>kinyan</i>.<a id="k29b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; What then! [Is it your inference that] it<a id="k29b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; keeps the rival completely out?<a id="k29b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Let then one levir address a <i>ma'amar</i><a id="k29b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and keep her out<a id="k29b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and let the other levir also address a <i>ma'amar</i><a id="k29b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and keep her out!<a id="k29b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; What, however, may be said in reply? That a permitted <i>ma'amar</i><a id="k29b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; does keep the rival out, while a forbidden <i>ma'amar</i><a id="k29b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; does not keep her out; so also here, even according to him who maintains that a <i>ma'amar</i> constitutes a perfect <i>kinyan</i>, only a permitted <i>ma'amar</i><a id="k29b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; constitutes a <i>kinyan</i>. but a forbidden one<a id="k29b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; does not.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi taught it<a id="k29b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; in the following manner: R. Eleazar said: It must not be assumed that a <i>ma'amar</i>, according to Beth Shammai, keeps the rival<a id="k29b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; completely out, and that she does not require even <i>halizah</i>; but rather it<a id="k29b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; keeps her out<a id="k29b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and still leaves [a partial bond].<a id="k29b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Abin: We also have learned the same thing: Beth Shammai said, 'they may retain them',<a id="k29b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies that they may only retain them<a id="k29b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but [that they may] not [marry them] at the outset.<a id="k29b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it could have been assumed that a ma amar, according to Beth Shammai, keeps a rival out completely. let the one levir address a <i>ma'amar</i>,<a id="k29b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and thus keep her out.<a id="k29b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and let the other also address a <i>ma'amar</i><a id="k29b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and so keep her out.<a id="k29b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But. surely. it was taught. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: HIS WIFE [REMAINS] WITH HIM WHILE THE OTHER IS EXEMPT AS HIS WIFE'S SISTER!<a id="k29b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The fact is, a yebamah who is eligible for all<a id="k29b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; is also eligible for a part;<a id="k29b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; a yebamah who is not eligible for all<a id="k29b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is not eligible for a part.<a id="k29b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah inquired: Does a <i>ma'amar</i>, according to Beth Shammai, constitute marriage or betrothal? &mdash; Said Abaye to him: On what practical issue [does this question bear]? Shall I say on [the issue] of inheriting from her,<a id="k29b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; defiling himself to her<a id="k29b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; or annulling her vows?<a id="k29b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely, [it could be answered that] seeing that in the case of<a id="k29b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; ordinary betrothal<a id="k29b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya taught, that where the wife has only been betrothed<a id="k29b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [the husband] is neither subject to the laws of onan<a id="k29b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; nor may he defile himself for her.<a id="k29b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and she in his case is likewise not subject to the laws of onan<a id="k29b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; nor may she defile herself for him,<a id="k29b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; and that if she dies he does not inherit from her though if he dies she collects her <i>kethubah</i>;<a id="k29b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; is there any need [to speak of the case where] a <i>ma'amar</i> had been addressed!<a id="k29b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather. [the question is] in respect of introduction into the bridal canopy: Does it<a id="k29b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; constitute a marriage and, therefore. no introduction into the bridal canopy is required.<a id="k29b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Or does it perhaps constitute betrothal and, consequently, introduction into the bridal canopy is required? The other replied: If where he did not address to her any <i>ma'amar</i> it is written [in Scripture]. Her husband's brother shall go in unto her,<a id="k29b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; even against her will, is there any need [to speak of the case where] he has addressed to her a <i>ma'amar</i>!<a id="k29b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; The former retorted: Yes;<a id="k29b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; since I maintain that whenever a levir has addressed a <i>ma'amar</i> to his sister-in-law, the levirate bond disappears and she comes under the bond of betrothal. What [then is the decision]? &mdash; Come and hear: In the case of a widow awaiting the decision of the levir.<a id="k29b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; whether there be one levir or two levirs, R. Eliezer said, he<a id="k29b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; may annul [her vows]. R. Joshua said: [Only where she is waiting] for one and not for two.<a id="k29b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba said: Neither when she [is waiting] for one nor for two.<a id="k29b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; Now we pondered thereon: One can well understand R. Akiba, since he may hold that no levirate bond exists even in the case of one;<a id="k29b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; according to R. Joshua, the levirate bond may exist where there is one levir but not where there are two levirs.<a id="k29b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; According to R. Eliezer, however, granted that a levirate bond exists, one can understand why, in the case of one, he may annul, but why also in the case of two?<a id="k29b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Ammi<a id="k29b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; replied: Here it is a case where he addressed to her a <i>ma'amar</i>, and the statement represents the opinion of Beth Shammai who maintain that a <i>ma'amar</i> constitutes a perfect <i>kinyan</i>.<a id="k29b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it be granted that it<a id="k29b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; constitutes a marriage, it is quite intelligible why he may annul her vows. If. however, it be assumed that it constitutes only a betrothal, how could he annul her vows? Surely we learned: The vows of a betrothed girl may be annulled by her father in conjunction with her husband!<a id="k29b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; -Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: What is meant by annulment? Jointly.<a id="k29b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>
</p><p>
	According to R. Eleazar, however, who holds that a <i>ma'amar</i>, In the opinion of Beth Shammai, constitutes a <i>kinyan</i> only so far as to keep out the rival, how<a id="k29b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; could the annulment be effected even jointly?<a id="k29b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Eleazar can answer you: When I said that it<a id="k29b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; constitutes a <i>kinyan</i> so far only as to keep out the rival, [I meant to indicate] that a letter of divorce was not sufficient<a id="k29b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; but that <i>halizah</i> also was required;<a id="k29b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; did I say anything. however, as regards the annulment of vows! And if you prefer I might say. R. Eleazar can answer you: Is it satisfactorily explained according to R. Nahman b. Isaac?<a id="k29b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely it was not stated 'they may annul' but 'he may annul'!<a id="k29b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently this must be a case where he<a id="k29b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; appeared before a court<a id="k29b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; and<a id="k29b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; a specified sum for alimony was decreed for her out of his estate; and [this is to be understood] In accordance with the statement R. Phinehas made in the name of Raba. For R. Phinehas stated in the name of Raba: Any woman that utters a vow does so on condition that her husband will approve of it.<a id="k29b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k62a_1:" It would have been impossible for the human race to propagate had not one of each sex been created. For the preservation of the race, however, it is not necessary for every man to have children of both sexes."
,k62a_2:" God approved of Moses' action. No inference for other people may be drawn from an exceptional case."
,k62a_3:" Though no daughter had been born from their union."
,k62a_4:" When, on descending from the mountain, he found the people worshipping the golden calf (v. Ex. XXXII, 19)."
,k62a_5:" To the prescribed period of sanctification that preceded the revelation on Sinai (v. Ex. XIX, 10 and 15)."
,k62a_6:" In support of his action."
,k62a_7:" Ex. XIX, 15."
,k62a_8:" Deut. V, 27f."
,k62a_9:" Ex. XII, 43."
,k62a_10:" Ibid. XXXIV, 1, [H]."
,k62a_11:" [H], lit., 'may thy strength be firm'. [H] and [H] are regarded as coming from the same rt. [H]."
,k62a_12:" In support of his action."
,k62a_13:" Ex. XIX, 10."
,k62a_14:" The day always beginning after the sunset of the previous day."
,k62a_15:" At the time Moses received his instructions."
,k62a_16:" Lit., 'the <i>Shechinah</i> did not dwell'."
,k62a_17:" The sanctification began on Wednesday. They observed all Thursday and Friday; and the <i>Shechinah</i> descended on the Sabbath which was the third of the two complete days (V. Shab. 86a), thus, as Moses expected, disregarding the first day which was incomplete."
,k62a_18:" Are the minimum required to fulfil the duty of the propagation of the race. V. Tosef. Yeb. VIII."
,k62a_19:" Gen. IV, 2."
,k62a_20:" [H], (the sign of the defined accusative) which could be omitted (as in many other instances), appearing both before brother and before Abel."
,k62a_21:" Two males and two females."
,k62a_22:" Obviously to make up the minimum."
,k62a_23:" Gen. IV, 25."
,k62a_24:" The duty of propagation, however, would have been fulfilled without the additional birth."
,k62a_25:" V. <i>supra</i> note 8."
,k62a_26:" Isa. XLV, 18. It is the duty of man to assist in making the world inhabited."
,k62a_27:" The man who has even only one son or one daughter."
,k62a_28:" R. Johanan and Resh Lakish."
,k62a_29:" Expressed elsewhere."
,k62a_30:" The first son born after his conversion is not entitled to the double portion of the firstborn."
,k62a_31:" Before his conversion."
,k62a_32:" V. Deut. XXI, 17."
,k62a_33:" That relating to the duty of propa- gation and that in respect of the firstborn."
,k62a_34:" Lit., 'they', sc. idolaters."
,k62a_35:" It being one of the seven Noahide commandments. V. Gen. IX, 7."
,k62a_36:" II Kings, XX, 12; which shews that an offspring of an idolater is also described as a son!"
,k62a_37:" Others, 'R. Abba', v. Alfasi and [H]."
,k62a_38:" [H], the same consonants as [H] 'a people'."
,k62a_39:" Gen. XXII, 5."
,k62a_40:" With reference to Abraham's slaves v. Gen. ibid. The slave, like the ass, is considered the chattel of the master."
,k62a_41:" II Sam. IX, 10. Ziba was a slave (v. ibid. 9) and yet he is described as having sons."
,k62a_42:" [H], lit., 'a bullock the son of a herd'. The expression of son in the case of the slave Ziba had no greater significance than the expression of 'son' in the case of cattle."
,k62a_43:" In the description of Berodach in II Kings XX, 12."
,k62a_44:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 414, n. 9."
,k62a_45:" Which may indeed be taken as proof that idolaters' children are legal descendants and may be described as 'sons'."
,k62a_46:" Ziba's descendants."
,k62a_47:" Idolaters."
,k62a_48:" I Kings XV, 18. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 9."
,k62a_49:" Others, 'Jose'. V. 'A.Z. 5a, Nid. 13b."
,k62a_50:" The Messiah."
,k62a_51:" Lit., 'body', the region inhabited by the souls of the unborn."
,k62a_52:" Isa. LVII, 16. This being the reason for the duty of propagation, the duty is fulfilled as soon as a child is born, i.e., as soon as his soul has left the region of Guf irrespective of whether he survives or not."
,k62a_53:" Isa. XLV, 18."
,k62a_54:" The children being dead. >"
}

txt:
<p>
from the impossible.<a id="k62a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Let Beth Hillel, then, make the inference from Moses! &mdash; They can answer you: Moses did it with His consent.<a id="k62a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: Moses did three things on his own initiative and his opinion coincided with that of the Omnipresent. He separated himself from his wife,<a id="k62a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; broke the Tables of Testimony<a id="k62a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and added one day.<a id="k62a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'He separated himself from his wife'; what exposition did he make?<a id="k62a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He said, 'If to the Israelites, with whom the <i>Shechinah</i> spoke only for a while and for whom a definite time was fixed, the Torah nevertheless said, Come not near a woman,<a id="k62a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; how much more so to me, who am liable to be spoken to at any moment and for whom no definite time has been fixed'. And his view coincided with that of the Omnipresent; for it is said, Go say to them: Return ye to your tents; but as for thee, stand thou here by Me.<a id="k62a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'He broke the Tables of Testimony'; what exposition did he make?<a id="k62a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He said, 'If of the Paschal lamb, which is only one of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, the Torah said, There shall no alien eat thereof,<a id="k62a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; how much more should this apply to the entire Torah when all Israel are apostates'. And his view coincided with that of the Omnipresent; for it is written, Which thou didst break<a id="k62a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and Resh Lakish explained: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, 'I thank you for breaking them'.<a id="k62a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'He added one day' on his own initiative. What exposition did he make?<a id="k62a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'As it is written, And sanctify them to-day and to-morrow<a id="k62a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [It implies that] to-day shall be the same as to-morrow; as to-morrow includes the previous night<a id="k62a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; so to-day must include the previous night. As, however, to-day's previous night has already passed away,<a id="k62a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it must be inferred that two days exclusive of to-day must be observed'. And his view coincided with that of the Omnipresent, for the Revelation did not take place<a id="k62a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; before the Sabbath.<a id="k62a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught: R. Nathan stated: Beth Shammai ruled: Two males and two females;<a id="k62a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and Beth Hillel ruled: A male and a female.<a id="k62a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Huna: What is the reason which R. Nathan assigns for the opinion of Beth Shammai? Because it is written, And again she bore his brother Abel<a id="k62a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [which<a id="k62a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; implies:] Abel and his sister; Cain and his sister.<a id="k62a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; And it is also written, For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel;<a id="k62a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; for Cain slew him.<a id="k62a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; And the Rabbis? She was merely expressing her gratitude.<a id="k62a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Elsewhere it was taught: R. Nathan stated that Beth Shammai ruled: A male and a female;<a id="k62a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and Beth Hillel ruled: Either a male or a female.<a id="k62a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Raba: What is the reason which R. Nathan assigns for the view of Beth Hillel? &mdash; Because it is said, He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited,<a id="k62a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and he<a id="k62a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; has obviously helped it to be inhabited.
</p><p>
	It was stated: If a man had children while he was an idolater and then he became a proselyte, he has fulfilled, R. Johanan said, the duty of propagation of the race; and Resh Lakish said: He has not fulfilled the duty of propagation of the race. 'R. Johanan said: He has fulfilled the duty of propagation', since he had children. 'And Resh Lakish said: He has not fulfilled the duty of propagation' because one who became a proselyte is like a child newly born.
</p><p>
	And they<a id="k62a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; follow their views.<a id="k62a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was stated: If a man had children while he was an idolater and then he became a proselyte, he has, R. Johanan said, no firstborn in respect of inheritance,<a id="k62a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; since he already had<a id="k62a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; the first-fruits of his strength.<a id="k62a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Resh Lakish, however, said: He has a firstborn son in respect of inheritance, for a man who became a proselyte is like a child newly born.
</p><p>
	And [both statements<a id="k62a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; were] necessary. For if the first only had been stated [it might have been assumed that] only in that state- ment did R. Johanan maintain his view, since formerly he<a id="k62a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; was also subject to the obligation of propagation,<a id="k62a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; but in respect of inherit- ance, since [the proselyte's former children] are not entitled to heirship, it might have been presumed that he agrees with Resh Lakish. And were only the second stated [it might have been assumed that] only in that did Resh Lakish maintain his view but that in the former he agrees with R. Johanan. [Hence both were] necessary.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish. At that time Berodach-baladan the son of Baladan, King of Babylon etc.!<a id="k62a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: While they are idolaters they have legally recognized ancestry, but when they become proselytes they have no longer any legally recognized ancestry.
</p><p>
	Rab<a id="k62a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; said: All agree that a slave has no legally recognized relatives, since it is written, Abide ye here with<a id="k62a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; the ass,<a id="k62a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; people who are like the ass.<a id="k62a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants!<a id="k62a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Aba b. Jacob replied: Like a young bullock.<a id="k62a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, [the same reply could be given] there also!<a id="k62a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There it is different, since Scripture mentioned his<a id="k62a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; own name as well as his father's<a id="k62a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; name, while here<a id="k62a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [the son's names] were not specified. If you prefer I might say: They<a id="k62a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; were elsewhere ascribed to their father and their father's father; as it is written, And King Asa sent them to Ben-hadad, the son of Tabrimmon, the son of Hezion, the King of Aram, that dwelt at Damascus, saying.<a id="k62a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated: If a man had children and they died, he has fulfilled, said R. Huna, the duty of propagation. R. Johanan said: He has not fulfilled it. 'R. Huna said: He fulfilled' because [he follows the tradition] of R. Assi. For R. Assi<a id="k62a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; stated: The Son of David<a id="k62a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; will not come before all the souls in Guf<a id="k62a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; will have been disposed of, since it is said, For the spirit that unwrappeth itself is from Me etc.<a id="k62a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; And 'R. Johanan said: He has not fulfilled the duty of propagation' because we require [the fulfilment of the text] He formed it to be inhabited,<a id="k62a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; which is not the case here.<a id="k62a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k62b_1:" <i>Infra</i> 70a. It is now assumed that whenever one's own child died the grandchild may take his place in exempting his grandfather from the duty of propagation. From this it follows that only living children or grandchildren exempt a man from the duty of further propagation. How then could R. Huna maintain that dead children also exempt one from this duty?"
,k62b_2:" If a man had only one son he is exempt from the duty of propagation if his son had a daughter. If, however, he once had a male and a female who subsequently died he is in any case exempt."
,k62b_3:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k62b_4:" Tosef. Yeb. VIII."
,k62b_5:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 1, final clause."
,k62b_6:" I.e., a granddaughter cannot take the place of a son to exempt one from the duty of further propagation."
,k62b_7:" Isa. XLV, 18."
,k62b_8:" Lit., 'all the world', i.e., Abaye and Raba."
,k62b_9:" Son or daughter."
,k62b_10:" Others, 'Abba b. Zabda'. V. She'iltoth. Sec. ha-Berakah."
,k62b_11:" The discourses being long, R. Shesheth, in his desire not to interrupt them, suppressed his needs and thus impaired his generative organs. V. Bek. 44b."
,k62b_12:" Gen. XXXI, 43."
,k62b_13:" Lit., 'from here'."
,k62b_14:" I Chron. II, 21."
,k62b_15:" Judges V, 14."
,k62b_16:" Ps. LX, 9. As this text implies that the lawgivers were descendants of Judah, Machir (Judges V, 14), a descendant of Manasseh, could not have been the paternal, but only the maternal ancestor of the lawgivers that descended from him. The lawgivers were thus the offspring of the union mentioned in I Chron. II, 21, between Hezron, a descendant of Judah, and a daughter of Machir. This then proves that the sons of one's daughter are also regarded as one's own sons."
,k62b_17:" Which permits abstention from further propagation after the birth of the prescribed number of children."
,k62b_18:" I.e., 'the morning of life', youth."
,k62b_19:" I.e., 'old age'. V. <i>supra</i> n. 5."
,k62b_20:" Eccl. XI, 6."
,k62b_21:" Gibbethon, in the territory of Dan."
,k62b_22:" N.N.W. of Jerusalem."
,k62b_23:" Through lack of learning."
,k62b_24:" The disciples of R. Akiba."
,k62b_25:" [H] (rt. [H], 'stop', 'choke')."
,k62b_26:" <i>Supra</i>, that the duty of propagation never ceases."
,k62b_27:" Deut. XIV, 26. House, [H] refers to one's wife. Cf. Yoma 2a."
,k62b_28:" Ezek. XLIV, 30. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 3."
,k62b_29:" Gen. II, 18."
,k62b_30:" Palestine."
,k62b_31:" Concerning the unmarried man."
,k62b_32:" I.e., 'a wife'. Cf. A help meet for him, Gen. II, 18."
,k62b_33:" [H], the Torah."
,k62b_34:" Job VI, 13."
,k62b_35:" Jer. XXXI, 22. Cf. R.V."
,k62b_36:" I.e., wife. Cf. M.K. and <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k62b_37:" Job V, 24."
,k62b_38:" I.e., 'that thy wife is in peace with God' sc. 'chaste', or. reading [H] as [H], 'perfect'."
,k62b_39:" Ibid., then thou shalt visit etc."
,k62b_40:" The duty of visiting prior to setting out on a journey."
,k62b_41:" Lit., 'from there'."
,k62b_42:" Gen. III, 16."
,k62b_43:" The statement as to the duty of visiting."
,k62b_44:" At the time he sets out on his journey. When no journey is contemplated one must keep away from his wife when the menstruation period is near. V. Shebu. 18b."
,k62b_45:" Cur. edd., 'Raba'."
,k62b_46:" [H] lit., 'period'. i.e., a whole day or a whole night. If the menstruation occurs during the day, he must keep away throughout that day, and if during the night, he must keep away during all that night."
,k62b_47:" The duty of visiting prior to setting out on a journey."
,k62b_48:" Or, 'they might be preoccupied' and thus delay the journey and neglect the performance of the religious act."
,k62b_49:" Job V, 24."
,k62b_50:" This is a meritorious act, because the affection a man has for his sister will be extended to her daughter, his wife. "
}

txt:
<p>
Grandchildren are like children!<a id="k62b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This was taught only in respect of supplementing.<a id="k62b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: Grandchildren are like children. If one of them died or was found to be a saris<a id="k62b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the father has not fulfilled the duty of propagation.<a id="k62b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Is not this a refutation against R. Huna?<a id="k62b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is indeed a refutation.
</p><p>
	'Grandchildren are like children'. Abaye intended to say: A grandson for a son and a granddaughter for a daughter, and certainly a grandson for a daughter; but not a granddaughter for a son.<a id="k62b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But Raba said to him: We only require [the fulfilment of the text] He formed it to be inhabited,<a id="k62b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; which is the case here.
</p><p>
	All, at any rate, agree<a id="k62b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; that two children of one<a id="k62b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; are not sufficient. But [are they] not? The Rabbis surely said to R. Shesheth,<a id="k62b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Marry a wife and beget children', and he answered them, 'My daughters' children are mine'! &mdash; There he was merely putting them off, because R. Shesheth became impotent owing to the long discourses of R. Huna.<a id="k62b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Rabbah to Raba b. Mari: Whence the statement made by the Rabbis that grandchildren are like children? If it be suggested that it is deduced from the Scriptural text, The daughters are my daughters and the children are my children,<a id="k62b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; would then [it may be objected] the same [meaning be given to the text] And the flocks are my flocks?<a id="k62b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But [the meaning there is obviously] 'which you have acquired from me', so here also [the meaning may be], 'which you have acquired from me'! The deduction is rather made from the following:<a id="k62b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; And afterwards Hezron went to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead;&nbsp;&hellip; and she bore him Segub,<a id="k62b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is also written, Out of Machir came down lawgivers,<a id="k62b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and furthermore it is written, Judah is my lawgiver.<a id="k62b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Mishnah<a id="k62b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot represent the opinion of R. Joshua. For it was taught: R. Joshua said, If a man married in his youth, he should marry again in his old age; if he had children in his youth, he should also have children in his old age; for it said, In the morning<a id="k62b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; sow thy seed and in the evening<a id="k62b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; withhold not thine hand; for thou knowest not which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they shall both be alike good.<a id="k62b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba said: If a man studied Torah in his youth, he should also study it in his old age; if he had disciples in his youth, he should also have disciples in his old age. For it is said, In the morning sow thy seed etc.<a id="k62b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was said that R. Akiba had twelve thousand pairs of disciples, from Gabbatha<a id="k62b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; to Antipatris;<a id="k62b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and all of them died at the same time because they did not treat each other with respect. The world remained desolate<a id="k62b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; until R. Akiba came to our Masters in the South and taught the Torah to them. These were R. Meir, R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Simeon and R. Eleazar b. Shammua; and it was they who revived the Torah at that time. A Tanna taught: All of them<a id="k62b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; died between Passover and Pentecost. R. Hama b. Abba or, it might be said, R. Hiyya b. Abin said: All of them died a cruel death. What was it? &mdash; R. Nahman replied: Croup.<a id="k62b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Mattena stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Joshua.<a id="k62b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Tanhum stated in the name of R. Hanilai: Any man who has no wife lives without joy, without blessing, and without goodness. 'Without joy'. for it is written. And thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy house.<a id="k62b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Without blessing', for it is written, To cause a blessing to rest on thy house.<a id="k62b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Without goodness', for it is written, It is not good that the man should be alone.<a id="k62b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	In the West<a id="k62b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; it was stated:<a id="k62b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Without Torah and without a [protecting] wall. 'Without Torah', for it is written. Is it that I have no help<a id="k62b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; in me, and that sound wisdom<a id="k62b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; is driven quite from me.<a id="k62b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Without a [protecting] wall', for it is written, A woman shall encompass a man.<a id="k62b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba b. 'Ulla said:<a id="k62b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Without peace, for it is written, And thou shalt know that thy tent<a id="k62b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; is in peace; and thou shalt visit thy habitation and shalt miss nothing.<a id="k62b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi said: Whosoever knows his wife to be a God-fearing woman and does not duly visit her is called a sinner; for it is said, And thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace<a id="k62b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; etc.<a id="k62b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi further stated: It is a man's duty to pay a visit to his wife when he starts on a journey; for it is said, And thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace etc.<a id="k62b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Is this<a id="k62b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; deduced from here? Surely it is deduced from the following:<a id="k62b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; And thy desire shall be to thy husband<a id="k62b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; teaches that a woman yearns for her husband when he sets out on a journey! &mdash; R. Joseph replied: This<a id="k62b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; was required only in the case where her menstruation period was near.<a id="k62b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; And how near? Rabbah<a id="k62b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; replied: Twelve hours.<a id="k62b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; And this<a id="k62b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only [when the journey is] for a secular purpose, but when for a religious purpose [it does not apply, since then] people are in a state of anxiety.<a id="k62b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Concerning a man who loves his wife as himself, who honours her more than himself, who guides his sons and daughters in the right path and arranges for them to be married near the period of their puberty, Scripture says, And thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace.<a id="k62b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; Concerning him who loves his neighbours, who befriends his relatives, marries his sister's<a id="k62b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; daughter,
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k38a_1:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 236, n. 2."
,k38a_2:" V. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 3."
,k38a_3:" Of the 'doubtful son', the father of the levir and the deceased."
,k38a_4:" Lit., 'the doubtful'."
,k38a_5:" Lit., 'that man'."
,k38a_6:" He knows exactly by virtue of whose, and by virtue of what rights he advances his claim, and he may consequently be regarded as being in actual possession of the estate."
,k38a_7:" He cannot in any way be sure whose son he is and by virtue of whose rights his claim is advanced."
,k38a_8:" Lit., 'take out'."
,k38a_9:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k38a_10:" Since it is to be divided into two equal shares between the two sons of the deceased."
,k38a_11:" If for instance, the total number of brothers was three, he is entitled, they claim, to a third of the estate only, and not to a half,"
,k38a_12:" V. note 13 <i>supra</i>."
,k38a_13:" [H], a sixth of a <i>denar</i>, hence a 'sixth' generally."
,k38a_14:" 1 &mdash; (1/2 + 1/3) = 1/6."
,k38a_15:" Lit., 'money'."
,k38a_16:" Between the claimants."
,k38a_17:" V. <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k38a_18:" [H] the widow of a deceased brother during the period intervening between the death of her husband and the <i>halizah</i> or marriage with the levir."
,k38a_19:" Lit., 'there fell to her'. The assumption now is that this occurred during her 'waiting period'. v. <i>supra</i> n. 1,"
,k38a_20:" Bequeathed to her by her father or presented to her as a gifts"
,k38a_21:" V. <i>supra</i> note 1."
,k38a_22:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k38a_23:" Her <i>melog</i> property. v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k38a_24:" Who is heir to his wife. Husband in this context _ levir."
,k38a_25:" In the Gemara it is explained that this refers to the <i>melog</i> property only. In respect to the <i>kethubah</i> Beth Shammai agree with Beth Hillel."
,k38a_26:" It being a matter of doubt whether the levirate bond with the levir constitutes such a close relationship as that of an actual marriage, the right of heirship as between her husband's heirs and hers cannot be definitely determined and the property must, therefore, be equally divided between them."
,k38a_27:" For further notes v. Keth., Sonc. ed. pp. 507 ff."
,k38a_28:" The case where the widow is alive."
,k38a_29:" Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel."
,k38a_30:" Where the widow had died."
,k38a_31:" Why is the widow in the first case regarded as the confirmed possessor of the property and allowed to dispose of it in any manner she desires, while in the second case her right of possession is in dispute, her rightful heirs not being regarded as the lawful and undisputed successors to her property?"
,k38a_32:" Lit., 'when she fell'."
,k38a_33:" Between the widow and the levir, due to the obligations of the levirate."
,k38a_34:" The levirate bond not carrying the same force as actual betrothal. "
}

txt:
<p>
my only path lies in your fields', but could such a plea be advanced here! And R. Jeremiah can tell you: I may uphold even the view of the Rabbis, for the Rabbis made their ruling there only because he can tell him, 'If you keep silence, well and good, and if not I will return the deeds to their original owners and you will have no chance to call them to law', but could such a plea be advanced here!
</p><p>
	Where a 'doubtful son'<a id="k38a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and a levir came to claim their shares<a id="k38a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; in the estate of the grandfather,<a id="k38a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the former<a id="k38a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; pleading, 'I am<a id="k38a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the son of the deceased and half of the estate belongs, therefore, to me', while the levir pleads, 'You are my own son and you have, therefore, no share whatsoever', the levir's claim being a certainty<a id="k38a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and that of the 'doubtful son' a doubtful one,<a id="k38a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; doubt may not supersede<a id="k38a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; a certainty.
</p><p>
	Where the 'doubtful son'<a id="k38a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and the sons of the levir came to claim their shares<a id="k38a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; in the estate of their grandfather,<a id="k38a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the former<a id="k38a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; pleading. 'I am<a id="k38a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the son of the deceased and half of the estate is, therefore, mine'<a id="k38a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; while the sons of the levir plead, 'You are our brother and you have a share like one of us',<a id="k38a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; they receive the half which he concedes to them while he receives the third<a id="k38a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; which they concede to him, and thus a sixth<a id="k38a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; remains,<a id="k38a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; which, being property<a id="k38a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; of uncertain ownership, is to be equally divided.<a id="k38a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Where the grandfather<a id="k38a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and the levir [claim their shares] in the estate of the 'doubtful son' or where the grandfather<a id="k38a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and the 'doubtful son' [claim their shares] in the estate of the levir, the estate is to be regarded as money of uncertain ownership and is to be equally divided.<a id="k38a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A WOMAN AWAITING [THE DECISION OF] THE LEVIR<a id="k38a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF<a id="k38a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; PROPERTY,<a id="k38a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; BETH SHAMMAI AND BETH HILLEL AGREE THAT SHE MAY SELL IT OR GIVE IT AWAY, AND THAT HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID. IF SHE<a id="k38a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; DIED, WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH HER <I>KETHUBAH</I><a id="k38a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; AND WITH PROPERTY THAT COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER?<a id="k38a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; BETH SHAMMAI SAID: THE HEIRS OF HER HUSBAND<a id="k38a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE TO SHARE IT<a id="k38a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH THE HEIRS OF HER FATHER;<a id="k38a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; AND BETH HILLEL SAID: THE PROPERTY IS TO REMAIN WITH THOSE IN WHOSE POSSESSION IT IS, [HENCE] THE <I>KETHUBAH</I> IS TO REMAIN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF THE HUSBAND WHILE THE PROPERTY WHICH COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER<a id="k38a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; REMAINS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF HER FATHER.<a id="k38a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; WHERE HE MARRIED HER,<a id="k38a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE IS DEEMED TO BE HIS WIFE IN EVERY RESPECT SAVE THAT HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> REMAINS A CHARGE ON HER FIRST HUSBAND'S ESTATE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Wherein does the first clause<a id="k38a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; in which there is no dispute between them<a id="k38a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; differ from the final clause<a id="k38a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; in which they<a id="k38a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; do dispute?<a id="k38a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Ulla replied: The first clause deals with a woman who became subject to the levirate marriage<a id="k38a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; while betrothed, and the final clause with one who became subject to the levirate marriage<a id="k38a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; while married. And 'Ulla is of the opinion that the levirate bond<a id="k38a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; of a betrothed woman renders her 'doubtfully betrothed'<a id="k38a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k38b_1:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 3."
,k38b_2:" Keth. 78a., Sonc. ed. pp. 490ff q.v."
,k38b_3:" Since in the case of a definite betrothal Beth Hillel, contrary to the opinion of Beth Shammai do not allow the widow the right of sale or gift, while in the first clause of our Mishnah they do."
,k38b_4:" Hence Beth Shammai, who concede to the widow the right to sell and to give away even where her betrothal was certain, with all the more reason concede such rights to the widow spoken of in the first clause of our Mishnah where her betrothal is only doubtful. Beth Hillel, too, since in the case of a definite betrothal they agree that a sale or gift that had already taken place is valid, may rightly concede to the widow in the case of doubtful betrothal the full rights of selling and giving away."
,k38b_5:" Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel."
,k38b_6:" Keth. <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k38b_7:" And so both Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, who in the case of a definite marriage recognize the husband's right to seize from the buyers even property that his wife had already sold, agree that in the case of our Mishnah, the status of marriage being a matter of doubt, the husband's rights are also a matter of doubt. Hence Beth Shammai might well maintain that the property which is of doubtful ownership should be equally divided between the rival claimants, while Beth Hillel may maintain that the widow's right of possession is to be given priority since she came into the possession of the property at a time when her married status was a matter of uncertainty."
,k38b_8:" 'Ulla."
,k38b_9:" Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel."
,k38b_10:" Since the property is in any case hers."
,k38b_11:" Hence Beth Shammai as well as Beth Hillel agree that she is fully entitled to sell the property or to give it away."
,k38b_12:" Lit., 'those come to inherit' (bis). Had the levirate bond borne the same force as marriage the estate would undoubtedly have become the property of the levir only. Had it not borne the same force as marriage the estate would have been given to her father's heirs only, and the levir would have had no claim whatsoever. The claims of either group are consequently evenly balanced."
,k38b_13:" Since the claim of either is equally doubtful."
,k38b_14:" According to Beth Shammai. Beth Hillel's view, on the other hand, may be justified on the ground that the widow's father's heirs are her certain relatives and are, therefore, entitled to inherit that which was in her possession. No such claim, however, could be advanced by the husband's relatives since the husband himself was never for one moment in definite and undisputed possession of the property in question."
,k38b_15:" Rabbah."
,k38b_16:" Lit., 'the'."
,k38b_17:" Lit., 'upon him'."
,k38b_18:" Brothers, for instance, or other relatives, who had no other heirs but him."
,k38b_19:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k38b_20:" And he left no other money or possessions wherewith to meet his obligations, while those whose heir he was did leave possessions."
,k38b_21:" The son did not consequently inherit from his father whose estate would, therefore, belong to the surviving heirs."
,k38b_22:" And the son had, therefore, inherited his father's estate which may consequently be seized in payment of the son's debts."
,k38b_23:" Between the creditor and the heirs, their respective claims being regarded by Beth Shammai as of equal force."
,k38b_24:" B.B. 157a; With the heirs of the father. The claim of the heirs is regarded by Beth Hillel as a certainty, since they are in possession of the estate either as heirs of the father or as heirs of the son, while the claim of the creditor, being dependent on his being put into possession of the estate by the court, is of doubtful validity, and 'doubt cannot override a certainty'."
,k38b_25:" v. <i>supra</i> n. 8."
,k38b_26:" According to Beth Shammai."
,k38b_27:" Lit., 'and doubt comes and takes away from the hands of certainty'. V. <i>supra</i> n. 8."
,k38b_28:" Sot. 25a. The amount of the debt is deemed to be in the virtual possession of the creditor. The claims respectively of the heirs and the creditor are, consequently, of equal force. If the father died first his son inherited his estate and the creditor had immediately come into the legal possession of a share of the estate equal to the amount of his debt. If the son died first the heirs come into possession of the entire estate. As it is not known who died first the claims of the two parties are equally doubtful and of equal validity."
,k38b_29:" That Beth Shammai hold the opinion just attributed to them."
,k38b_30:" Of women suspected of illicit intercourse with strangers after they had been warned by their husbands. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. sotah."
,k38b_31:" The water of bitterness. V. Num. V, 24."
,k38b_32:" Pl. of <i>kethubah</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k38b_33:" The water of bitterness. V. Num. V, 24."
,k38b_34:" Sot. 24a, Keth. 81a."
,k38b_35:" Num. V, 15; emphasis on man."
,k38b_36:" And has, therefore, lost the right to her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k38b_37:" And is consequently entitled to receive it."
,k38b_38:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 243, n, 12. Despite the doubt as to whether she is entitled to her <i>kethubah</i> she receives it, according to Beth Shammai; and she thus takes away the amount of her <i>kethubah</i> from the heirs of her husband who are the undoubted successors to his property."
,k38b_39:" Since the rule is that 'doubt cannot override certainty's"
,k38b_40:" The <i>kethubah</i> is, therefore, deemed to have been collected as soon as the husband died, and the widow is consequently deemed to be the virtual possessor of such a portion of his estate as would cover the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k38b_41:" Whose objection to Rabbah, <i>supra</i>, was based on a Mishnah from Baba Bathra."
,k38b_42:" Since the principle of virtual possession did not occur to him as the reason for allowing a doubtful claim in face of certain one."
,k38b_43:" The Mishnah just cited which is embodied in the Tractates of Sotah and <i>Kethuboth</i> both of which belong to the same order as our Tractate. Since the principles in both Mishnahs are identical, why did Abaye resort to a Mishnah in another order when one was available in our order of Nashim."
,k38b_44:" [H] 'gracefulness', 'loveliness'. It is possible that in order that pleasant and cordial relations may exist between husband and wife the law has been enacted that, despite the general rule that 'doubt cannot override a certainty', a woman shall be privileged to collect her <i>kethubah</i> even when her own claim is of a doubtful character and that of her litigants is a certain one. No objection could, therefore, be put forward from such a special case; and Abaye had consequently to resort to a Mishnah in Nezikin. Other explanations of [H] (v. Jast.): 'In order to make her attractive', 'that women may be willing to marry'."
,k38b_45:" Abaye."
,k38b_46:" Where, according to Beth Shammai, the heirs of the father (by virtue of his being heir to his daughter, the widow), though their claim is of a doubtful nature, share the amount of the <i>kethubah</i> with the heirs of the husband whose rights to the amount of the <i>kethubah</i> (as the heirs of the husband) are certain. At the moment it is assumed that Beth Shammai's disagreement with Beth Hillel extends to the <I>KETHUBAH</I> as well as to the PROPERTY THAT COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER; and 'considerations of courtesy' could not, of course, apply when the woman is dead and the claimants are her male heirs. Cf. Keth. 97b."
,k38b_47:" Beth Shammai."
,k38b_48:" They agree with Beth Hillel that the <I>KETHUBAH</I> IS TO RETAIN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF THE HUSBAND. V. <i>supra</i> p. 240, n. 8."
,k38b_49:" So MS.M. Cur. edd. 'it was taught'."
,k38b_50:" That Beth Shammai's disagreement with Beth Hillel does not extend to the question of the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k38b_51:" I.e., the former take a share in that which is virtually in the possession of the latter, viz., the <i>melog</i> property which belongs to the heirs of the wife's father."
,k38b_52:" Which would have referred to the <i>kethubah</i> which is in the virtual possession of the husband's heirs,"
,k38b_53:" <i>Supra</i> 38a, 'Whereby does the first clause etc."
,k38b_54:" As the levirate bond is not strong enough to give the levir any right over that property, it is generally agreed that she and, in case of her death, her heirs also are entitled to dispose of it in any manner they like. "
}

txt:
<p>
and the levirate bond of a married woman renders her 'doubtfully married'.<a id="k38b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The levirate bond of a betrothed woman renders her doubtfully betrothed', for were we to assume that she is regarded as definitely betrothed, [how could both] BETH SHAMMAI AND BETH HILLEL AGREE THAT SHE MAY SELL IT OR GIVE IT AWAY AND THAT HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID when we learned: If she came into the possession of property while she was betrothed, Beth Shammai said, she may sell it, and Beth Hillel said, she may not sell it, but both agree that if she had sold or had given it away her act is legally valid!<a id="k38b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently<a id="k38b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; it must be inferred that the levirate bond of a betrothed woman renders her 'doubtfully betrothed'.<a id="k38b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The levirate bond of a married woman renders her doubtfully married', for had it been possible to assume that she is regarded as definitely married, [how could] Beth Shammai state that THE HEIRS OF HER HUSBAND ARE TO SHARE IT WITH THE HEIRS OF HER FATHER when we learned: If she came into the possession of property while she was married, both<a id="k38b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; agree that, if she had sold or given it away, her husband may seize it from the hand of the buyers!<a id="k38b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it must be inferred that the levirate bond of a married woman renders her 'doubtfully married'.<a id="k38b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Rabbah to him:<a id="k38b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Why, then, do they<a id="k38b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; dispute on [the question of the estate] itself after the death [of the widow]? Let them rather dispute on the question of the usufruct while she is alive! No, said Rabbah, both clauses deal with property which came into her possession while she was married; and the levirate bond of a married woman stamps her as doubtfully married. In the first clause, therefore, where she is alive, she is the certain possessor<a id="k38b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; while they are only doubtful possessors, and doubt cannot override a certainty.<a id="k38b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; In the final clause, however, where she is dead, both groups come equally as heirs<a id="k38b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and are, therefore,<a id="k38b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; to take equal shares.<a id="k38b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye pointed out an objection against him:<a id="k38b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Cannot a doubt, in accordance with the view of Beth Shammai, override a certainty? Surely we learned: [In the case where] a<a id="k38b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; house collapsed upon a man<a id="k38b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and his father or upon a man<a id="k38b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and those whose heir he was,<a id="k38b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and that man had against him the claim of his wife's <i>kethubah</i><a id="k38b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; or that of a creditor,<a id="k38b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [and in the first case], the heirs of the father plead that the son died first and the father afterwards,<a id="k38b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; while the creditor pleads that the father died first and the son afterwards,<a id="k38b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Beth Shammai hold [that the amount in dispute is] to be divided,<a id="k38b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and Beth Hillel hold that the estate is to remain in its former status.<a id="k38b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Now here, surely, [the claim of] the heirs of the father is a certainty<a id="k38b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and that of the creditor is only a doubt<a id="k38b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet<a id="k38b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the doubtful claim overrides the certainty!<a id="k38b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Beth Shammai are of the opinion that a bond of indebtedness which is due for repayment is regarded as [already] repaid!<a id="k38b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And whence do you derive this?<a id="k38b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [From] what we learned: If their husbands<a id="k38b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; died before they drank,<a id="k38b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Beth Shammai rule that they are to receive their <i>kethuboth</i><a id="k38b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and that they need not drink,<a id="k38b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and Beth Hillel rule that they either drink<a id="k38b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; or they do not receive their <i>kethuboth</i>.<a id="k38b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [But how can it be ruled,] 'They either drink', when the All Merciful said, Then shall the man bring his wife<a id="k38b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and he is not there! Consequently [the meaning must be that] as they do not drink they are not to receive their <i>kethuboth</i>.<a id="k38b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Now here, surely, it is a matter of doubt, it being uncertain whether she did play the harlot<a id="k38b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; or not,<a id="k38b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet the doubt overrides the certainty.<a id="k38b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently<a id="k38b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; it must be inferred that a bond of indebtedness which is due for repayment is regarded as already repaid.<a id="k38b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye,<a id="k38b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; then,<a id="k38b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; should have raised his objection from this!<a id="k38b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The law of] a wife's <i>kethubah</i> might be different owing to considerations of courtesy.<a id="k38b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Then let him<a id="k38b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; raise his objection from the law of the <i>kethubah</i> in our Mishnah!<a id="k38b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; They<a id="k38b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; do not dispute this point.<a id="k38b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But do they not? Surely we learned,<a id="k38b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; IF SHE DIED, WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> AND WITH PROPERTY THAT COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER? BETH SHAMMAI SAID: THE HEIRS OF HER HUSBAND ARE TO SHARE IT WITH THE HEIRS OF HER FATHER; BETH HILLEL SAID: THE PROPERTY IS TO REMAIN WITH THOSE IN WHOSE POSSESSION IT IS! &mdash; It is this that was meant: IF SHE DIED, WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>? and then [the enquiry] was abandoned. As to PROPERTY THAT COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER, BETH SHAMMAI SAID: THE HEIRS OF HER HUSBAND ARE TO SHARE WITH THE HEIRS OF HER FATHER AND BETH HILLEL SAID: THE PROPERTY IS TO REMAIN WITH THOSE IN WHOSE POSSESSION IT IS.
</p><p>
	Said R. Ashi: The inference from the expressions in our Mishnah leads to the same conclusion;<a id="k38b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; for it was stated, THE HEIRS OF HER HUSBAND ARE TO SHARE WITH THE HEIRS OF HER FATHER<a id="k38b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; and it was not stated 'the heirs of the father [are to share it] with the heirs of the husband'.<a id="k38b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves it.
</p><p>
	[Reverting to the previous question,]<a id="k38b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye replied: The first clause [deals with property] that came into her possession while she was awaiting [the decision of] the levir,<a id="k38b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; and the latter clause [with such] as came into her possession while she was still with her husband.
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k2a_1:" Heb., <i>zarah</i>, [H] 'rival'. Where a husband has more than one wife, each woman is a zarah in relation to the other. The term is derived from [H] which signifies oppression, hence 'rival', 'adversary', as in I Sam. I, 6 (cf. Kimhi a.l.), or 'to tie up', 'to bind', hence 'associate', 'co-wife'."
,k2a_2:" The co-wives of a rival through a second marriage."
,k2a_3:" [H] lit., 'to the end of the world'."
,k2a_4:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to take off' or 'to loosen'), the ceremony of drawing off the shoe of the brother of her husband who died without issue. According to Biblical law (v. Deut. XXV, 5-9) the brother-in-law must either marry the widow (v. following note) or be subjected to <i>halizah</i>."
,k2a_5:" [H] 'to marry the levir'. Any woman coming under the fifteen categories enumerated below is not only herself exempt from <i>halizah</i> and yibbum but exempts also her own rivals as well as the rivals of her rivals, ad infinitum, as explained anon."
,k2a_6:" Who had been married to his brother who subsequently died childless. Since he is forbidden to marry his daughter he is thereby also forbidden to marry any of her rivals, the widows of his deceased childless brother. 'HIS DAUGHTER' includes even one born to him as a result of outrage, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k2a_7:" Cf. previous note. All the fifteen categories enumerated are among the near relatives whom a man is forbidden to marry in accordance with the explicit and implicit prohibitions in Lev. XVIII, 6ff."
,k2a_8:" From a former husband."
,k2a_9:" Who, after the death of her husband, had married his brother who subsequently died childless."
,k2a_10:" The prohibition to marry in this case is derived in Sanhedrin 75a from Lev. XVIII, 17."
,k2a_11:" Who was married to his paternal brother. The laws of the levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i> are applicable to a paternal, but not to a maternal brother."
,k2a_12:" Who, after the death of her husband, had married his paternal brother. "
}

txt:
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_i">CHAPTER I</A>
      </H2>

	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. FIFTEEN [CATEGORIES OF] WOMEN EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS<a id="k2a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE RIVALS OF THEIR RIVALS<a id="k2a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SO ON, AD INFINITUM,<a id="k2a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM THE <I>HALIZAH</I><a id="k2a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; AND FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE;<a id="k2a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THESE ARE THEY: HIS DAUGHTER,<a id="k2a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; THE DAUGHTER OF HIS DAUGHTER<a id="k2a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE DAUGHTER OF HIS SON;<a id="k2a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; THE DAUGHTER OF HIS WIFE,<a id="k2a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; THE DAUGHTER OF HER SON AND THE DAUGHTER OF HER DAUGHTER; HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW,<a id="k2a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW'S MOTHER,<a id="k2a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HIS FATHER-IN-LAW'S MOTHER;<a id="k2a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS MATERNAL SISTER,<a id="k2a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS MOTHER'S SISTER,<a id="k2a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS WIFE'S SISTER AND HIS MATERNAL BROTHER'S WIFE;<a id="k2a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k2b_1:" Lit., 'in his world', i.e., who died before he was born. Such a brother's widow and her rivals etc. are exempt. If, for instance, C was born after his brother A had died childless, so that his widow, N married (in accordance with the laws of the levirate marriage) a contemporary brother of his, B, who had another wife, or wives, and B also died childless, all B's widows are exempt from <i>halizah</i> and yibbum as far as C is concerned on account of N who is forbidden to him."
,k2b_2:" Who married his brother after the death of his son. The marriage of a daughter-in-law is forbidden for ever, even after the death of one's son."
,k2b_3:" Lit., '(in the case of) all of them'."
,k2b_4:" Prior to the death of her husband who subsequently died childless."
,k2b_5:" Such a declaration, <i>mi'un</i> [H], may be made against her husband (without any further necessity for a divorce) by a wife, while she is a minor, or as soon as she becomes of age, prior to cohabitation, in cases where she was betrothed either (a) as an orphan, by her mother or brothers or (b) even in the lifetime of her father (v. <i>infra</i> 109a) if she was once divorced (after her father had contracted for her a betrothal) and was betrothed again while still a minor."
,k2b_6:" I.e., levirate marriage may be contracted, or <i>halizah</i> must be performed."
,k2b_7:" For, having given birth they must be of age."
,k2b_8:" Whenever one of the surviving brothers is not related to either of the widows, but another brother is, it is his duty to perform the levirate marriage or to submit to <i>halizah</i>."
,k2b_9:" Everyone of whom had also another wife or wives and the rival's rival married them in turn, ad infinitum."
,k2b_10:" V. p. 2, n. 7."
,k2b_11:" A minor (V. <i>supra</i>, p. 2, n. 6)."
,k2b_12:" V. Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k2b_13:" Exemptions enumerated in our Mishnah."
,k2b_14:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k2b_15:" Lit., 'let him teach'."
,k2b_16:" In the list."
,k2b_17:" Lit., 'took'."
,k2b_18:" The degree of the severity of the penalty incurred by sexual intercourse with one of these relatives."
,k2b_19:" The death penalty incurred for sexual intercourse with one of the first eight categories enumerated in our Mishnah. V. Sanh. 75a."
,k2b_20:" Of the four death penalties. V. Sanh. 49b."
,k2b_21:" Lit., 'if so'."
,k2b_22:" Lev. XX, 14."
,k2b_23:" The penalty for intercourse with one's daughter-in-law. V. Sanh. 53a."
,k2b_24:" I.e., born as a result of outrage. V. <i>supra</i> p. 1, n. 6."
,k2b_25:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k2b_26:" Lit., 'beloved to him'. "
}

txt:
<p>
THE WIFE OF HIS BROTHER WHO WAS NOT HIS CONTEMPORARY,<a id="k2b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW.<a id="k2b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; ALL THESE EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS AND THE RIVALS OF THEIR RIVALS, AND SO ON, AD INFINITUM, FROM THE <I>HALIZAH</I> AND FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. IF, HOWEVER, ANY AMONG THESE<a id="k2b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; DIED,<a id="k2b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; OR MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL,<a id="k2b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; OR WERE DIVORCED, OR WERE FOUND INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION, THEIR RIVALS ARE PERMITTED;<a id="k2b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; THOUGH, OF COURSE, ONE CANNOT SAY OF A MAN'S MOTHER-IN-LAW, OF THE MOTHER OF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW AND OF THE MOTHER OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW THAT THEY WERE FOUND INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION OR THAT THEY MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL.<a id="k2b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HOW IS THE EXEMPTION OF THEIR RIVALS [BY THE WOMEN MENTIONED], TO BE UNDERSTOOD? IF A MAN'S DAUGHTER OR ANY OTHER OF THESE FORBIDDEN RELATIVES WAS MARRIED TO HIS BROTHER WHO HAD ALSO ANOTHER WIFE [AT THE TIME] WHEN HE DIED, THEN AS HIS DAUGHTER IS EXEMPT SO IS HER RIVAL EXEMPT. IF HIS DAUGHTER'S RIVAL WENT AND MARRIED A SECOND BROTHER OF HIS,<a id="k2b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO ALSO HAD YET ANOTHER WIFE WHEN HE DIED, THEN AS THE RIVAL OF HIS DAUGHTER IS EXEMPT SO IS ALSO HIS DAUGHTER'S RIVAL'S RIVAL EXEMPT, EVEN IF THERE WERE A HUNDRED [BROTHERS].<a id="k2b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HOW [IS ONE TO UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT THAT] IF THEY HAD DIED, THEIR RIVALS ARE PERMITTED?<a id="k2b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; IF A MAN'S DAUGHTER OR ANY OTHER OF THESE FORBIDDEN RELATIVES WAS MARRIED TO HIS BROTHER WHO HAD ALSO ANOTHER WIFE, THEN, IF HIS DAUGHTER DIED OR WAS DIVORCED, AND HIS BROTHER DIED SUBSEQUENTLY, HER RIVAL IS PERMITTED.<a id="k2b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE RIVAL OF ANY ONE WHO IS ENTITLED TO MAKE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL<a id="k2b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT DID NOT EXERCISE HER RIGHT, MUST PERFORM <I>HALIZAH</I> [IF HER HUSBAND DIED CHILDLESS], AND MAY NOT CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<a id="k2b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Consider: All these<a id="k2b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; are deduced from the [exemption of] a wife's sister.<a id="k2b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Why then was not HIS WIFE'S SISTER mentioned<a id="k2b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; first?<a id="k2b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; And if it be replied that the Tanna enumerated<a id="k2b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [the forbidden relatives] in the order of the degrees of their respective severity,<a id="k2b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and that it [our Mishnah] represents the view of R. Simeon who regards burning<a id="k2b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; as the severest,<a id="k2b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be retorted that], if that is the case,<a id="k2b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW should have been mentioned<a id="k2b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; first, since [Scripture] enunciated the principle of burning in the case of a mother-in-law.<a id="k2b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; And, furthermore, HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW should have come<a id="k2b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; immediately after HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, since, next to burning, stoning<a id="k2b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; is the severest penalty! &mdash; But [this in fact is the proper reply]: Since [the prohibition of intercourse with] 'HIS DAUGHTER'<a id="k2b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; has been arrived at by exposition<a id="k2b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; it is given preference.<a id="k2b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k17a_1:" Adiabene, a region between the rivers Caprus and Lycus in Assyria."
,k17a_2:" Ganzaka, identified with Shiz, S.E. of Urmia Lake, N.W. of Persia, v. ibid. n. 8."
,k17a_3:" Hamadan, the capital of Media, otherwise known as Ekbatana. V. Schrader, Keilinschriften, p. 378."
,k17a_4:" Nahawand, a town on the south of Ekbatana (v. previous note). V. ibid. n. 4."
,k17a_5:" [H], Others read, [H] (fort) in the construct, and connect it with the following nouns."
,k17a_6:" Or Kerak Moshki, the Fort of Moshki. The land of the Moshki lay on the southern side of Colchis."
,k17a_7:" A locality in Assyria, variously described as Hudki, Hirki, Hizki and Huski."
,k17a_8:" Rumki, Ruthki, or the Fort of Rumki in Media. On all these localities v. Kid., Sonc. ed. pp. 365ff notes."
,k17a_9:" Localities mentioned."
,k17a_10:" Most of their inhabitants being deemed bastards, since the women had intermarried with the heathens, and their descendants, furthermore, married forbidden relatives."
,k17a_11:" This is the continuation of Rab Judah's statement."
,k17a_12:" R. Assi's ruling, <i>supra</i> 16b."
,k17a_13:" V. Deut. VII, 4 and Kid. 68b."
,k17a_14:" I.e., is regarded as a perfect heathen and his betrothal has no validity."
,k17a_15:" Of the ten tribes who married heathens."
,k17a_16:" V. <i>infra</i> 23a. The children of such unions, then, being deemed Israelites though unfit, should have the right of betrothal. How then could Samuel contend that they are deemed to be perfect heathens? (V. <i>supra</i> p. 91, n. 18)."
,k17a_17:" [H] (root, [H] or [H]. [H], 'to tear', 'split'. Lit., 'they were split', i.e., an operation for sterilization was performed on them."
,k17a_18:" Of R. Assi's ruling <i>supra</i> 16b."
,k17a_19:" The ten tribes."
,k17a_20:" Hos. V, 7."
,k17a_21:" Being of tainted birth they contaminated many pure families in Israel by their intermarriages."
,k17a_22:" The destroyed city."
,k17a_23:" [According to Obermeyer. p. 199, the district between Medina and Syria inhabited by the Arab tribe Thamod, mentioned by Plinius and which, according to the Koran (VII, 76) has been destroyed by earthquake.]"
,k17a_24:" Lit., 'redoubled'."
,k17a_25:" This explains the destruction and existence of the same city."
,k17a_26:" Referring to R. Hamnuna."
,k17a_27:" Lit., 'his strength' (BaH). Cur. edd., repeat 'what a man'."
,k17a_28:" Hipparenum, a wealthy industrial town in the Mesene district, inhabited by a Jewish community of tainted birth."
,k17a_29:" Of spurious or tainted descent who cannot obtain a wife anywhere else."
,k17a_30:" [H] a play upon the word [H], the Aleph in [H] taking the place of the <i>waw</i> in [H]."
,k17a_31:" V. n. 1."
,k17a_32:" Sheol, Hell."
,k17a_33:" Hos. XIII, 14."
,k17a_34:" Mesene, the island territory lying between the Tigris, the Euphrates and the Royal Canal. Its inhabitants were of spurious descent (v. Kid. 71b) and Harpania was situated near it."
,k17a_35:" [Palmyrean merchants would make with their caravans across the wilderness direct for Mesene and there intermarry with the inhabitants, v. Obermeyer, p. 198.]"
,k17a_36:" V. <i>supra</i>, 16b."
,k17a_37:" I.e., both measures are false. This saying is a metaphor for all sorts of people who in a minor or major degree are of spurious descent."
,k17a_38:" Tarmod being deeper and lower than Hell itself."
,k17a_39:" Harpania lying in the lowest depths of immorality and tainted descent."
,k17a_40:" V. Mishnah <i>supra</i> 2b top."
,k17a_41:" Lit., 'to them'."
,k17a_42:" And thus found his deceased brother's widow subject to the marriage with his elder brother and forbidden to himself as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'."
,k17a_43:" Of the two elder brothers who was already a married man."
,k17a_44:" The widow of the first deceased brother who is now also the widow of the second brother."
,k17a_45:" From levirate marriage with the third brother."
,k17a_46:" Her rival, the widow of the second brother, who in ordinary circumstances would have been subject to levirate marriage with the third brother since he was a contemporary of her husband."
,k17a_47:" The second brother."
,k17a_48:" I.e., said to her in the presence of witnesses, 'Be thou betrothed unto me'."
,k17a_49:" Prior to the consummation of the marriage."
,k17a_50:" V. note 7."
,k17a_51:" With the third brother. Since her husband's union with his deceased brother's widow was not consummated he never was her legal husband, and as she is consequently not her rival she cannot be exempt from the <i>halizah</i>."
,k17a_52:" Because the ma'amar that the husband of the second addressed to the first widow has partially attached that woman to him, and the second has, in consequence, become the partial rival of a forbidden relative and is, therefore, Rabbinically forbidden to enter into the levirate marriage."
,k17a_53:" In describing the widow of the first deceased brother. "
}

txt:
<p>
is Hadyab,<a id="k17a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the river Gozan is Ginzak,<a id="k17a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the cities of the Medes are Hamdan<a id="k17a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and its neighbouring towns; others say, Nihar<a id="k17a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and its neighbouring towns. Which are its neighbouring towns? &mdash; Samuel replied: Karak,<a id="k17a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Moshki,<a id="k17a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Hidki<a id="k17a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and Dumkia.<a id="k17a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: All these<a id="k17a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [were enumerated] in order to declare them as being unfit.<a id="k17a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; When, however, I<a id="k17a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; mentioned the matter<a id="k17a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; in the presence of Samuel he said to me: Thy son,<a id="k17a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; implies that he who is descended from an Israelitish woman may be called thy son, but thy son who is descended from a heathen woman is not called thy son but her son.<a id="k17a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely, there were also daughters,<a id="k17a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rabina had said, 'From this it may be inferred that thy daughter's son born from [a union with] a heathen is called thy son'!<a id="k17a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a tradition that the women of that generation were sterilized.<a id="k17a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Others read: When I mentioned the matter<a id="k17a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; in the presence of Samuel he said to me, 'They did not move from there until they had declared them<a id="k17a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; to be perfect heathens; as it is said in the Scriptures, They have dealt treacherously against the Lord, for they have begotten strange children.'<a id="k17a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joseph sat behind R. Kahana while R. Kahana sat before Rab Judah, and while sitting he made the following statement: 'Israel will make a festival when Tarmod will have been destroyed'.<a id="k17a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely, it was destroyed! &mdash; That<a id="k17a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; was Tammod.<a id="k17a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: Tarmod and Tammod are identical, but the city was rebuilt;<a id="k17a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; when it was destroyed on one side it was settled on the other side, and when the other side was destroyed it was settled on the first side.<a id="k17a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hamnuna sat before 'Ulla and was engaged in discussing a traditional law when the latter remarked,<a id="k17a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'What a man! And how much more important would he have been<a id="k17a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; had not Harpania<a id="k17a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; been his [native] town'! As the other was embarrassed, he said to him, 'Where do you pay poll tax'? &mdash; 'To Pum Nahara', the other replied. 'If so', 'Ulla said, 'You belong to Pum Nahara'. 
</p><p>
	What [is the meaning of] Harpania? &mdash; R. Zera replied: A mountain whither everybody<a id="k17a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; turns.<a id="k17a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; In a Baraitha it was taught: Whosoever did not know his family and his tribe<a id="k17a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; made his way thither. Raba said: And it was deeper than the nether-world,<a id="k17a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; for in the Scripture it is said, I shall ransom them from the power of the nether-world; I shall redeem them from death,<a id="k17a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; but for the unfitness of these there is no remedy at all; the unfit of Harpania on account of the unfit of Meshan,<a id="k17a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; and the unfit of Meshan on account of the unfit of Tarmod,<a id="k17a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and the unfit of Tarmod on account of the slaves of Solomon.<a id="k17a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus it is that people say, 'The small <i>kab</i> and the big <i>kab</i><a id="k17a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; roll down to the nether-world, from the netherworld to Tarmod,<a id="k17a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; from Tarmod to Meshan, and from Meshan to Harpania.<a id="k17a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_ii">CHAPTER II</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. HOW [IS THE EXEMPTION OF HER RIVAL BY] THE WIFE OF HIS BROTHER WHO WAS NOT HIS CONTEMPORARY'<a id="k17a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [TO BE UNDERSTOOD]? IF THERE WERE TWO BROTHERS ONE OF WHOM DIED, AND AFTER A THIRD<a id="k17a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; BROTHER WAS BORN<a id="k17a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SECOND<a id="k17a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; TOOK IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE HIS DECEASED BROTHERS WIFE AND THEN DIED HIMSELF, THE FIRST WOMAN<a id="k17a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; IS EXEMPT<a id="k17a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; AS 'THE WIFE OF HIS BROTHER WHO WAS NOT HIS CONTEMPORARY', AND THE SECOND<a id="k17a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [IS EXEMPT]<a id="k17a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; AS HER RIVAL. IF HE<a id="k17a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR<a id="k17a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; AND DIED,<a id="k17a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SECOND,<a id="k17a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; MUST PERFORM <I>HALIZAH</I><a id="k17a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT MAY NOT ENTER INTO THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<a id="k17a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Nahman said: He who uses the expression FIRST<a id="k17a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; commits no error and he who uses the expression SECOND<a id="k17a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; also commits no error. 'He who uses the expression
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k17b_1:" Lit., 'what is first?'"
,k17b_2:" The second brother who was already a married man when he contracted the levirate marriage with her. V. <i>supra</i> p 94. n. 4."
,k17b_3:" Lit., 'are we not engaged on'."
,k17b_4:" In which case the widow was also the first to marry him."
,k17b_5:" The first marriage with her husband and the second with the levir."
,k17b_6:" Deut. xxv, 5."
,k17b_7:" I.e., entitled to inherit from one another."
,k17b_8:" The expression 'brethren' in Deut. xxv, 5' in relation to the levirate marriage."
,k17b_9:" the thy servants are twelve brethren (Gen. XLII, 13)."
,k17b_10:" Jacob."
,k17b_11:" Since they were born from different mothers."
,k17b_12:" B.B. 110b, <i>infra</i> 22a."
,k17b_13:" The nakedness of thy brother's wife (Lev. XVIII, 26) which includes (v. <i>infra</i> 55a) the wife of a maternal brother."
,k17b_14:" In the case of the levirate marriage (Deut. xxv, 5) as well as that of Jacob's sons (Gen. XLII, 13) the expression is [H] 'brethren'; In that of Lev. XVIII, 16 it is [H] 'thy brother'."
,k17b_15:" Lev. XIV, 39."
,k17b_16:" Ibid. v. 44."
,k17b_17:" And an analogy between them may be drawn. Though in that case the expressions [H] and [H], are derived from different roots they are nevertheless, owing to their similarity in meaning. employed for the purposes of an analogy ('Er. 51a, Yoma 2b, Naz. 5a, Mak. 13b, Hor. 8b et a.l.), how much more so should an analogy be justified between the same nouns which differ only (v. <i>supra</i> p. 95' n. 14) in their suffixes!"
,k17b_18:" Lit., 'these words'."
,k17b_19:" The expression 'brethren' in Deut. xxv, 5 in relation to the levirate marriage."
,k17b_20:" Gen. Xlii, 8. Lot having been Abraham's nephew the deduction would establish a novel law of marriage with a deceased uncle's or nephew's widow."
,k17b_21:" Lit., 'vacant'."
,k17b_22:" Gen. XLII, 23. Cur. edd., read, in. stead of 'one man', 'our father', which occurs in v. 32. If the reference were to the latter verse 'thy servants' which does not occur there would have to be deleted here. Several MSS. support the reading here adopted."
,k17b_23:" Lit., 'to make it vacant."
,k17b_24:" Deut. xxv, 5."
,k17b_25:" In the case of Lot."
,k17b_26:" [H] (cf. Jast.) or [H] (cf. Levy). Contract. of [H] 'not it'. Aruk: derivation is from [H] + [G] 'not so my son'."
,k17b_27:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 95, n. 7."
,k17b_28:" Lit., 'and this, whence does it come', i.e., how could any one have assumed that the levirate marriage should only apply to brothers from the same father and mother?"
,k17b_29:" Lit., 'hung'."
,k17b_30:" [<I>Infra</I> 24a."
,k17b_31:" Of one's brother."
,k17b_32:" What need then was there for the expression 'brethren'?"
,k17b_33:" The expression 'brethren'."
,k17b_34:" Levirate marriage."
,k17b_35:" Lit., 'something novel'."
,k17b_36:" A brother's wife."
,k17b_37:" [H] a woman during the period between the death of her husband and the levirate marriage or <i>halizah</i>."
,k17b_38:" Rab."
,k17b_39:" Zikah [H] v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k17b_40:" Between the widow of the deceased brother and the levir, prior to the levirate marriage. Had such a bond existed, her mother would have been forbidden to the levir as his mother-in. law."
,k17b_41:" V. <i>infra</i> 41a."
,k17b_42:" Brothers. Since it is not known which of them will actually marry her, the levirate bond is necessarily weak."
,k17b_43:" Who alone is entitled to marry her,"
,k17b_44:" <i>Infra</i> 29b."
,k17b_45:" The widow."
,k17b_46:" Her mother is permitted to the levir. Consequently she would be exempted from <i>halizah</i> as 'his wife's daughter'."
,k17b_47:" <i>Infra</i> 49a."
,k17b_48:" Her mother, however, is equally permitted."
,k17b_49:" V. <i>supra</i>, p. 97' n. 11."
,k17b_50:" The prohibition to marry her mother prior to the levirate marriage as if she had already been his actual mother-in-law."
,k17b_51:" Rab Judah."
,k17b_52:" Between the widow of the deceased brother and the levir, before levirate marriage takes place."
,k17b_53:" <i>Infra</i> 41a."
,k17b_54:" Brother, who is the only one entitled to marry the widow, and may consequently be regarded as the actual husband."
,k17b_55:" v. <i>supra</i> p. 97' n. 16."
,k17b_56:" Between R. Judah and the Rabbis, <i>infra</i> 41a."
,k17b_57:" Brothers. How then could it possibly have been assumed that the <i>halachah</i> referred to the case of one brother only?"
,k17b_58:" That the <i>halachah</i> was in accordance with the view of him who said that a levirate bond exists between the widow and the levir prior to the levirate marriage. "
}

txt:
<p>
FIRST commits no error', since 'first' may signify<a id="k17b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'first to be subject [to the levirate marriage]'; and 'he who uses the expression SECOND also commits no error', since 'second' may signify 'second to marry',<a id="k17b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not our Mishnah, however, include also<a id="k17b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the case of one who contracted the levirate marriage first and subsequently married his other wife?<a id="k17b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; What, then, is meant by 'second'? Second in respect of her marriages.<a id="k17b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Where [in the Scriptures] is [the prohibition of marrying] 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary' written? &mdash; Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: Scripture states, If brethren dwell together,<a id="k17b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; i.e., dwell in the world at the same time; the wife of one's brother who was not his contemporary is consequently excluded; 'together' implies who are together in respect of inheritance,<a id="k17b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; a maternal brother is, therefore, excluded.
</p><p>
	Rabbah said: [That legal] brothers [are only those who are descended] from the same father is deduced by a comparison of this 'brotherhood'<a id="k17b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; with the 'brotherhood' of the sons of Jacob;<a id="k17b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; as there [the brotherhood was derived] from the father<a id="k17b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and not from the mother,<a id="k17b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; so here also [the brotherhood spoken of is that] from the father and not from the mother.<a id="k17b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Let him rather deduce this 'brotherhood'<a id="k17b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; from the 'brotherhood' of forbidden relatives!<a id="k17b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Brethren<a id="k17b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; may be deduced from brethren,<a id="k17b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but not brethren<a id="k17b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; from thy brother.<a id="k17b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; What practical difference is there [between the two expression]? Surely the School of R. Ishmael taught: And the priest shall return,<a id="k17b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and the priest shall come,<a id="k17b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 'returning' and 'coming' are the same thing!<a id="k17b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Such an analogy is drawn only<a id="k17b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; where there is no other identical word; when, however, there occurs another word which is identical, the analogy is made only with that which is identical.
</p><p>
	Let him, then, deduce this 'brotherhood'<a id="k17b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; from the 'brotherhood' in the case of Lot, since it is written in the Scriptures. For we are brethren!<a id="k17b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; -It stands to reason that the deduction should be made from the sons of Jacob. because the [analogous expression] is available for the purpose;<a id="k17b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; for it could have been written, Thy servants are twelve sons of one man<a id="k17b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet 'brethren' also was written. Hence it must be inferred that the word was made available for the deduction.<a id="k17b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was necessary for Scripture to write brethren,<a id="k17b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and it was also necessary to write together.<a id="k17b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; For had the All Merciful written 'brethren' only, it might have been suggested that this 'brotherhood' should be deduced from the 'brotherhood' in the case of Lot. And were you to reply that [the analogous word],<a id="k17b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; is not available for deduction,<a id="k17b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; your statement would be negatived,<a id="k17b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [the analogous word] being indeed available; for whereas he could have written 'friends' and yet wrote 'brethren', the inference must be that the object was to render it available for analogous deduction; hence the All Merciful has written 'together', implying only those who are together in respect of inheritance.<a id="k17b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; If, [on the other hand,] the All Merciful had only written 'together', it might have been said to refer to such as have the same father and mother; [hence both expressions were] required.
</p><p>
	But how could you have arrived at such an opinion?<a id="k17b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; The All Merciful has, surely, made<a id="k17b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; the levirate marriage dependent on inheritance,<a id="k17b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and inheritance<a id="k17b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; is derived from the father and not from the mother!<a id="k17b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; -It<a id="k17b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; was necessary. For it might have been assumed that whereas this<a id="k17b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; is an anomaly,<a id="k17b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; a forbidden relative<a id="k17b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; having been permitted, the brotherhood must, therefore, be both paternal and maternal; [hence it was] necessary [to teach us that the law was not so].
</p><p>
	R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If a woman awaiting the decision of the levir!<a id="k17b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; died, [the levir] is permitted to marry her mother. This obviously shews that he!<a id="k17b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that no levirate bond<a id="k17b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; exists<a id="k17b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; let him then say, the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the view of him who said no levirate bond exists!<a id="k17b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If he had said so, it might have been suggested that this applied only to the case of two<a id="k17b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; but that in the case of one<a id="k17b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; a levirate bond does exist. Then let him say, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with him who said no levirate bond exists even in the case of one levir'!<a id="k17b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If he had said so it might have been assumed even where she<a id="k17b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; is alive;<a id="k17b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; hence he taught us that only after death and not when she is still alive, because it is forbidden to abolish the commandment of levirate marriages.
</p><p>
	We learned, 'If his deceased brother's wife died he may marry her sister',<a id="k17b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies that her sister only may be married but not her mother! &mdash; The same law applies even to her mother; only because he taught in the earlier clause 'if his wife died he is permitted to marry her sister' in which case only her sister is meant and not her mother, since the latter is Biblically prohibited, he also taught in the latter clause 'he is permitted to marry her sister'.<a id="k17b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah, however, said: If a woman awaiting the decision of the levir<a id="k17b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; died, the levir is still forbidden to marry her mother. This<a id="k17b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; obviously implies that he<a id="k17b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that a levirate bond exists,<a id="k17b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; let him then say, the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the view of him who said a levirate bond exists!<a id="k17b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; -If he had said so it might have been suggested that this applied only to the case of one,<a id="k17b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of two<a id="k17b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; no levirate bond exists. But the dispute,<a id="k17b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, centered round the question of two!<a id="k17b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [this is really the reply]: If he<a id="k17b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; had said so<a id="k17b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k26a_1:" Lit., 'and all of them'. The Sage, the messenger who brought a letter of divorce and the man who testified to the death of a husband. (V. previous two Mishnahs, <i>supra</i> 250, 25b)."
,k26a_2:" At the time of their action which resulted in enabling the women there mentioned to marry."
,k26a_3:" I.e. the women concerned in their respective actions. V. previous note."
,k26a_4:" Having had their own wives at the time they were engaged in the other women's affairs they are not to be suspected of any ulterior motives. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 153, n. 2 and p. 155. n. 12."
,k26a_5:" After the decision of the Sage,"
,k26a_6:" By their second husbands."
,k26a_7:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 157, n. 6."
,k26a_8:" V. p. 157, n. 8."
,k26a_9:" The prohibition being limited to themselves."
,k26a_10:" The wives of the Sage, messenger and witness (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 157, n. 6)."
,k26a_11:" Lit., 'they died, yes'; only then is it permissible for the husbands to marry the women whom they had helped to obtain permission to marry."
,k26a_12:" It being possible that their action in favour of the women and the subsequent divorces were dictated by the same ulterior motive."
,k26a_13:" The Baraitha quoted by R. Hillel."
,k26a_14:" Before their respective husbands had acted in favour of the other women."
,k26a_15:" With their husbands. It is consequently obvious that the divorces were due to the domestic differences, and that the husband's subsequent actions were not dictated by ulterior motives."
,k26a_16:" That implied in our Mishnah."
,k26a_17:" V. <i>supra</i> note 5."
,k26a_18:" As husbands and wives lived in peace until the former had met the other women, there is good reason to suspect that the divorces were due to these meetings."
,k26a_19:" Hence there is cause for suspicion."
,k26a_20:" V. <i>supra</i> note 8."
,k26a_21:" Of the second husbands with whom marriage had taken place In the meanwhile."
,k26a_22:" In the second clause of the Previous Mishnah but one (<i>supra</i> 25a), where evidence was given that the woman's first husband had died or was killed."
,k26a_23:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 16."
,k26a_24:" Where a letter of divorce was brought by a messenger, (v. the first clause of the Mishnah <i>supra</i> 25a)."
,k26a_25:" Which allows a woman to marry a third husband though her first two husbands had died or divorced her."
,k26a_26:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> An established characteristic or defect in the woman, physical or moral, which confirms her as the cause of the death of her husbands or as the cause of the divorces. Hence, she should not have been permitted ever to marry again."
,k26a_27:" Our Mishnah does not differ from Rabbi."
,k26a_28:" V. p. 158, n. 16."
,k26a_29:" V. p. 158, n. 19."
,k26a_30:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 158. n. 17. Hence no two husbands died or divorced the same woman, and no <i>hazakah</i> could, therefore, have been constituted."
,k26a_31:" Cur. edd., 'we learned'."
,k26a_32:" Because there is reason to suspect that the marriage was planned by the man as a mere means of bringing him into closer association and intimacy with his paramour. Why, then, is this suspicion disregarded in the case of our Mishnah?"
,k26a_33:" Misconduct may, therefore, occur and suspicion (v. previous note) is justified."
,k26a_34:" And suspicion that any intimate intercourse might take place would, therefore, be groundless."
,k26a_35:" May be said in reply."
,k26a_36:" With one another's husbands. The husband is not forbidden to his wife if cohabitation occurred between him and another woman."
,k26a_37:" V. note 8."
,k26a_38:" With one another's wives. The wife of one with whom the other cohabited is forbidden to her husband."
,k26a_39:" That men are watchful of one another, and that consequently there is no ground for suspicion."
,k26a_40:" Permitting the marriage of any of the women in question."
,k26a_41:" Why, then, does our Mishnah mention sons and brothers only?"
,k26a_42:" Lit., 'it is not required he said'."
,k26a_43:" And would not venture to be too intimate with his wife."
,k26a_44:" Or brother."
,k26a_45:" The sisters."
,k26a_46:" The reason is explained in the Gemara, <i>infra</i>."
,k26a_47:" Lit., 'anticipated' (the ruling of the court)."
,k26a_48:" In the case mentioned in the first paragraph of our Mishnah."
,k26a_49:" E.g., as a mother-in-law."
,k26a_50:" Who is not forbidden on account of her rival since the latter is biblically forbidden to the levir and cannot be regarded as his zekukah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k26a_51:" The term is used in the Mishnah <i>supra</i> 20a and discussed in the Gemara <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k26a_52:" The wife of her husband's brother."
,k26a_53:" V. <i>supra</i> 20a. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 162, n. 6."
,k26a_54:" The first clause of our Mishnah."
,k26a_55:" Between the widow of a deceased childless brother and his surviving brothers, in consequence of which each widow being a zekukah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>), is forbidden as the sister of a zekukah."
,k26a_56:" They are the widows of two different husbands and neither of them stands in any marital relationship with any of the surviving brothers (v. previous note)."
,k26a_57:" A levirate bond then obviously does exist. That being so, why has the question of the existence of a levirate bond remained a matter of dispute in Ned. 742 and <i>supra</i> 17b?"
,k26a_58:" The author of our Mishnah."
,k26a_59:" And thus be prevented from marrying the other widow."
,k26a_60:" Because the surviving brother would then not be able either to marry, or to participate in the <i>halizah</i> with the second widow who by that time will have become his wife's sister. If, however, <i>halizah</i> only is performed with one brother and the death of the other should occur before the second widow had performed <i>halizah</i> with him, no difficulty would arise, since the first brother may then participate in the <i>halizah</i> of the second also."
,k26a_61:" That the reason for the prohibition of the levirate marriage with the widowed sisters is not the existence of a levirate bond but the endeavour to prevent the annulment of the precept of levirate marriage."
,k26a_62:" If two of them died childless and both their widows become subject to the levirate marriage or <i>halizah</i> of the third. In this case too the third brother must only participate in <i>halizah</i>; for, should he marry one of the sisters, the other would be forbidden, as the sister of his wife, either to marry him or to perform <i>halizah</i> with him."
,k26a_63:" Lit., 'it is not required, do we say'."
,k26a_64:" That where one of three brothers survived, no levirate marriage must take place."
,k26a_65:" Were he to marry one of the widows. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 162, n. 8."
,k26a_66:" Brothers, two of whom survived."
,k26a_67:" And that consequently one brother should marry one of the widows and the other brother the other."
,k26a_68:" Because provision must always be made against possible death."
,k26a_69:" v. previous note. "
}

txt:
<p>
that [once a woman was married she] is not taken away because of a mere rumour; and so here also [the woman married] is not to be taken away because of a rumour.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ALL THESE<a id="k26a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; HAD WIVES<a id="k26a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO [SUBSEQUENTLY] DIED, [THE OTHER WOMEN]<a id="k26a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY THEM.<a id="k26a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THEY<a id="k26a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; WERE MARRIED TO OTHERS<a id="k26a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; AND WERE [SUBSEQUENTLY] DIVORCED,<a id="k26a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; OR WIDOWED, THEY MAY BE MARRIED TO THESE.<a id="k26a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; THESE<a id="k26a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE ALSO PERMITTED TO THEIR<a id="k26a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; SONS OR BROTHERS.<a id="k26a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Only if they<a id="k26a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; died<a id="k26a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but not if they were divorced.<a id="k26a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Hillel to R. Ashi: Surely, it was taught: Even if they were divorced! &mdash; This is no difficulty: The one<a id="k26a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to the case where they led<a id="k26a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; a quarrelsome life;<a id="k26a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the other,<a id="k26a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; where they<a id="k26a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; had no quarrels.<a id="k26a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; If you prefer I might say that the one as well as the other [refers to the case] where there were no quarrels, and yet there is no difficulty: The former<a id="k26a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is a case where the husband had led on [to the divorce];<a id="k26a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; in the latter,<a id="k26a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; she led on to the divorce.
</p><p>
	IF THEY WERE MARRIED etc. It was now assumed that death<a id="k26a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; has reference to the case of death,<a id="k26a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and divorce<a id="k26a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; to that of divorce.<a id="k26a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Must it then be said that our Mishnah<a id="k26a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; is in disagreement the delivery of the letter of divorce by the messenger, or the evidence of the man who testified to their husbands' deaths. with the view of Rabbi? For had it been in agreement with Rabbi, [a third marriage would not have been allowed], for he said that two occurrences constitute a <i>hazakah</i>.<a id="k26a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No;<a id="k26a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; death<a id="k26a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [has reference] to divorce,<a id="k26a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and divorce<a id="k26a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; to death.<a id="k26a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THESE ARE ALSO PERMITTED TO THEIR SONS OR BROTHERS. Wherein is this different from the following where it was taught:<a id="k26a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; A man who is suspected of intercourse with a woman is forbidden to marry her mother, her daughter and her sister.<a id="k26a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; -It is the usual thing for women to pay frequent visits to other women;<a id="k26a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not usual, however, for men to pay frequent visits to other men.<a id="k26a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Or [this] also:<a id="k26a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Women who do not cause one another to be forbidden by their cohabitation<a id="k26a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; do not particularly mind one another;<a id="k26a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; men, however, who do cause one another to be forbidden by their cohabitation<a id="k26a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; do mind one another.<a id="k26a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,<a id="k26a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [the same law<a id="k26a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; should] also [apply to] one's father!<a id="k26a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; -The meaning is, 'There is no need',<a id="k26a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [thus]: There is no need [to state that the law<a id="k26a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable to] one's father before whom a son is shy;<a id="k26a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; but [in the case of] one's son<a id="k26a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; before whom a father<a id="k26a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; is not shy it might have been assumed [that this law was] not [to be applied], hence we were informed [that the same law was applicable to a son also].
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_iii">CHAPTER III</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IN THE CASE OF] FOUR BROTHERS, TWO OF WHOM WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, IF THOSE WHO WERE MARRIED TO THE SISTERS DIED, BEHOLD. THESE<a id="k26a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; MUST PERFORM <I>HALIZAH</I> BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE [BY THE BROTHERS].<a id="k26a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THEY HAD ALREADY<a id="k26a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; MARRIED THEM, THEY MUST DISMISS THEM. R. ELIEZER SAID: BETH SHAMMAI HOLD THAT THEY MAY RETAIN THEM, AND BETH HILLEL HOLD THAT THEY MUST DISMISS THEM.
</p><p>
	IF ONE OF THE SISTERS<a id="k26a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS FORBIDDEN TO ONE [OF THE BROTHERS] UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF INCEST,<a id="k26a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER BUT MAY MARRY HER SISTER,<a id="k26a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; WHILE TO THE SECOND BROTHER BOTH ARE FORBIDDEN.
</p><p>
	[IF ONE SISTER]<a id="k26a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS FORBIDDEN BY VIRTUE OF A COMMANDMENT<a id="k26a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; OR BY VIRTUE OF HOLINESS<a id="k26a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MUST PERFORM THE <I>HALIZAH</I> BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.
</p><p>
	IF ONE OF THE SISTERS<a id="k26a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS FORBIDDEN TO ONE BROTHER UNDER THE LAW OF INCEST AND THE OTHER SISTER WAS FORBIDDEN TO THE OTHER UNDER THE LAW OF INCEST, SHE WHO IS FORBIDDEN TO THE ONE IS PERMITTED TO THE OTHER AND SHE WHO IS FORBIDDEN TO THE OTHER IS PERMITTED TO THE FIRST. THIS IS THE CASE CONCERNING WHICH IT HAS BEEN SAID: WHEN HER SISTER IS HER SISTER-IN-LAW<a id="k26a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MAY EITHER PERFORM <I>HALIZAH</I> OR BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<a id="k26a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. This then<a id="k26a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; implies that a levirate bond exists;<a id="k26a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; for if no levirate bond exists, observe this point: These widows come from two different houses,<a id="k26a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; let one brother take in levirate marriage the one and the other brother the other!<a id="k26a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As a matter of fact it may still be assumed that no levirate bond exists<a id="k26a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; [but the levirate marriage is nevertheless forbidden] because he<a id="k26a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that it is forbidden to annul the precept of levirate marriage, it being possible that while one of the brothers married [one of the widowed sisters] the other brother would die,<a id="k26a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; and the precept of levirate marriage would be annulled.<a id="k26a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,<a id="k26a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; [the same applies to] three [brothers] also!<a id="k26a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This may be regarded as the case of 'There is no need etc.';<a id="k26a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; thus: There is no need to state three,<a id="k26a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; since the precept of levirate marriage would inevitably have to be annulled;<a id="k26a_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; but [in the case of] four<a id="k26a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; [it might have been assumed that] one need not take precautions against [possible] death,<a id="k26a_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; hence we were informed [that even in such a case levirate marriage is forbidden].<a id="k26a_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,<a id="k26a_69"><sup>69</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k26b_1:" Two of whom who were married to two sisters died and three survived. In this case also, if provision is to be made against the possibility of death, no levirate marriage should be allowed to any of the three survivors, since it might happen that two of the survivors would also die and the last and only surviving brother would be precluded from levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i> because the widows would then be his wife's sisters."
,k26b_2:" Lit., 'for the death of two'."
,k26b_3:" So Emden. Cur. edd., 'Raba'."
,k26b_4:" Lit., 'the middle one'."
,k26b_5:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 162, n. 3'"
,k26b_6:" Since each brother may only participate in <i>halizah</i> with the widow but may not, as she is the sister of his <i>haluzah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). marry her. Such a <i>halizah</i> is not of the same validity as one which is the alternative of a permitted levirate marriage."
,k26b_7:" The levirate bond between the widow and the other brothers cannot be dissolved by such a <i>halizah</i> with one of them. [Me'iri seems to have had a shorter and smoother text:&nbsp;&hellip; that a levirate bond exists and that an impaired <i>halizah</i> must go the round of all the brothers'.]"
,k26b_8:" Since they, like the third, are subject to the Ievirate bond, and with them also only <i>halizah</i>, but not levirate marriage may take place, and their <i>halizah</i> also is consequently of an impaired character."
,k26b_9:" All the three sisters."
,k26b_10:" <i>Halizah</i> would have had to be performed by every one of them with every brother."
,k26b_11:" I.e., the first brother. Reuben was Jacob's first son (Gen. XXIX, 32)."
,k26b_12:" This was a proper <i>halizah</i> since at that time he could have married her if he wished."
,k26b_13:" I.e., the second brother. Simeon was the second son of Jacob. (Cf. Gen. XXIX, 33)'"
,k26b_14:" This also was a proper <i>halizah</i> since he could marry her if he wished. She is no longer the sister of his zekukah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) since the first brother had already performed with that zekukah proper <i>halizah</i> and had thereby severed the levirate bond between her and Simeon as well as between her and himself."
,k26b_15:" Levirate marriage is no more possible since, in the case of each brother, she is the sister of his <i>haluzah</i>, while exemption from <i>halizah</i> cannot be granted because the prohibition to marry the sister of one's <i>haluzah</i> is only Rabbinical and cannot supersede the Biblical precept which requires <i>halizah</i> where no levirate marriage takes place."
,k26b_16:" Which otherwise could not have been severed. V. previous note."
,k26b_17:" <i>Supra</i> 17b."
,k26b_18:" Reported <i>supra</i> by Rabbah b. R. Huna. >"
}

txt:
<p>
the same applies to five brothers also!<a id="k26b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; -The possibility that two might die<a id="k26b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; need not be taken into consideration.
</p><p>
	Rabbah<a id="k26b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; son of R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If three sisters who are sisters-in-law fell to the lot of two brothers who are their brothers-in-law, one of the brothers participates in her <i>halizah</i> with one, and the other brother participates in the <i>halizah</i> with the other, but the third,<a id="k26b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; requires <i>halizah</i> from both. Said Rabbah to him: Since you say that the third widow requires submission to <i>halizah</i> by both brothers, you must be holding the opinion that a Ievirate bond exists<a id="k26b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and that the <i>halizah</i> is of an impaired character,<a id="k26b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and that as an impaired <i>halizah</i> it must go the round of all the brothers;<a id="k26b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but if so, [the same should apply to] the first [two sisters] also!<a id="k26b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If they<a id="k26b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; had become subject [to the levirs] at the same time the law would indeed have been so;<a id="k26b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [the statement of our Mishnah, however,] was required only in the case where they become subject [to the Ievirs] one after another. When the first sister became subject to the obligation of the levirate marriage. Reuben<a id="k26b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; participated in her <i>halizah</i>;<a id="k26b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; when the second came Under the obligation. Simeon<a id="k26b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; participated in her <i>halizah</i>;<a id="k26b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; when the third came under the obligation.<a id="k26b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; if the one brother participated in her <i>halizah</i> he removed his own levirate bond,<a id="k26b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and when the other participated in the <i>halizah</i> he likewise removed his own levirate bond. But, surely. Rab said that no levirate bond exists!<a id="k26b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This statement<a id="k26b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; he made in accordance with the opinion of him who maintains that a levirate bond does exist.
</p><p>
	Samuel, however, stated that one brother participates in the <i>halizah</i> with all of them. But consider: We have heard Samuel say that a proper <i>halizah</i> is required for Samuel said:
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k35a_1:" That three months must be allowed to pass."
,k35a_2:" Though she is not capable of conception."
,k35a_3:" A proselyte and an emancipated slave who were minors are, however, exempt. because, being cases of rare occurrence, no preventive measure is required."
,k35a_4:" The ordinance in our Mishnah."
,k35a_5:" [H] lit., 'a ruling of the hour'."
,k35a_6:" But our Mishnah, 'IF THEY WERE MINORS etc. Obviously speaks of a contingency and not of a fact."
,k35a_7:" And no preventive measure is. therefore, necessary."
,k35a_8:" Enumerated <i>infra</i> 41a, 42b."
,k35a_9:" Before they are allowed to marry again."
,k35a_10:" <i>Mi'un</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k35a_11:" That in such circumstances she need not wait three months."
,k35a_12:" A minor."
,k35a_13:" Three months."
,k35a_14:" To avoid conception and the mingling of legitimate with illegitimate children."
,k35a_15:" In the original the noun is in the sing."
,k35a_16:" Keth. 372."
,k35a_17:" Rabbah's explanation."
,k35a_18:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 1; and has always some absorbent in readiness."
,k35a_19:" Of their impending liberation."
,k35a_20:" Cf. <i>supra</i> notes 1 and 5."
,k35a_21:" V. Ex. XXI, 26, where the liberation of the slave comes suddenly. and no previous care would have been exercised by her."
,k35a_22:" Lit., 'of itself', when the woman was not likely to have been prepared with an absorbent."
,k35a_23:" That a waiting period of three months must be allowed."
,k35a_24:" Cur. edd., 'we learned'."
,k35a_25:" Which shews that even when the unexpected happens R. Jose requires no waiting period!"
,k35a_26:" The reading in Keth. 372 is 'Rabbah'. Others, 'Raba' (v. Alfasi)."
,k35a_27:" Keth. <i>loc. cit</i>. No absorbent is needed. Similarly in the case of a liberated captive or slave. Hence no waiting period is required."
,k35a_28:" Why then does he require a waiting period?"
,k35a_29:" And conception might have taken place. V. Keth. <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k35a_30:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k35a_31:" The wife of a priest. Surely she also is forbidden to her husband!"
,k35a_32:" V. previous note."
,k35a_33:" Are forbidden to marry priests."
,k35a_34:" Who were priests' daughters."
,k35a_35:" Lit., 'and lit up our eyes'."
,k35a_36:" I.e., the Mishnah <i>infra</i> 53b which was under discussion."
,k35a_37:" A priest's daughter who on the death of her husband returns to her father's house and is permitted again to eat <i>terumah</i>. V. Lev. XXII, 12-13."
,k35a_38:" <i>Infra</i> 56af. She may not marry a priest even after the death of her husband."
,k35a_39:" By our Mishnah."
,k35a_40:" I.e., daughters of priests."
,k35a_41:" PRIESTHOOD in our Mishnah referring to the right of eating <i>terumah</i> on their return to their parents' home in their widowhood (v. Lev. XXII, 13). V. <i>supra</i> n. 8, and the reading of cur. edd. <i>supra</i> p. 211, n. 8. "
}

txt:
<p>
the Rabbis having made the provision<a id="k35a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case of a minor<a id="k35a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; as a precaution against one who is of age.<a id="k35a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But is provision made in the case of a minor as a precaution against one who is of age? Surely we learnt, IF THEY WERE MINORS INCAPABLE OF BEARING CHILDREN THEY MAY BE RESTORED AT ONCE! &mdash; R. Giddal replied: This<a id="k35a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; was a special ruling.<a id="k35a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Does this imply that such a case had actually occurred!<a id="k35a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather [this is the meaning:] It<a id="k35a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; was like a special ruling, since the exchange of brides is an unusual occurrence.<a id="k35a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Others adopt] a different reading: Samuel said: All these women,<a id="k35a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; with the exception of a proselyte and an emancipated slave who were of age, must wait three months.<a id="k35a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; An Israelitish minor, however, need not wait three months. But how [was she separated]? If by a declaration of refusal,<a id="k35a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely Samuel has already stated this<a id="k35a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; one! And if by a letter of divorce, Samuel surely stated that she<a id="k35a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; must wait!<a id="k35a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; For Samuel said: If she exercise her right of refusal against him, she need not wait three months; if he gave her a letter of divorce she must wait three months! [It was] rather in respect of harlotry, and harlotry with a minor<a id="k35a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; an unusual occurrence.<a id="k35a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Let, however, a preventive measure<a id="k35a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; be made in respect of a proselyte and an emancipated slave with whom harlotry is not unusual! &mdash; He holds the same view as R. Jose. For it was taught: Proselytes,<a id="k35a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; captives<a id="k35a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; or slaves<a id="k35a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; who were redeemed, or embraced the Jewish faith or were emancipated, must wait three months; so R. Judah. R. Jose permits immediate betrothal and marriage.<a id="k35a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said: What is R. Jose's reason? He is of the opinion that a woman who plays the harlot makes use of an absorbent in order to prevent conception.<a id="k35a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Abaye to him: This<a id="k35a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; is intelligible in the case of a proselyte; as her intention is to embrace the Jewish faith she is careful<a id="k35a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; in order to know the distinction between the seed that was sown in holiness and the seed that was sown in unholiness. It<a id="k35a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; is also [intelligible In the case of] a captive and a slave; since on hearing from their masters<a id="k35a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; they exercise care.<a id="k35a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; How is this<a id="k35a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; to be applied. however, in the case of one who is liberated through the loss of a tooth or an eye?<a id="k35a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; And were you to suggest that wherever something unexpected happens<a id="k35a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose admits,<a id="k35a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; surely it was taught:<a id="k35a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; A woman who had been outraged or seduced must wait three months; so R. Judah. R. Jose permits immediate betrothal and marriage!<a id="k35a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather, said Abaye,<a id="k35a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; a woman playing the harlot turns over In order to prevent conception.<a id="k35a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; And the other?<a id="k35a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; -There is the apprehension that she might not have turned over properly.<a id="k35a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THEY WERE PRIESTLY WOMEN etc. Only<a id="k35a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; priestly women but not an Israelitish woman?<a id="k35a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; -Read, 'If they were the wives of priests'.<a id="k35a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Only' 'priests' wives,'<a id="k35a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; but not Israelites' wives?<a id="k35a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely R. Amram said, 'The following statement was made to us by R. Shesheth who threw light on the subject<a id="k35a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; from our Mishnah:<a id="k35a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; An Israelite's wife<a id="k35a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; who was outraged, though she is permitted to her husband, is disqualified from the priesthood.<a id="k35a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba replied: It is this that was meant:<a id="k35a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THEY WERE PRIESTLY WOMEN<a id="k35a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; married to Israelites THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED from eating <i>terumah</i> at their parents' home.<a id="k35a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>

      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_iv">CHAPTER IV</A>
      </H2>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k35b_1:" Whose husband died without issue."
,k35b_2:" Although the child died soon after."
,k35b_3:" Since a viable child was born the <i>halizah</i> is rendered void."
,k35b_4:" She, unlike any other <i>haluzah</i>, may marry a priest. V. n. 3 <i>supra</i>."
,k35b_5:" I.e., if it was of a premature birth."
,k35b_6:" Prior to the levirate marriage."
,k35b_7:" Since the levirate marriage should not take place where the deceased brother has had any issue."
,k35b_8:" A sin-offering for their unwitting transgression in contracting a forbidden marriage (one's brother's wife) where the precept of the levirate marriage did not apply. V. <i>supra</i> n. 7."
,k35b_9:" Since in either case he has been born from a lawful union: If he is a nine-months child he is the legitimate offspring of the deceased brother; and if he is a seven-months child of the surviving brother, the deceased had died without issue and the marriage between the widow and the surviving brother was accordingly lawful."
,k35b_10:" The offering prescribed for doubtful trespass. V. Lev. V, 17ff and cf. Ker. 17b."
,k35b_11:" Who miscarried."
,k35b_12:" The miscarriage proved that the previous <i>halizah</i> or marriage were lawful."
,k35b_13:" R. Johanan and Resh Lakish."
,k35b_14:" V. BaH a.l. Cur. edd. reverse the order."
,k35b_15:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k35b_16:" The deceased whose widow has now miscarried."
,k35b_17:" [H]."
,k35b_18:" [H] 'consider', 'investigate'. The 'Ayin ([H]) of [H] is interchanged with the Aleph ([H]) of [H]."
,k35b_19:" Inquire whether the deceased has been survived by any kind of child. Even a miscarriage is deemed to be a child. Cf. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 474. nn. 6ff."
,k35b_20:" The prophet, who could predict the future."
,k35b_21:" Of course she would."
,k35b_22:" That she has actually miscarried, though after the <i>halizah</i> or levirate marriage."
,k35b_23:" The prohibition for the woman to marry a priest."
,k35b_24:" One not knowing the circumstances of this particular case would erroneously assume that any other <i>haluzah</i> may also be married to a priest."
,k35b_25:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 2. Had not this been specifically stated it might have been assumed that, as the <i>halizah</i> is invalid, she is not rendered unfit at all."
,k35b_26:" Because she does."
,k35b_27:" Who regard the <i>halizah</i> as valid."
,k35b_28:" And the prohibition to marry each other's relatives and his rendering her unfit for a priest would be inferred as self-evident."
,k35b_29:" Lit., yes, thus also'."
,k35b_30:" The ruling concerning <i>halizah</i> not being applicable in this context, since a viable child was born."
,k35b_31:" So in old editions. Cur. edd. omit 'also'."
,k35b_32:" Thus, as in the first clause, omitting all reference to <i>halizah</i>."
,k35b_33:" Of the levir."
,k35b_34:" Emphasis on MAY. No second contact is necessary after the miscarriage, (since the first was valid) and the levir may also, if he wishes, divorce her."
,k35b_35:" Of the levir."
,k35b_36:" Lit., 'it is not enough without such'. V. Emden, a.l. Cur. edd. omit the last two words."
,k35b_37:" The option of either retaining or divorcing her."
,k35b_38:" Cf. n. 3 <i>supra</i>."
,k35b_39:" Who deem the marriage to be valid."
,k35b_40:" Lit., 'yes thus also'."
,k35b_41:" And free to marry. since her deceased husband is now survived by a living child, and neither she nor the other widow is subject to <i>halizah</i> or levirate marriage."
,k35b_42:" So that his mother as well as her rival would be subject to the levir, the former's previous marital contact, during her pregnancy. being invalid."
,k35b_43:" R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. "
}

txt:
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A LEVIR PARTICIPATED IN <I>HALIZAH</I> WITH HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE<a id="k35b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND TO BE PREGNANT, AND SHE GAVE BIRTH, HE IS, WHEREVER THE CHILD IS VIABLE,<a id="k35b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; PERMITTED TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES,<a id="k35b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HE DOES NOT RENDER HER UNFIT FOR THE PRIESTHOOD;<a id="k35b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT WHEREVER THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE,<a id="k35b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; THE LEVIR IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES, AND HE RENDERS HER UNFIT TO MARRY A PRIEST.
</p><p>
	IF A LEVIR MARRIED HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE<a id="k35b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PREGNANT,<a id="k35b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SHE GAVE BIRTH, HE, WHEREVER THE CHILD IS VIABLE, MUST<a id="k35b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; DIVORCE HER. AND BOTH ARE UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF BRINGING AN OFFERING;<a id="k35b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE, HE MAY RETAIN HER. IF IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER IT IS A NINE-MONTHS CHILD OF THE FIRST [HUSBAND] OR A SEVEN-MONTHS CHILD OF THE SECOND [HUSBAND]. SHE MUST BE DIVORCED, AND THE CHILD IS LEGITIMATE,<a id="k35b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THEY ARE UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF AN ASHAM TALUI.<a id="k35b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It was stated: In the case of a levir who participated In <i>halizah</i> with a pregnant woman who subsequently miscarried, R. Johanan said, She need not perform the <i>halizah</i> with the brothers; and Resh Lakish said: She must perform <i>halizah</i> with the brothers. 'R. Johanan said, She need not perform <i>halizah</i> with the brothers', because the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman<a id="k35b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is deemed to be proper <i>halizah</i> and marital contact with a pregnant woman is deemed to be proper marriage.<a id="k35b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Resh Lakish said: She must perform <i>halizah</i> with the brothers', because the <i>halizah</i> with a pregnant woman is not deemed to be a proper <i>halizah</i>, nor is marital contact with a pregnant woman deemed to be a proper marriage. On what principle do they<a id="k35b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; differ? &mdash; If you wish I might say: In the interpretation of a Scriptural text. And if you prefer I might say: On a logical point. 'If you wish I might say: In the interpretation of a Scriptural text';<a id="k35b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan is of the opinion that the All Merciful said, And have no child,<a id="k35b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and this man<a id="k35b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; surely has none; while Resh Lakish is of the opinion that And have no [en lo] child<a id="k35b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; implies. 'Hold an inquiry<a id="k35b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; concerning him'.<a id="k35b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And If you prefer I might say: On a logical point'; R. Johanan argues: Had Elijah<a id="k35b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; appeared and announced that the woman would miscarry. would she not have been subject to <i>halizah</i> or levirate marriage?<a id="k35b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Now also<a id="k35b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; the fact is established retrospectively. And Resh Lakish maintains that a fact cannot be said to have been established retrospectively.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: WHEREVER THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE THE LEVIR IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES, AND HE RENDERS HER UNFIT TO MARRY A PRIEST. This is quite correct according to my view: Since I maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is a proper <i>halizah</i> he, consequently, renders her unfit. According to you, however, who maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is not proper <i>halizah</i>, why does he render her unfit to marry a priest? &mdash; The other answered him: It<a id="k35b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; is only Rabbinical and it is a mere restriction.<a id="k35b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Others say: Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: WHEREVER THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE THE LEVIR IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES, AND HE RENDERS HER UNFIT TO MARRY A PRIEST. This is quite correct according to my view; since I maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is not a proper <i>halizah</i> it was justly stated as a restriction,<a id="k35b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; that HE RENDERS HER UNFIT TO MARRY A PRIEST but not that 'she requires no <i>halizah</i> from the brothers';<a id="k35b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; according to you, however,<a id="k35b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; it should have been stated that 'she requires no <i>halizah</i> from the brothers'!<a id="k35b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: It should have been indeed;<a id="k35b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; only because in the first clause it was stated, HE DOES NOT RENDER HER UNFIT<a id="k35b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; it was also<a id="k35b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; stated in the latter clause, HE RENDERS HER UNFIT.<a id="k35b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: IF THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE, HE MAY RETAIN HER. This is quite correct according to my view; since I maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is a proper <i>halizah</i> and marital contact<a id="k35b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; with a pregnant woman is a proper marriage. it was rightly stated HE MAY RETAIN HER.<a id="k35b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; According to you, however, who maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is not a valid <i>halizah</i> and the marital contact<a id="k35b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; with a pregnant woman is not a valid marriage, it should have been stated, 'He must repeat contact and only then he may retain her'! &mdash; The meaning of HE MAY RETAIN HER is that he must repeat contact and then HE MAY RETAIN HER, but not otherwise.<a id="k35b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Others say: Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: IF THE CHILD IS NOT VIABLE HE MAY RETAIN HER. This is quite correct according to my view; since I maintain that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is not a valid <i>halizah</i> and marital contact with a pregnant woman is not a valid marriage, it was rightly stated HE MAY RETAIN HER, [meaning that] he must repeat contact and then HE MAY RETAIN HER, since otherwise this<a id="k35b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; would not have been permitted.<a id="k35b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; According to you,<a id="k35b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; however, it should have been stated, 'If he wishes he may divorce her and if he prefers he may continue to live with her'! &mdash; It should have been indeed;<a id="k35b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; only because in the earlier clause it was stated HE MUST DIVORCE HER, it was also stated in the latter clause HE MAY RETAIN HER.
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: 'Where a levir married his yebamah who was found to be pregnant, her rival may not be married, since it is possible that the child would be viable'. On the contrary! If the child were viable her rival would be exempt!<a id="k35b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But read: Since it is possible that the child would not be viable.<a id="k35b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it could be imagined that marital contact with a pregnant woman is to be regarded as a valid marriage, why may not her rival be married? She should be exempted through the marital contact of her associate! &mdash; Abaye replied: Both<a id="k35b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; agree that by marital contact she does not exempt [her rival]; they differ only on the question of <i>halizah</i>. R. Johanan is of the opinion that the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is a valid <i>halizah</i>, though marital contact with a pregnant woman is not a valid marriage, while Resh Lakish is of the opinion that marital contact with a pregnant woman is no valid marriage, nor is <i>halizah</i> with a pregnant woman a valid <i>halizah</i>. Said Raba: Whatever is your opinion? If marital contact with a pregnant woman is a valid marriage. the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman should be a valid <i>halizah</i>; or if marital contact with a pregnant woman is no valid marriage, the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman also should be no proper <i>halizah</i>; for we have an established rule
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k50a_1:" The span of life allotted to every human being at his birth."
,k50a_2:" The meaning of fulfil is addition to the allotted span of life."
,k50a_3:" II Kings XX, 6."
,k50a_4:" Emphasis on add."
,k50a_5:" Years which were originally allotted to him and then curtailed."
,k50a_6:" That the years added were only those allotted to Hezekiah at his birth and reduced at his illness."
,k50a_7:" In the days of Jeroboam, long before the birth of Hezekiah."
,k50a_8:" I Kings XIII, 2."
,k50a_9:" From whom Josiah descended."
,k50a_10:" At the time of Hezekiah's illness. Manasseh, in fact, was born three years after his father's illness (v. II Kings XXI, 2); and since the birth of his sun Josiah was prophetically announced long before the birth of his father Hezekiah, it is obvious that the years allotted to Hezekiah at his birth extended beyond the year of his illness (to include the year of Manasseh's birth). Consequently, the original number must have been reduced at his illness; and, at his recovery, only that was added which was first reduced."
,k50a_11:" How could they, in view of the argument advanced, maintain that view years were added to Hezekiah's life?"
,k50a_12:" Josiah."
,k50a_13:" Of the house of David."
,k50a_14:" Since the laws therein enumerated are self-evident. Lev. XVIII, 18, from where the prohibition of marrying the sister of one's wife originates, distinctly limits the prohibition to the wife's life-time: And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister&nbsp;&hellip; in her life-time. V. Rashi a.l. According to Tosaf (s.v. [H] a.l. q.v.) the unnecessary Mishnah is only that portion which relates to the sister-in-law whose case could be inferred from that of the wife a minori ad majus."
,k50a_15:" Given in succession by one levir to two sisters-in-law, i.e., the widows of a deceased childless brother, or by two levirs to one sister-in-law. (The term sister-in-law used throughout this chapter is to be understood in the sense defined). The second divorce is invalid and the relatives of the second widow are, therefore, permitted to the levir, and so are the relatives of the one widow to the second levir. Whether the first divorce is valid or not, the second is at all events valueless. For if the first is valid the levirate bond with both the widows is thereby severed and the second widow (in the case of one levir) or the one widow (in the case of two Levirs) when receiving the second letter of divorce, is a complete stranger to the levir. If, on the other hand, the first divorce was invalid, the second also, for the same reason, is invalid."
,k50a_16:" Addressed in succession (a) by one levir to two sisters-in-law or (b) by two levirs to one sister-in-law. The first ma'amar has satisfied all the requirements of the levirate obligations and, consequently, (a) the second widow, or (b) the one widow to whom the second ma'amar was addressed, requires no letter of divorce from (a) the one levir or (b) the second levir respectively. The second widow, moreover, does nor cause the prohibition to the levir of the first widow, and her relatives also are permitted to the levir as are those of the one widow to the second levir."
,k50a_17:" The second act by the one levir with the second widow or by the second levir with the one widow respectively, is deemed to be one of mere adultery and has no matrimonial validity to cause the prohibition of her relatives to the levir."
,k50a_18:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2. The first <i>halizah</i> has finally severed the levirate bond between the levir or the levirs and the widow or the widows. The second <i>halizah</i> is, therefore, valueless."
,k50a_19:" The relatives of the second widow are, therefore, forbidden to the levir (as relatives of his legal divorcee), and the relatives of the one widow are similarly forbidden to the second levir. The first letter of divorce, the Sages maintain, is only partially valid since <i>halizah</i> also is required. The levirate bond consequently is not thereby completely severed and the second divorce brings the widow under the category of a divorced woman. Cf <i>supra</i> 327 n. 1."
,k50a_20:" The first ma'amar effected only partial matrimony and the levirate obligations were not fully satisfied before the consummation of the marriage took place. The second ma'amar, since it was made before consummation had taken place, is, therefore, valid."
,k50a_21:" Either of these acts satisfies fully all the requirements of the levirate obligations. The former effected complete union; the latter final severance. No act in connection with the levirate obligations that follows either of these can, therefore, have any validity."
,k50a_22:" Between one levir and one sister-in-law. This section has no reference to the dispute in the previous section. V. Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k50a_23:" But no levirate marriage may now he contracted. The ma'amar alone has not completely satisfied the requirements of the levirate obligations (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1), hence the need for <i>halizah</i>. Since, however, a divorce had been given the levir had placed himself under the prohibition of Deut. XXV, 9 'That doth not build': if he once refused to build he must never again build (v. <i>supra</i> 10b), hence the prohibition of the levirate marriage."
,k50a_24:" To annul the ma'amar which, in some respects, has the force of a betrothal. The <i>halizah</i> alone is not enough since it only severs a levirate bond but does not annul a ma'amar."
,k50a_25:" This is discussed in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k50a_26:" Even according to R. Gamaliel. The divorce is required to annul the ma'amar since it is possible that the first divorce was invalid and the ma'amar had, therefore, been valid. According to the Sages, who regard the divorce as partially valid, the ma'amar also is partially valid and a divorce is required to annul that part."
,k50a_27:" In order to sever thereby the levirate bond. Levirate marriage, however, must not take place now after the delivery of the first letter of divorce (v. <i>supra</i> p. 325, n. 4 final clause)."
,k50a_28:" Levirate marriage is forbidden owing to the first divorce (v. <i>supra</i> p. 325, n. 4, final clause), a letter of divorce is required owing to the act of cohabitation, while <i>halizah</i> is necessary to sever the levirate bond."
,k50a_29:" Whether it be the addressing of a ma'amar or cohabitation. The levirate bond has completely disappeared."
,k50a_30:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 3. This refers to the cases where <i>halizah</i> was performed first. With reference to the last three cases, where cohabitation took place first, the expression should be 'no act is valid after cohabitation'. V. Gemara <i>infra</i>. "
}

txt:
<p>
refers to the years of the generations.<a id="k50a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; If one is worthy one is allowed to complete the full period; if unworthy. the number is reduced; so R. Akiba. But the Sages said: If one is worthy years are added to one's life;<a id="k50a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; if unworthy, the years of his life are reduced. They said to R. Akiba: Behold, Scripture says,<a id="k50a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And I will add unto your days fifteen years!<a id="k50a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: The addition was made of his own,<a id="k50a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; You may know [that this is so]<a id="k50a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; since the prophet<a id="k50a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; stood up and prophesied: Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name,<a id="k50a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; while Manasseh<a id="k50a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; had not yet been born.<a id="k50a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And the Rabbis!<a id="k50a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Is it written 'from Hezekiah'? It is surely written, 'To the house of David';<a id="k50a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k50a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; might be born either from Hezekiah or from any other person.<a id="k50a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A MAN'S WIFE DIED etc. IF A MAN'S SISTER-IN-LAW DIED etc. R. Joseph said: Here Rabbi taught an unnecessary Mishnah.<a id="k50a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_v">CHAPTER V</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. R. GAMALIEL SAID: THERE IS NO [VALIDITY IN A] LETTER OF DIVORCE AFTER ANOTHER LETTER OF DIVORCE,<a id="k50a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR IN A MA'AMAR AFTER ANOTHER MA'AMAR<a id="k50a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR IN AN ACT OF COHABITATION AFTER ANOTHER ACT OF COHABITATION,<a id="k50a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR IN A <I>HALIZAH</I> AFTER ANOTHER <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k50a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAID: A LETTER OF DIVORCE HAS VALIDITY AFTER ANOTHER LETTER OF DIVORCE,<a id="k50a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; AND A MA'AMAR AFTER ANOTHER MA'AMAR;<a id="k50a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT AFTER COHABITATION OR <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k50a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HOW [IS THE RELEASE FROM THE LEVIRATE BOND<a id="k50a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; EFFECTED]? &mdash; IF A LEVIR ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND SUBSEQUENTLY GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER TO PERFORM THE <I>HALIZAH</I> WITH HIM.<a id="k50a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR AND PARTICIPATED IN THE <I>HALIZAH</I>, IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER TO OBTAIN FROM HIM A LETTER OF DIVORCE.<a id="k50a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR AND THEN COHABITED WITH HER, BEHOLD THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED PRECEPT.<a id="k50a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THE LEVIR GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER TO OBTAIN [A SECOND] LETTER OF DIVORCE<a id="k50a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; AND TO PERFORM THE <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k50a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND THEN COHABITED WITH HER, IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER TO OBTAIN A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND TO PERFORM THE <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k50a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND THEN SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I>, THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT<a id="k50a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; AFTER <I>HALIZAH</I> HAD BEEN PERFORMED.
</p><p>
	IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR COHABITED WITH HER; OR IF HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR SUBMITTED TO HER <I>HALIZAH</I>, NO ACT IS VALID AFTER <I>HALIZAH</I><a id="k50a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k50b_1:" How are the obligations of the levirate carried out where there is one levir and two sisters-in-law?"
,k50b_2:" Sister-in-law."
,k50b_3:" One for each woman, in accordance with the view of the Sages in our Mishnah that a ma'amar after a ma'amar is valid."
,k50b_4:" With either. The <i>halizah</i> with one exempts her rival."
,k50b_5:" Levirate marriage, however, is now forbidden since one must not build two houses'. V. <i>supra</i>."
,k50b_6:" Marriage with her must not be consummated on account of the divorce of the second; hence the necessity for a divorce to annul the ma'amar which the <i>halizah</i> cannot do."
,k50b_7:" To sever thereby the levirate bond which a letter of divorce cannot do."
,k50b_8:" On account of the ma'amar and the cohabitation respectively. The second widow may not be retained in matrimony owing to the bond of the ma'amar with the first."
,k50b_9:" The other becoming thereby exempt from the levirate obligations. The divorce alone does not set the second free because the cohabitation with her was not the performance of a legal commandment but an unlawful act."
,k50b_10:" The <i>halizah</i> of this second cannot annul the force of the ma'amar of the first."
,k50b_11:" The <i>halizah</i> is performed by one who thereby exempts the other. V. Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k50b_12:" She is forbidden to the levir on account of the divorce of the first."
,k50b_13:" Divorce alone is not enough since the cohabitation was unlawful (cf. <i>supra</i> note 3)."
,k50b_14:" The <i>halizah</i> of the second sets both widows free; and the divorce of the first is of no consequence."
,k50b_15:" Cf p. 329, n. 4. The relatives of the second widow are permitted to him as if he had not acted at all after the first <i>halizah</i>."
,k50b_16:" And the two levirs performed the above mentioned acts with the same widow."
,k50b_17:" Where there was only one levir and one sister-in-law."
,k50b_18:" The same sister-an-law."
,k50b_19:" Between a ma'amar and a divorce. If, e.g., he gave a letter of divorce to one, submitted to <i>halizah</i> from the other and then addressed a ma'amar to one of them."
,k50b_20:" After a ma'amar and a divorce. The <i>halizah</i> is invariably valid, and any ma'amar addressed subsequently has no validity at all, and the widow requires no divorce."
,k50b_21:" If. e.g.. he divorced one, cohabited with the other and addressed a ma'amar to a third, in which case the cohabitation, owing to the previous divorce, was unlawful."
,k50b_22:" If he divorced one, addressed a ma'amar to the other, and then cohabited with one of them. V. <i>supra</i> n. 7."
,k50b_23:" Of the levirate bond."
,k50b_24:" Hence, in the first case (v. <i>supra</i> n. 7), the relatives of the last widow are forbidden to him, and in the second case (v. <i>supra</i> n. 8), <i>halizah</i> is required, since the levirate bond cannot be severed by a letter of divorce."
,k50b_25:" After cohabitation a letter of divorce without <i>halizah</i> is enough, and betrothal of the other after cohabitation with the first is invalid."
,k50b_26:" That of R. Gamaliel and the Sages in our Mishnah."
,k50b_27:" The divorce prevents subsequent levirate marriage under the prohibition of 'that doth not build' etc. (v. <i>supra</i> p. 328, n. 4, second clause); and the ma'amar prevents the levirate marriage of a rival under the injunction, 'a levir may build one house but not two houses', and necessitates also a letter of divorce should it be desired to cancel the ma'amar."
,k50b_28:" In the Pentateuch, surely, only <i>halizah</i> was prescribed and the prohibition under 'that doth not build' should apply to the prescribed ceremony only!"
,k50b_29:" In the release of all married women."
,k50b_30:" And that the levir may marry the widow even after he gave her a letter of divorce."
,k50b_31:" v. <i>supra</i> n. 4."
,k50b_32:" And thus infringe a Pentateuchal prohibition."
,k50b_33:" Forbidding levirate marriage with her rival. Since, according to the Pentateuch, acquisition of the sister-in-law is effected by the consummation of the levirate marriage, that consummation only should have had the force of forbidding marriage with the rival."
,k50b_34:" The usual betrothal between man and woman, which is as binding as the consummation of marriage."
,k50b_35:" And that after a ma'amar had been addressed to a sister-in-law her rival may be married."
,k50b_36:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7."
,k50b_37:" Without subsequent cohabitation."
,k50b_38:" Unless there was also a ma'amar."
,k50b_39:" With a rival."
,k50b_40:" With one of the widows. Such a marriage. however, would infringe (v. <i>supra</i> note 1) a Pentateuchal prohibition."
,k50b_41:" Of the levirate bond."
,k50b_42:" <i>Halizah</i> being required in the case of the second widow in addition to the letter of divorce. V. <i>supra</i> p. 330, nn. 6 and 7."
,k50b_43:" With one sister-in-law."
,k50b_44:" To the other."
,k50b_45:" V. p. 332. n. 16."
,k50b_46:" Were a letter of divorce alone, without <i>halizah</i>, permitted, it might have been assumed that as unlawful cohabitation is so effective it might also be effective enough to annul a previous <i>halizah</i>."
,k50b_47:" Cf. p. 332, n. 26, and p. 330, nn. 2 and 3."
,k50b_48:" It might have been assumed that as unlawful cohabitation has the force of validity even after a ma'amar which is a legal <i>kinyan</i>, it has also the same force after a <i>kinyan</i> that had been effected through lawful cohabitation. Acting on this argument one would infringe the prohibition of marriage with one's brother's wife."
,k50b_49:" Performed after a divorce or a ma'amar."
,k50b_50:" Should the levir subsequent to such a <i>halizah</i> address a ma'amar or give a letter of divorce to a third sister-in-law his act would have no validity whatsoever."
,k50b_51:" So that a levir does not submit to the <i>halizah</i> of two sisters-in-law in succession, and two levirs do not submit in succession to the <i>halizah</i> of one sister-in-law."
,k50b_52:" And none will be the worse for it."
,k50b_53:" That it be not assumed that <i>halizah</i> without a letter of divorce is sufficient after an act of cohabitation."
,k50b_54:" The implication of 'nothing lingers after an unlawful halizah' is the invalidity of all subsequent acts. Any previous act such as ma'amar or cohabitation is valid, and a letter of divorce to annul it is certainly required. "
}

txt:
<p>
AND THE LAW IS THE SAME WHETHER THERE IS ONE SISTER-IN-LAW TO ONE LEVIR OR TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW TO ONE LEVIR.
</p><p>
	HOW?<a id="k50b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; IF THE LEVIR ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO THE ONE<a id="k50b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND A MA'AMAR TO THE OTHER,<a id="k50b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; TWO LETTERS OF DIVORCE<a id="k50b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ONE <I>HALIZAH</I><a id="k50b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE REQUIRED.<a id="k50b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO ONE AND GAVE A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO THE OTHER, [THE ONE] REQUIRES A LETTER OF DIVORCE<a id="k50b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND [THE OTHER MUST PERFORM] THE <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k50b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO ONE AND COHABITED WITH THE OTHER, BOTH REQUIRE LETTERS OF DIVORCE<a id="k50b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; AND [ONE MUST PERFORM] THE <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k50b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO ONE AND SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> FROM THE OTHER, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE FIRST TO OBTAIN A LETTER OF DIVORCE.<a id="k50b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THE LEVIR GAVE A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER, <I>HALIZAH</I> IS NECESSARY FOR BOTH.<a id="k50b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE GAVE A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AND COHABITED WITH THE OTHER, [THE SECOND] REQUIRES A LETTER OF DIVORCE<a id="k50b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; AND MUST ALSO PERFORM THE <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k50b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE GAVE] A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AND ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO THE OTHER, [THE SECOND] REQUIRES A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND [ONE OF THEM MUST PERFORM] THE <I>HALIZAH</I>. [IF HE GAVE] A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AND SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> FROM THE OTHER, THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT THAT FOLLOWS THE <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k50b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH FROM THE ONE AND FROM THE OTHER, OR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> [FROM ONE] AND ADDRESSED [TO THE OTHER] A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR COHABITED WITH HER; OR IF HE COHABITED WITH THE ONE AND WITH THE OTHER, OR COHABITED [WITH THE ONE] AND ADDRESSED [TO THE OTHER] A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR SUBMITTED TO HER <I>HALIZAH</I>, NO ACT IS VALID AFTER THE <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k50b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW] WHETHER THERE WAS ONE LEVIR TO TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW OR TWO LEVIRS TO ONE SISTER-IN-LAW.<a id="k50b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[IF THE LEVIR]<a id="k50b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER<a id="k50b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR COHABITED WITH HER; OR IF HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I>, NO ACT IS VALID AFTER THE <I>HALIZAH</I>, WHETHER [IT WAS PERFORMED] IN THE BEGINNING, IN THE MIDDLE,<a id="k50b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; OR AT THE END.<a id="k50b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE CASE OF COHABITATION, IF IT TOOK PLACE FIRST NO ACT THAT FOLLOWS IT HAS ANY VALIDITY; IF IT OCCURRED, HOWEVER, IN THE MIDDLE<a id="k50b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; OR AT THE END<a id="k50b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; SOMETHING VALID<a id="k50b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; STILL REMAINS.<a id="k50b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. NEHEMIAH SAID: WITH COHABITATION AS WITH <I>HALIZAH</I>, WHETHER IT TOOK PLACE IN THE BEGINNING, IN THE MIDDLE, OR AT THE END, THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT THAT FOLLOWS IT.<a id="k50b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Their difference<a id="k50b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; concerns only a letter of divorce after another letter of divorce and a ma'amar after another ma'amar, but one letter of divorce to one sister-in-law or one ma'amar to one sister-in-law is valid.<a id="k50b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Why did the Rabbis say that a letter of divorce to one sister-in-law is valid?<a id="k50b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because it is also valid elsewhere.<a id="k50b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; For should you suggest that it is not valid,<a id="k50b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; it might be argued that since a letter of divorce serves to release a woman and <i>halizah</i> serves to release a woman, as the letter of divorce is of no effect,<a id="k50b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; so is the <i>halizah</i> also of no effect, and thus one would come to consummate marriage after <i>halizah</i>.<a id="k50b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And why did the Rabbis say that a ma'amar with one sister-in-law is valid?<a id="k50b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because it is valid elsewhere.<a id="k50b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; For should you say that it is not valid,<a id="k50b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; it might be argued that since a ma'amar serves the purpose of acquisition<a id="k50b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; and cohabitation serves the purpose of acquisition,<a id="k50b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; as a ma'amar is of no effect,<a id="k50b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; so is cohabitation also of no effect<a id="k50b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and one would thus consummate marriage<a id="k50b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; after an act of cohabitation.<a id="k50b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And why did the Rabbis say that after an invalid cohabitation something<a id="k50b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; lingers?<a id="k50b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It might be replied that if it is a cohabitation<a id="k50b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; after a letter of divorce,<a id="k50b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; a preventive measure was made<a id="k50b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; against cohabitation after <i>halizah</i>;<a id="k50b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; and if it is a cohabitation<a id="k50b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; after a ma'amar<a id="k50b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; a preventive measure had to be made<a id="k50b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; against cohabitation after cohabitation.<a id="k50b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And why did the Rabbis say that after the invalid <i>halizah</i><a id="k50b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; nothing lingers?<a id="k50b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It may be replied: What kind of preventive measure could have been enacted! Should <i>halizah</i> after a letter of divorce be forbidden as a preventive measure against <i>halizah</i> after <i>halizah</i>?<a id="k50b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; Under such circumstances, surely, <i>halizah</i> might well be indefinitely continued!<a id="k50b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; And should <i>halizah</i> after a ma'amar be forbidden as a preventive measure against <i>halizah</i> after cohabitation?<a id="k50b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely [it may be replied] is not in the case of <i>halizah</i> after a ma'amar, a letter of divorce required in respect of one's ma'amar? So also in the case of <i>halizah</i> after cohabitation, a letter of divorce is required in respect of one's cohabitation.<a id="k50b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said:
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k53a_1:" I.e., the validity of such a formula elsewhere is absolutely dependent on the existence of the levirate bond."
,k53a_2:" Hence the invalidity of the formula that followed it."
,k53a_3:" The levirate bond does not in any way add to, or subtract from the force of the formula."
,k53a_4:" Before the performance of the <i>halizah</i>."
,k53a_5:" V. <i>supra</i> note 4."
,k53a_6:" After the <i>halizah</i>, for instance, which has been performed after a divorce."
,k53a_7:" Rabbi."
,k53a_8:" The original bond remains and the <i>halizah</i> is altogether disregarded. Hence the validity of the formula after an improper <i>halizah</i>."
,k53a_9:" The dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis."
,k53a_10:" Made by the levir. If, e.g., he submitted to the <i>halizah</i> on the understanding that the widow would give him a certain sum of money or render him some service."
,k53a_11:" Where the condition had not been fulfilled."
,k53a_12:" As the <i>halizah</i> is invalid (v. <i>supra</i> n. 3) the original bond remains and the formula is consequently valid."
,k53a_13:" Rabbi."
,k53a_14:" Even if the condition was not fulfilled the <i>halizah</i> remains valid. Hence there could be no force in the formula that follows it."
,k53a_15:" [H], a stipulation and its alternative. The classical example is the condition made by Moses with the children of Gad and Reuben: If they passed the Jordan, the land of Gilead would be given to them; if they did not pass the Jordan, they would take their share in the land of Canaan. V. Num. XXXII, 29f."
,k53a_16:" As the levir's condition was not a 'doubled one' it has no validity. The <i>halizah</i> is consequently valid and the formula following it is invalid."
,k53a_17:" The condition being valid, the <i>halizah</i> depending on it, where it is unfulfilled, is invalid. Hence the validity of the levirate formula."
,k53a_18:" Since that section of our Mishnah deals not only with (a) certain acts after <i>halizah</i> but also with (b) certain acts after cohabitation."
,k53a_19:" Var. lec., 'Both Abaye and Raba read'. The reading that follows actually occurs in Tosef. Yeb. VII. Cf. [H]"
,k53a_20:" Why did he omit the mention of cohabitation?"
,k53a_21:" I.e., the permissibility though <i>halizah</i>."
,k53a_22:" Hence <i>halizah</i> only was mentioned. After cohabitation the sister in-law is permitted to one man (the levir) only. As the Tanna preferred the case of <i>halizah</i> to that of cohabitation and as the invalidity of any acts after cohabitation may be inferred from the invalidity of those after <i>halizah</i>, the Tanna did not consider it necessary to mention cohabitation at all."
,k53a_23:" Which admits the validity of a ma'amar after another ma'amar in the case of two sisters-in-law and one levir,"
,k53a_24:" Each one of whom in turn addressed a ma'amar to the sister-in-law."
,k53a_25:" Each levir being entitled to a ma'amar. V. <i>supra</i> 51a."
,k53a_26:" The second ma'amar, contrary to the ruling of our Mishnah, has no validity because by the first ma'amar, in the opinion of Ben 'Azzai, the levir had exhausted all his rights."
,k53a_27:" The statement, THE ONE REQUIRES A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND THE OTHER, but not the first to whom the ma'amar had been addressed, MUST PERFORM THE <I>HALIZAH</I> because, obviously, <i>halizah</i> with the first does not exempt the second, her rival."
,k53a_28:" 'Who stated, <i>supra</i> 44a, 'A man should not pour the water out of his cistern while others may require it', i.e., a levir shall not cause the disqualification, by <i>halizah</i>, of the widow who is not otherwise disqualified, when the <i>halizah</i> could well be performed by the other widow who was in any case disqualified. In our Mishnah, contrary to R. Joseph's ruling, <i>halizah</i> is performed by the second who would in consequence be disqualified from marrying a priest, and not by the first who is already disqualified by the divorce she had been given."
,k53a_29:" The proper procedure, however, might still be for the <i>halizah</i> to be performed by the widow to whom the ma'amar had been addressed."
,k53a_30:" The statement in our Mishnah that <I>HALIZAH</I> IS NECESSARY FOR BOTH, which seems to imply that each widow must perform <i>halizah</i> where there is only one levir and, since the Mishnah also stated THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW WHETHER THERE WAS ONE LEVIR AND TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW OR TWO LEVIRS AND ONE SISTER-IN-LAW, that where there are two levirs and one sister-in-law <i>halizah</i> must be performed with both levirs."
,k53a_31:" <i>Supra</i> 26b, 51a."
,k53a_32:" In similar circumstances,"
,k53a_33:" But in every case the <i>halizah</i> is performed by one widow only and the other is thereby exempt. V. <i>supra</i> p. 330, n. 5."
,k53a_34:" The ruling that <i>halizah</i> is performed by the second widow and not by the first to whom the divorce had been given."
,k53a_35:" Who stated, <i>supra</i> 27a, that if the levir had participated in the <i>halizah</i> with her whom he had divorced, her rival is not thereby exempt. Consequently, as was stated in our Mishnah, the <i>halizah</i> is to be performed by the second."
,k53a_36:" V. p. 350, n, 6."
,k53a_37:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 350, n. 7."
,k53a_38:" Cf. p. 350, n. 6."
,k53a_39:" Cf. p. 349, n. 11."
,k53a_40:" Cf. p. 349. n. 12."
,k53a_41:" Cf. p. 349, n. 13."
,k53a_42:" Cf. p. 349, n. 14."
,k53a_43:" I.e., all the brothers of the deceased including the levir who submitted to the <i>halizah</i>."
,k53a_44:" Both the levir and the other brothers (v. <i>supra</i> n. 13) are forbidden by the negative precept 'that doth not build' to marry the <i>halizah</i> or her rival. V. <i>supra</i> 10b."
,k53a_45:" By the statement that a ma'amar is invalid after <i>halizah</i>."
,k53a_46:" Had not this been indicated it might have been assumed that a betrothal of a woman forbidden only by a mere negative precept is legally valid."
,k53a_47:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 351, n. 13."
,k53a_48:" If any one of the brothers married the rival of the <i>haluzah</i>, or if any of them (other than the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i>) married the <i>haluzah</i> herself; the prohibition in all these cases being that of marriage with 'a brother's wife' which is punishable by <i>kareth</i>. The prohibition of the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i> to marry the <i>haluzah</i> herself is, of course, even according to Resh Lakish, only that of a negative precept (v. <i>supra</i> 10b)."
,k53a_49:" Such a ruling is surely obvious!"
,k53a_50:" I.e., that there is no validity in the betrothal."
,k53a_51:" A ruling which was necessary, even according to Resh Lakish, since he also, like R. Johanan, subjects the marriage between the levir who submitted to the <i>halizah</i> and the <i>haluzah</i> to the penalty of a negative precept only (v. <i>supra</i> n. 3). >"
}

txt:
<p>
that a levirate bond does exist<a id="k53a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but the <i>halizah</i> had previously removed that [levirate] bond.<a id="k53a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; The Rabbis, however, hold that no levirate bond exists.<a id="k53a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If, then, he had said to her at first,<a id="k53a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Be thou betrothed unto me by the bond of the levirate' would not his word have been valid?<a id="k53a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it is now also valid.
</p><p>
	R. Sherabia said: Had a proper <i>halizah</i> been performed all would agree that if he said to her,<a id="k53a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Be thou betrothed unto me by the bond of the levirate', there is no validity in his betrothal. Here, however, the dispute relates to a <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character. One Master<a id="k53a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that a <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character provides [all the necessary] exemption,<a id="k53a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Masters hold that a <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character provides no exemption.<a id="k53a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: [No;] All agree that a <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character provides no exemption. Here,<a id="k53a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; however, the dispute centres round the question whether a condition<a id="k53a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; may affect the validity of <i>halizah</i>.<a id="k53a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; The Masters hold that a condition<a id="k53a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; does affect the validity of a <i>halizah</i><a id="k53a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Master<a id="k53a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that no condition may affect the validity of a <i>halizah</i>.<a id="k53a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina said: [No;] All agree that a condition does affect a <i>halizah</i>. Here,<a id="k53a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; however, the dispute is dependent on the question of the doubled condition.<a id="k53a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; The Master<a id="k53a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that a doubled condition is essential<a id="k53a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Masters hold the opinion that a doubled condition is unnecessary.<a id="k53a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR COHABITED WITH HER etc. It should also have been stated, 'No act is valid after cohabitation'!<a id="k53a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Both Abaye and Raba replied: Read,<a id="k53a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'NO ACT IS VALID AFTER cohabitation'. But our Tanna?<a id="k53a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The statement regarding] the permissibility of the sister-in-law to marry anyone<a id="k53a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; was preferred by him.<a id="k53a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE LAW IS THE SAME WHETHER THERE IS ONE SISTER-IN LAW&nbsp;&hellip; OR TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW. Our Mishnah<a id="k53a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; is not in agreement with the ruling of Ben 'Azzai. For it was taught: Ben 'Azzai stated: A ma'amar is valid after another ma'amar where it concerns two levirs<a id="k53a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and one sister-in-law,<a id="k53a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but no ma'amar is valid after a ma'amar where it concerns two sisters-in-law and one levir.<a id="k53a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; HOW?&nbsp;&hellip; A MA'AMAR TO THE ONE etc. May it be suggested that this<a id="k53a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; provides support to a ruling of Samuel, Samuel having stated that if the levir had participated in the <i>halizah</i> with her to whom he addressed a ma'amar, her rival was not thereby exempt; and an objection to the ruling of R. Joseph?<a id="k53a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Does it state: He may participate in the <i>halizah</i>? What it states is 'had participated', implying a fait accompli.<a id="k53a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO THE ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER etc. May it be suggested that this<a id="k53a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; provides support to Rabbah son of R. Huna. For Rabbah son of R. Huna stated, 'A <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character must go the round of all the brothers'?<a id="k53a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; By IT IS NECESSARY FOR BOTH, widows generally<a id="k53a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; were meant.<a id="k53a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE GAVE A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AND SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> FROM THE OTHER. May it be suggested that this<a id="k53a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; provides support to the ruling of Samuel<a id="k53a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and presents an objection against the ruling of R. Joseph?<a id="k53a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Does it state: He may participate in the <i>halizah</i>? What it states is 'had participated', implying a fait accompli.<a id="k53a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> FROM THE ONE AND FROM THE OTHER, OR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> etc. It should also have been stated, 'No act is valid after cohabitation'!<a id="k53a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Both Abaye and Raba replied: Read,<a id="k53a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; 'no act is valid after cohabitation'.
</p><p>
	But our Tanna?<a id="k53a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The statement on] the permissibility of the sister-in-law marrying anyone<a id="k53a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; was preferred by him.<a id="k53a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW WHETHER THERE WAS ONE LEVIR TO TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW etc. According to R. Johanan who ruled that the whole house<a id="k53a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; stands under the prohibition of a negative precept,<a id="k53a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; it is intelligible why it was necessary to inform us<a id="k53a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; that betrothal with those whose intercourse involves the penalties of a negative precept is invalid;<a id="k53a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; according to Resh Lakish, however, who ruled that all the house<a id="k53a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; is subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i>,<a id="k53a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; was there any need to inform us that betrothal with those whose intercourse involves <i>kareth</i> is invalid?<a id="k53a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Resh Lakish can answer you: And even according to your conception was it necessary to tell us in the final clause, which speaks of the case where the LEVIR COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, that there was no validity in a betrothal with a married woman?<a id="k53a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; But the fact is that as he taught concerning the permissibility<a id="k53a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; of one levir and one sister-in-law,<a id="k53a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; he also taught concerning two sisters-in-law and one levir. And since he taught concerning two sisters-in-law and one levir, he also taught concerning two levirs and one sister-in-law.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k53b_1:" That there is no validity in the ma'amar."
,k53b_2:" Even according to R. Akiba."
,k53b_3:" By giving to the ma'amar the force of a valid betrothal and by subjecting the sister-in-law, in consequence, to the necessity of a divorce."
,k53b_4:" Were the former to be regarded as invalid, the latter also might erroneously be so regarded."
,k53b_5:" That there is no validity in the divorce where there is only one levir and one sister-in-law. (V. <i>supra</i> p. 331, n. 3)."
,k53b_6:" What possible consequences could ensue from the presumed validity of such a divorce that are not already in force as a result of the <i>halizah</i>? The <i>halizah</i>, like a divorce, causes the prohibition of the widow to the levir, and her relatives also are thereby forbidden as the relatives of his haluzah'!"
,k53b_7:" That nothing of the levirate bond remains after cohabitation and that, consequently. the divorce alone is a valid act and there is no need for <i>halizah</i> also."
,k53b_8:" By requiring <i>halizah</i> in addition to the divorce."
,k53b_9:" Were <i>halizah</i> to be dispensed with in the former case it might erroneously be presumed that as a letter of divorce alone is valid enough in this case it is also valid in the latter case, and thus divorce might be allowed to supersede the <i>halizah</i> of any sister-in-law."
,k53b_10:" That there is no validity in the ma'amar."
,k53b_11:" Of what consequence could the ma'amar be after cohabitation whereby the woman had become the levir's proper wife?"
,k53b_12:" Which was certainly necessary, as has just been explained."
,k53b_13:" Lit., 'in the time when it is'."
,k53b_14:" For an explanation of this term v. notes on our Mishnah <i>supra</i>."
,k53b_15:" Since something of the levirate bond remains after an improper cohabitation."
,k53b_16:" Hence he ruled that only when cohabitation had taken place at the beginning (but not when in the middle or at the end) does the levirate bond completely disappear."
,k53b_17:" Because in his opinion even an improper <i>halizah</i> is valid in all respects."
,k53b_18:" Maintaining as he does that nothing of validity remains either after <i>halizah</i> or after cohabitation."
,k53b_19:" Were the former to be regarded as valid the latter also might be so regarded."
,k53b_20:" And no one would draw comparisons between the two."
,k53b_21:" Abbreviation of 'Johanan'."
,k53b_22:" In our Mishnah."
,k53b_23:" V. <i>supra</i> 50b."
,k53b_24:" The widow of his deceased childless brother."
,k53b_25:" Not knowing that she was his sister-in-law."
,k53b_26:" To gratify his passions and with no intention of fulfilling the precept of the levirate marriage."
,k53b_27:" Lit., 'he acquires her'. The widow is deemed to be his legal wife. He is entitled to the heirship of her estate; and she can be released only by a letter of divorce."
,k53b_28:" Lit., 'and he made no distinction'."
,k53b_29:" Whether it was natural or unnatural."
,k53b_30:" In any of the circumstances mentioned."
,k53b_31:" Fem. of nathin, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k53b_32:" To marry a priest, and to eat <i>terumah</i> even if she had previously been eligible to eat of it. This, of course, does not apply to the bastard and nethinah who are from birth ineligible either to marry a priest or to eat <i>terumah</i>. Their inclusion among the others merely serves the purpose of indicating that in their case also the penalty for illicit intercourse is imposed whether it was ONLY IN THE FIRST, OR ALSO IN THE FINAL STAGE."
,k53b_33:" Not knowing that she was his sister-in-law."
,k53b_34:" Of the levirate marriage."
,k53b_35:" In such cases the validity of the <i>kinyan</i> is obvious."
,k53b_36:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 355, n. 3."
,k53b_37:" So BaH a.l. Cur. edd. omit 'or he&nbsp;&hellip; error'."
,k53b_38:" Of the levirate marriage."
,k53b_39:" <i>Kinyan</i> is nevertheless constituted."
,k53b_40:" COMPULSION implying unconsciousness of action. "
}

txt:
<p>
	IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR [and] GAVE etc. One can well understand why it was necessary [to lay down a rule<a id="k53b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; where] THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR; since it might have been assumed that provision was to be made<a id="k53b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; for a ma'amar that followed <i>halizah</i><a id="k53b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; as a preventive measure against a ma'amar that preceded <i>halizah</i>,<a id="k53b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; it was consequently necessary to tell us that no such preventive measure was to be made. What need, however, was there for the ruling<a id="k53b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; where THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> AND THEN GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE?<a id="k53b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Read, then, according to your own view, the final clause, IF HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA' AMAR or if he cohabited with her and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE. One can well understand [it might be argued here also] why it was necessary [to lay down a ruling<a id="k53b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; where] the levir cohabited with her and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE; since it might have been assumed that provision was to be made for a divorce that followed cohabitation<a id="k53b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; as a preventive measure against a divorce that preceded cohabitation,<a id="k53b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; it was consequently necessary to tell us that no such preventive measure was required. But what need was there [for the ruling<a id="k53b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; where] HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR?<a id="k53b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But [the fact is that] as he taught, IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR,<a id="k53b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; he also taught: IF HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR. And since he desired to teach the rule where 'he cohabited with her and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE' he also taught, IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <I>HALIZAH</I> and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE.
</p><p>
	IF IT TOOK PLACE<a id="k53b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; etc. Our Mishnah cannot be reconciled with the opinion of the following Tanna: For it was taught: Abba Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem reported in the name of R. Meir, 'Alike in the case of cohabitation or of <i>halizah</i>, [if it took place] first,<a id="k53b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; no act that follows has any validity; but if it occurred in the middle<a id="k53b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; or at the end,<a id="k53b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; something valid still remains'. On this question, in fact, three different views have been expressed. The first Tanna is of the opinion that in the case of cohabitation, where a preventive measure is required,<a id="k53b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; a preventive measure was made,<a id="k53b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of <i>halizah</i> where no preventive measure is called for<a id="k53b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; no preventive measure was made. R. Nehemiah, on the other hand, is of the opinion that in the case of cohabitation also no preventive measure is called for.<a id="k53b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And as to your possible objection that provision should be made where cohabitation followed a letter of divorce as a preventive measure against cohabitation that followed a <i>halizah</i>,<a id="k53b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be replied that] as <i>halizah</i> is a Pentateuchal law it is well known.<a id="k53b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; And as to your objection that provision should be made where cohabitation followed a ma'amar as a preventive measure against cohabitation that followed another cohabitation, [it may also be replied that] as <i>kinyan</i> by cohabitation is a Pentateuchal law it is certainly well known.<a id="k53b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; And Abba Jose b. Hanan,<a id="k53b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; again, holds the same view as the Rabbis<a id="k53b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; who ordained a preventive measure in the case of cohabitation,<a id="k53b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and he made similar provision in the case of <i>halizah</i> as a preventive measure against cohabitation.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_vi">CHAPTER VI</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN COHABITED WITH HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE,<a id="k53b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; WHETHER IN ERROR<a id="k53b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; OR IN PRESUMPTION,<a id="k53b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; WHETHER UNDER COMPULSION OR OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, EVEN IF HE ACTED IN ERROR AND SHE IN PRESUMPTION, OR HE IN PRESUMPTION AND SHE IN ERROR, OR HE UNDER COMPULSION AND SHE NOT UNDER COMPULSION, OR SHE UNDER COMPULSION AND HE NOT UNDER COMPULSION, WHETHER HE PASSED ONLY THE FIRST, OR ALSO THE FINAL STAGE OF CONTACT, HE CONSTITUTES THEREBY A <I>KINYAN</I>,<a id="k53b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE<a id="k53b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; OF THE INTERCOURSE.<a id="k53b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	SIMILARLY, IF A MAN HAD INTERCOURSE<a id="k53b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN RELATIVES ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH, OR WITH ANY OF THOSE WHO ARE INELIGIBLE TO MARRY HIM AS, FOR INSTANCE, A WIDOW WITH A HIGH PRIEST, A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A <I>HALUZAH</I> WITH A COMMON PRIEST, A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH<a id="k53b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH AN ISRAELITE OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WITH A BASTARD OR A NATHIN, HE HAS THEREBY RENDERED HER INELIGIBLE,<a id="k53b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE INTERCOURSE.<a id="k53b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the purport of EVEN? &mdash; [The formula of] 'It is not necessary' is thereby to be understood: It is not necessary [to state that a <i>kinyan</i> is constituted where] he acted in error<a id="k53b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and her intention was the performance of the commandment<a id="k53b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; or where he acted in presumption and her intention was the performance of the commandment,<a id="k53b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; but even if he acted in error and she in presumption,<a id="k53b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; or<a id="k53b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; he in presumption and she in error, so that the intention of neither of them was the fulfilment of the commandment,<a id="k53b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; a <i>kinyan</i> is nevertheless effected.
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya taught: Even if both acted in error, both in presumption, or both under compulsion.<a id="k53b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; How is one to understand the action UNDER COMPULSION in our Mishnah? If it be suggested [that] idolaters compelled him to cohabit with her, surely [it may be pointed out] Raba stated: There can be no compulsion in sexual intercourse since erection depends entirely on the will! But when he slept?<a id="k53b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely Rab Judah ruled
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k66a_1:" The two pairs of twins were children of R. Hiyya from Judith."
,k66a_2:" So that she might be permitted to marry a free man, As a half slave she was not allowed to contract such a marriage. Now, since her master was compelled to give her the opportunity of marrying, it is obvious that the commandment of propagation applies to women also!"
,k66a_3:" And marriage was her only protection; and this was the reason why her master was compelled to emancipate her."
,k66a_4:" Contracting thereby a forbidden union."
,k66a_5:" V. <i>infra</i> and <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k66a_6:" The reason is given in the Gemara."
,k66a_7:" Lit., 'died for her'."
,k66a_8:" He or his heirs must restore them to his wife in a healthy condition should he divorce her or die."
,k66a_9:" Lev. XXII, 11."
,k66a_10:" The daughter of an Israelite, who married a priest."
,k66a_11:" Out of her <i>melog</i> property the principal of which is hers."
,k66a_12:" With a sum of money that was given to them as their absolute property. on the condition that their master was to have no claim whatsoever upon it."
,k66a_13:" The expression, 'the purchase of his money is superfluous' and the text is, therefore, expounded thus: If the purchase of his money, i.e., a priest's wife or slave (who is the priest's acquisition) buy any soul, he (i.e., the one purchased) 'may eat of it'. Why then are not <i>melog</i> slaves, being an acquisition of the priest's wife, permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>?"
,k66a_14:" The priest's wife in this case is not herself permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>, since her union with this priest is a forbidden one. V. Lev. XXI, 7, 13 and <i>supra</i> p. 441, n. 1."
,k66a_15:" Lit., 'and not'?"
,k66a_16:" Lit., 'and behold'."
,k66a_17:" Their slaves, e.g., are permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>. Cf. <i>infra</i> 70a."
,k66a_18:" Lit., 'there'."
,k66a_19:" I.e., their disability is restricted to their mouth alone. They are only temporarily forbidden to eat the <i>terumah</i>. At the moment their unclean period is over or circumcision is performed their rights are fully restored. In the case of the priest's wife in our Mishnah, however, the disability is permanent, since by her forbidden marriage she remains for ever a profaned woman."
,k66a_20:" I.e., mamzer, (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) the issue of a union between a slave or idolater and a woman who was the issue of a marriage between a priest and the daughter of an Israelite."
,k66a_21:" Since he is neither priest nor even a legitimate Israelite."
,k66a_22:" His grandmother, the wife of the priest, may continue to eat <i>terumah</i> even after the death of her husband so long as the bastard (being a descendant of her husband through their daughter) is alive. As the widow of a priest she would have lost the privilege of eating <i>terumah</i> on her husband's death had there been no surviving descendants. V. <i>infra</i> 69b."
,k66a_23:" Not of a descendant."
,k66a_24:" In explaining the reason why <I>MELOG</I> SLAVES MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>."
,k66a_25:" The <i>melog</i> slaves."
,k66a_26:" Believing that, as she was allowed to feed them with <i>terumah</i> during the lifetime of her husband though they were her property, she may continue to do so even after his death. In the case of zon barzel slaves, however, no such error need be feared since the slaves are not hers, but his absolute property until the moment when it is surrendered to her by her husband or heir, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k66a_27:" If such an error as suggested is to be feared."
,k66a_28:" But our Mishnah distinctly states that her <i>melog</i> slaves also may eat <i>terumah</i>!"
,k66a_29:" The daughter of a priest who, as a widow, married a High Priest, and thus became profaned through their forbidden marriage."
,k66a_30:" If her <i>melog</i> slaves were permitted to eat <i>terumah</i> while she lived with the High Priest."
,k66a_31:" After the High Priest's death."
,k66a_32:" During her first widowhood."
,k66a_33:" The <i>melog</i> slaves."
,k66a_34:" As a widow she then returned to her father's priestly house and was again entitled to eat <i>terumah</i> herself and to feed her slaves with it."
,k66a_35:" The High Priest."
,k66a_36:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 8."
,k66a_37:" When the High Priest died, though she remained a profaned widow who is, in fact, forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k66a_38:" To be allowed again. as before, to eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k66a_39:" During her first widowhood."
,k66a_40:" <i>Halachah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) through ber forbidden marriage."
,k66a_41:" Having married a High Priest to whom a widow is forbidden."
,k66a_42:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 443, n. 7."
,k66a_43:" The error mentioned cannot occur in her case; but as our Mishnah draws no distinction between the two, the question remains: Why should not her <i>melog</i> slaves be permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>?"
,k66a_44:" Lit., 'in her widowhood'. Were the feeding permitted in the case of the one, the other might erroneously be presumed to come under the same law."
,k66a_45:" As zon barzel property (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k66a_46:" Shum (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). V. Ket. Sonc. ed. p 401. n. 11. In consideration of which he guarantees her a specified sum in her <i>kethubah</i>, which is recoverable by her at his death, or earlier if she is divorced."
,k66a_47:" When she claims her <i>kethubah</i>. v. <i>supra</i> n. 9."
,k66a_48:" I.e., the actual objects she had brought to her husband."
,k66a_49:" In accordance with the appraisement in the <i>kethubah</i>. "
}

txt:
<p>
twin sisters.<a id="k66a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But does not the commandment apply to women? Surely, R. Aha b. R. Kattina related in the name of R. Isaac: It once happened in the case of a woman who was half slave and half free, that her master was compelled to emancipate her!<a id="k66a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: People were taking liberties with her.<a id="k66a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_vii">CHAPTER VII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A WIDOW [WHO MARRIED] A HIGH PRIEST,<a id="k66a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; OR IF A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A <I>HALUZAH</I> [WHO MARRIED] A COMMON PRIEST BROUGHT IN TO HER HUSBAND <I>MELOG</I><a id="k66a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; SLAVES AND ZON BARZEL<a id="k66a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; SLAVES. THE <I>MELOG</I> SLAVES MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I> BUT THE ZON BARZEL SLAVES MAY EAT OF IT.<a id="k66a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE FOLLOWING ARE <I>MELOG</I> SLAVES: THOSE WHO, IF THEY DIE, ARE THE WIFE'S<a id="k66a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; LOSS AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES, ARE HER PROFIT. THOUGH IT IS THE HUSBAND'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN THEM, THEY MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>.<a id="k66a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE FOLLOWING ARE ZON BARZEL SLAVES: IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES, ARE A PROFIT TO HIM. SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM,<a id="k66a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>.
</p><p>
	IF THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, AND SHE BROUGHT HIM IN SLAVES, THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT <I>TERUMAH</I> WHETHER THEY ARE <I>MELOG</I> SLAVES, OR ZON BARZEL SLAVES.<a id="k66a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST, HOWEVER, WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE AND SHE BROUGHT HIM IN SLAVES, THEY MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I> WHETHER THEY ARE <I>MELOG</I> SLAVES OR ZON BARZEL SLAVES.<a id="k66a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. And <I>MELOG</I> SLAVES MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>! What is the reason? Let them rather be regarded as a possession that was acquired by one in his possession [who is permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>]. for it was taught: Whence is it deduced that the wife whom a priest married or the slaves which he purchased may eat <i>terumah</i>.? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul the purchase of his money, he may eat of it.<a id="k66a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And whence is it deduced that if a woman<a id="k66a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; purchased slaves<a id="k66a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or if a priest's slaves purchased<a id="k66a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; other slaves, these may eat <i>terumah</i>? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it;<a id="k66a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; a possession which his possession has acquired may eat!<a id="k66a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Whosoever may himself eat may confer the right of eating upon others but whosoever may not himself eat may not confer the right of eating upon others.<a id="k66a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; May he not, indeed?<a id="k66a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; There is, surely, the case of<a id="k66a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; an uncircumcised man and that of all levitically unclean persons who may not themselves eat <i>terumah</i> and yet confer the right of eating it upon others!<a id="k66a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In those cases<a id="k66a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; they are merely suffering pain in their mouths.<a id="k66a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But there is, surely, the case of<a id="k66a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; the bastard<a id="k66a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Who may not eat <i>terumah</i> himself<a id="k66a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet may confer the right of eating it upon others!<a id="k66a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabina replied. He speaks of an acquisition<a id="k66a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; that is permitted to eat: Any acquisition that may eat may confer the right of eating upon others, and any acquisition that may not eat may not confer the right upon others.
</p><p>
	Raba, however, stated<a id="k66a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; that pentateuchally they<a id="k66a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; may in fact eat <i>terumah</i>; but it is the Rabbis who instituted the prohibition in order that the woman might complain, 'I am not allowed to eat; my slaves are not allowed to eat; I am only his mistress!', in consequence of which he would be likely to divorce her. R. Ashi stated:<a id="k66a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; The prohibition is a preventive measure against the possibility of her feeding them<a id="k66a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; with <i>terumah</i> after the death [of her husband].<a id="k66a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, then,<a id="k66a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest should also be forbidden to feed [her <i>melog</i> slaves with <i>terumah</i>] as a preventive measure against her feeding them after [her husband's] death!<a id="k66a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said R. Ashi, [our Mishnah refers to] a priestly widow<a id="k66a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; who<a id="k66a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; might draw the following conclusion:<a id="k66a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; 'At first<a id="k66a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k66a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; ate <i>terumah</i> at my paternal home;<a id="k66a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; and when I married this man<a id="k66a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k66a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; ate<a id="k66a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; of the <i>terumah</i> of my husband; they<a id="k66a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; should now,<a id="k66a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore, revert to their former condition',<a id="k66a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and she would not know that at first<a id="k66a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; she had not made of herself a profaned woman<a id="k66a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; while now<a id="k66a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; she has made herself a profaned woman.<a id="k66a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; This explanation is quite satisfactory in the case of a priestly widow;<a id="k66a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; what explanations however, is there in the case of a widow who is the daughter of an Israelite?<a id="k66a_43"><sup>43</sup></a> &mdash; The Rabbis made no distinction between one widow and another.<a id="k66a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated: If a wife: who brought to her husband<a id="k66a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; appraised goods,<a id="k66a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; demands,<a id="k66a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I will accept only my own goods',<a id="k66a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; and he replies 'I am only paying their value'<a id="k66a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; in whose favour is judgment to be given? Rab Judah said:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k66b_1:" Her own objects must be returned to her."
,k66b_2:" Cf. Bomberg ed. where an amplified version of this text is given including the clause enclosed here in square brackets."
,k66b_3:" A priest."
,k66b_4:" And though he is also responsible for the loss, or theft of the animal."
,k66b_5:" 'A.Z. 15a; which shews that even an animal for which a priest is responsible (v. <i>supra</i> n. 2) is not permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>. How, then, could it be said, SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT?"
,k66b_6:" Certainly not. Such a restricted responsibility, therefore, is incomplete and does not confer the right to <i>terumah</i>."
,k66b_7:" Of zon barzel."
,k66b_8:" Of the Baraitha cited."
,k66b_9:" Lit., 'if an Israelite appraised a cow from'. I.e., he undertook to make good to the owner any loss in the value of the animal between the date of hire and the date of the return."
,k66b_10:" The animal being regarded as the priest's own property, in respect of its feeding on <i>terumah</i>, owing to his responsibility for the return of its full value. Thus it follows that, though an animal would be returned in body, should its value on the day of its return be equal to that of its appraised value, it is nevertheless, owing to the priest's complete responsibility, deemed to be the priest's property so long as it remains in his possession; so also in the case of zon barzel slaves: though they would ultimately be returned to the woman in body, they are regarded, in respect of <i>terumah</i>, as the property of the priest, who accepted full responsibility for them, so long as they remain with him."
,k66b_11:" The husband, who is regarded, in agreement with R. Ammi, as the owner of the slaves."
,k66b_12:" Cf. Ex. XXI, 26."
,k66b_13:" Which the husband includes in her <i>kethubah</i>, and undertakes to return to her at their appraised value should he divorce her or die."
,k66b_14:" It is his duty to keep them intact so that the objects themselves, not merely their value, may be returned to the woman in due course."
,k66b_15:" Included them in the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k66b_16:" Lit., 'both'. V. Rashi a.l."
,k66b_17:" I.e., even he."
,k66b_18:" If the woman died; the sale being deemed invalid. That the woman, when her husband dies or divorces her, may seize such property, in the event of a sale by him, is obvious."
,k66b_19:" Wanting in MSS. which read 'R. Nahman stated'."
,k66b_20:" In her dowry, as zon barzel."
,k66b_21:" The shroud, wraps. or any article of dress that has covered the body of a corpse is deemed to be the dead man's property, and no living person may derive any benefit from it. V. Sanh. 47b."
,k66b_22:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7."
,k66b_23:" That zon barzel property, such as the robe was, belongs to the wife'!"
,k66b_24:" Of course he does. The robe does not come into the actual possession of the woman until her claim is proved and the robe surrendered to her by the husband or his heirs."
,k66b_25:" The orphans were, therefore, entitled to use it as part of the dead man's shroud. The woman's claim upon it is undoubtedly valid, but has not any greater force than that of the holder of a mortgage. V. <i>infra</i> note 3."
,k66b_26:" <i>Supra</i> 46a q.v. for notes. V. also Keth. 59b, Git. 40b, B.K. 89b. "
}

txt:
<p>
Judgment is to be given in her favour;<a id="k66b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Ammi said: Judgment is to be given in his favour. 'Rab Judah said: Judgment is to be given in her favour because [they represent] assets of her paternal property [which] belong to her. R. Ammi said: Judgment is to be given in his favour' for, as the Master said, [THE FOLLOWING ARE ZON BARZEL SLAVES:] IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES &mdash; ARE A PROFIT TO HIM; [AND] SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT <I>TERUMAH</I> [they are therefore obviously regarded as his own].<a id="k66b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Safra said: Was it stated, 'and they belong to him? The statements surely. only reads, SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM! In fact, then, they may not belong to him at all. But [is it a fact that] those for whom he<a id="k66b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is responsible invariably eat <i>terumah</i>? Surely we learned: An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest may feed her on vetches of <i>terumah</i>. A priest, however, who hired a cow from an Israelite, though it is his duty to supply her with food,<a id="k66b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; must not feed her on vetches of <i>terumah</i>!<a id="k66b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; How could you understand it thus! Granted that he is liable for theft or loss, is he also liable for accidents, emaciation or reduction In value!<a id="k66b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [The case<a id="k66b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; in our Mishnah], surely, can only be compared to that in the final clause:<a id="k66b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest, guaranteeing him its appraised value,<a id="k66b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; may not feed it on vetches of <i>terumah</i>. A priest, however, who hired a cow from an Israelite, guaranteeing him its appraised value,<a id="k66b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; may feed it on vetches of <i>terumah</i>.<a id="k66b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah and R. Joseph were sitting at their studies at the conclusion of R. Nahman's school session, and in the course of their sitting they made the following statement: [A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Judah; and [another Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi. ['A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Ammi': Zon barzel slaves procure their freedom when the man,<a id="k66b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but not when the woman [struck out] a tooth or an eye.<a id="k66b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; ['A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Judah': If a wife brought in to her husband appraised goods,<a id="k66b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; the husband may not sell them even if it is his desire to do so.<a id="k66b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, even if he brought in to her appraised goods of his own,<a id="k66b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; he may not sell them even if he desired to do so. If either<a id="k66b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; of them sold [any of the appraised goods] for their maintenance. Such an incident was once dealt with by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who ruled that the husband<a id="k66b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; may seize them from the buyers.<a id="k66b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba<a id="k66b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; stated in the name of R. Nahman: The law is in agreement with Rab Judah. Said Raba to R. Nahman: But surely [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi! Although [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi, Rab Judah's view is more logical, since any asset of a woman's paternal property [should rightly belong to her].
</p><p>
	A woman once brought<a id="k66b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; in to her husband a robe of fine wool [which was appraised and included] in her <i>kethubah</i>. When the man died it was taken by the orphans and spread over the corpse. Raba ruled that the corpse had acquired it.<a id="k66b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Nanai son of R. Joseph son of Raba to R. Kahana: But, surely, Raba<a id="k66b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; stated in the name of R. Nahman that the law is in agreement with Rab Judah!<a id="k66b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; The other replied: Does not Rab Judah admit that the robe had still to be collected [by the wife]?<a id="k66b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Since it had still to be collected it remained in the husband's possession.<a id="k66b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [In this ruling] Raba acted in accordance with his view [elsewhere expressed]. For Raba stated:<a id="k66b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Consecration,<a id="k66b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; leavened food,<a id="k66b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k70a_1:" Certainly not; since the child is obviously the son of the priest."
,k70a_2:" Lit., 'but no'."
,k70a_3:" In our Mishnah."
,k70a_4:" To the violator and seducer as well as to any other man."
,k70a_5:" The violator's or seducer's."
,k70a_6:" Should the child be regarded as the son of the man who betrothed her."
,k70a_7:" The case of the betrothed."
,k70a_8:" The man who betrothed her."
,k70a_9:" Either in respect of the violator or seducer on the one hand or in respect of any others. All that our Mishnah teaches is that if cohabitation with the former took place, even if only once, the child is regarded as his."
,k70a_10:" Why is he not regarded as the offspring of the priest? V. our Mishnah and <i>supra</i> p. 466, n. 16."
,k70a_11:" Emphasis on her."
,k70a_12:" Shall be her master's (Ex. XXI, 4), i.e., they are regarded (a) as slaves, and (b) as the offspring of the bondwoman. Hence they cannot be regarded as the offspring of the priest."
,k70a_13:" [H] Lev. XXII, 13."
,k70a_14:" Had [H] been omitted."
,k70a_15:" Lit., 'from all (any) place'."
,k70a_16:" [H]."
,k70a_17:" [H] 'examine', 'investigate'. The <i>Aleph</i> of [H] is interchangeable with the <i>'Ayin</i> of [H]."
,k70a_18:" An enquiry is to be made whether she has <i>any kind of son</i>, i.e., even if only a bastard. Thus a bastard also is deemed to be her child. Cf. <i>supra</i> 22b."
,k70a_19:" <i>Supra</i> 62b."
,k70a_20:" Was it stated in our Mishnah that the offspring of a union between the daughter of an Israelite and an idolater or a slave (a union which is forbidden by a negative precept only, no <i>kareth</i> being involved, cf. <i>supra</i> 45a) is regarded as a bastard."
,k70a_21:" Does our Mishnah, then, represent the view of an individual, which is contrary to the expressed view of the majority."
,k70a_22:" With R. Akiba."
,k70a_23:" From Palestine."
,k70a_24:" Rabbi, Judah the Prince, the Master par excellence of his time. Cf. <i>supra</i> 45a."
,k70a_25:" [H]: an expression of respect or affection. Cf. Kid. 31b."
,k70a_26:" Metaph. for bastard. [H] cf. [H]."
,k70a_27:" As stated in our Mishnah."
,k70a_28:" The High Priest. Cf. the colloquial expres. 'big pot'."
,k70a_29:" Though the uncircumcision was not due to any fault of his. If, e.g.. he was forbidden circumcision because his brothers died as a result of such an operation. Cf. <i>supra</i> 64b."
,k70a_30:" By virtue of the rights of their husband and master. Uncircumcision and uncleanness are only temporary disqualifications which prevent the priest from eating <i>terumah</i>, while they continue. His sanctity and privileges, however, remain in force."
,k70a_31:" [H]"
,k70a_32:" [H]"
,k70a_33:" Because the cohabitation with these maimed priests causes the profanation of the women."
,k70a_34:" Who were married to them before they were maimed."
,k70a_35:" <i>Terumah</i>."
,k70a_36:" Cur. edd. 'Eleazar'. Cf. Tosaf. Sotah 24a s.v. [H], and Men. 17b [H]."
,k70a_37:" Ex. XII, 45."
,k70a_38:" Lev. XXII, 10."
,k70a_39:" Ex. XII, 48."
,k70a_40:" Lev. XXII, 4."
,k70a_41:" In the prohibition; the text, according to Rabbinical interpretation, referring to the prohibition of eating <i>terumah</i>."
,k70a_42:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 473 notes."
,k70a_43:" The expression. 'A sojourner and a hired servant'."
,k70a_44:" I.e., is not the expression required in connection with the subject spoken of in the context."
,k70a_45:" Against deducing <i>terumah</i> from the Paschal lamb."
,k70a_46:" From <i>terumah</i>, i.e., subject to greater restrictions."
,k70a_47:" <i>Kareth</i> if the transgression was wilful, and a sin-offering if unwitting."
,k70a_48:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k70a_49:" How then could <i>terumah</i> which is not surrounded by such restrictions be deduced from it?"
,k70a_50:" Of the two expressions, 'A sojourner and a hired servant'."
,k70a_51:" Lev. XXII, 20."
,k70a_52:" Lit., 'an everlasting possession', i.e., a Hebrew servant who, on refusing to go out free, has had his ear bored. (Cf. Ex. XXI, 5f)."
,k70a_53:" The ordinary Hebrew servant who remains the property of his master for six years only, after which he goes out free for nothing (v. Ex. XXI, 2)."
,k70a_54:" Who is in fact his master's absolute property."
,k70a_55:" If only the sojourner had been mentioned."
,k70a_56:" Since he is not his master's absolute possession."
,k70a_57:" Since he is the absolute property of his master."
,k70a_58:" Since a hired servant implies one who is acquired for a period, the other expression cannot refer to the same class of servant, but to one acquired for life. [H], E.V. a sojourner (rt. [H] 'to abide') implies longer service than that of the [H], E.V., hired servant."
,k70a_59:" How, then, since the expression is required for the laws of <i>terumah</i>, could it be suggested that the expression, 'a sojourner and a hired servant', mentioned in connection with <i>terumah</i>, is free for deduction?"
,k70a_60:" The expression 'A sojourner and a hired servant'."
,k70a_61:" Ex. XII, 45, a sojourner&nbsp;&hellip; shall not eat thereof."
,k70a_62:" I.e., a Hebrew servant who (a) serves his master for life or (b) for a period of years. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 474, nn. 14 and 15."
,k70a_63:" Who is subject to the fulfilment of the commandments."
,k70a_64:" Though his master is a priest. "
}

txt:
<p>
, but where she is suspected of illicit relations with him, the child is regarded as his, although she is also suspected of such relations with others. Said Raba: Whence do I derive this? From the Statement, IF, HOWEVER, SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD, SHE MAY EAT. For how is this to be understood? If it be suggested to refer to a woman who is suspected of illicit relations with him but not with strangers, was it at all necessary to state that she may eat <i>terumah</i>?<a id="k70a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it must refer to a woman<a id="k70a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; who was suspected of illicit relations with strangers also. Now, if there,<a id="k70a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; where she is forbidden to the one as well as to the other,<a id="k70a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the child is regarded as his,<a id="k70a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; how much more so<a id="k70a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; here<a id="k70a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; where she is forbidden to any other man and is permitted to him.<a id="k70a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: It may still be maintained that Rab is of the opinion that wherever she is suspected of illicit relations with strangers the child is deemed to be a bastard even if she is also suspected of such relations with him; and our Mishnah deals with one who had not been suspected at all.<a id="k70a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A SLAVE, BY HIS COHABITATION, DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING <I>TERUMAH</I> etc. What is the reason?<a id="k70a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Scripture stated, The wife and her<a id="k70a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; children shall be etc.<a id="k70a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A BASTARD DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING <I>TERUMAH</I> AND ALSO BESTOWS THE PRIVILEGE UPON HER. Our Rabbis taught: And have no child.<a id="k70a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; So far I only know<a id="k70a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; of her own child; whence her child's child? It was consequently stated, And have no child,<a id="k70a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; implying 'any child whatsoever'.<a id="k70a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; So far I only know of a legitimate child; whence the illegitimate child? It was stated, And have no [en lah]<a id="k70a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; child,<a id="k70a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies, 'hold an enquiry<a id="k70a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; concerning her.'<a id="k70a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But from this text,<a id="k70a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, the deduction concerning a child's child was made! &mdash; No Scriptural text is really required for the inclusion of one's child's child, since children's children are like children;<a id="k70a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; if a text is at all required it is for the inclusion of an illegitimate child.
</p><p>
	Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: In accordance with whose view?<a id="k70a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it only in accordance with that of R. Akiba who maintains that the offspring of a union between such whose intercourse involves them in the penalty of a negative precept is regarded as a bastard!<a id="k70a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It may even be said to represent the view of the Rabbis, since in respect of an idolater and a slave they agree.<a id="k70a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; For when R. Dimi came<a id="k70a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; he stated in the name of R. Isaac b. Abdimi in the name of our Master:<a id="k70a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; If an idolater or a slave cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite, the child born from such a union is deemed a bastard.
</p><p>
	A HIGH PRIEST SOMETIMES DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF HER RIGHT. Our Rabbis taught: [The grandmother might justly say], 'I would [willingly] be an atonement<a id="k70a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; for my grandson, the little cruse<a id="k70a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; who bestows upon me the privilege of eating <i>terumah</i>,<a id="k70a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; but would not be an atonement for my grandson, the big jar<a id="k70a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; who deprives me of the privilege of eating <i>terumah</i>.<a id="k70a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_viii">CHAPTER VIII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. AN UNCIRCUMCISED [PRIEST]<a id="k70a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ALL LEVITICALLY UNCLEAN PERSONS MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>. THEIR WIVES AND SLAVES, HOWEVER, MAY EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>.<a id="k70a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [A PRIEST WHO IS] WOUNDED IN HIS STONES<a id="k70a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ONE WHOSE MEMBRUM IS CUT OFF,<a id="k70a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; AS WELL AS THEIR SLAVES, MAY EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>, BUT THEIR WIVES MAY NOT.<a id="k70a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; IF, HOWEVER, NO COHABITATION TOOK PLACE AFTER THE MAN WAS WOUNDED OR HAD HIS MEMBRUM CUT OFF, THE WIVES<a id="k70a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE PERMITTED TO EAT.<a id="k70a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	WHO IS TERMED A PEZU' A DAKKAH?<a id="k70a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; A MAN WHO IS WOUNDED EITHER IN BOTH HIS STONES, OR EVEN ONLY IN ONE OF THEM. AND A KERUTH SHOFEKAH? A MAN WHOSE MEMBRUM IS CUT OFF. IF, HOWEVER, [ANY PART] OF THE CORONA REMAINED, EVEN SO MUCH AS A HAIR'S BREADTH, THE MAN IS REGARDED AS FIT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It was taught: R. Eliezer<a id="k70a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; stated, Whence is it deduced that an uncircumcised [priest] may not eat <i>terumah</i>? A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned in connection with the paschal lamb,<a id="k70a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and A sojourner and a hired servant were also mentioned in respect of <i>terumah</i>,<a id="k70a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; as the paschal lamb, in connection with which 'A sojourner and a hired servant' were mentioned, is forbidden to the uncircumcised,<a id="k70a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; so is <i>terumah</i>, in respect of which 'A sojourner and a hired servant' were mentioned, forbidden to the uncircumcised. R. Akiba stated: This deduction is unnecessary. Since it was stated, What man soever,<a id="k70a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; the uncircumcised also is included.<a id="k70a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said, 'R. Eliezer stated, "A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned in connection with the paschal lamb, and "A sojourner and a hired servant" were also mentioned in respect of <i>terumah</i>,'<a id="k70a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; as the paschal lamb, in connection with which "A sojourner and a hired servant" were mentioned, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, so is <i>terumah</i>, in respect of which "A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned, forbidden to the uncircumcised'. Is it<a id="k70a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; free for deduction?<a id="k70a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; For if it is not free, the objection might be raised<a id="k70a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; that the paschal lamb may be different<a id="k70a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; since in connection with it one may also incur penalties<a id="k70a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; for pigul,<a id="k70a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; nothar<a id="k70a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; and uncleanness!<a id="k70a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is certainly free for the deduction. Which expression<a id="k70a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; is free? Is it that of <i>terumah</i>? Surely it is required for its own purpose. For it was taught: A sojourner<a id="k70a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; means one who is acquired for life<a id="k70a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; and a hired servant<a id="k70a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; means one who is acquired for a number of years.<a id="k70a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; But let 'sojourner' only be mentioned and a 'hired servant' be omitted and one would infer: If one who is acquired for life<a id="k70a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; is not permitted to eat <i>terumah</i> how much less one who is acquired only for a number of years! If so,<a id="k70a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed that 'a sojourner' means one who is acquired for a number of years [and that only he may not eat <i>terumah</i>],<a id="k70a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; but that one who is acquired for life may eat,<a id="k70a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; hence the insertion of the expression, 'a hired servant', which explains the meaning of sojourner,<a id="k70a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; [viz.,] that it signifies one who, though acquired for life, may not eat!<a id="k70a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [in fact] the one<a id="k70a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; mentioned in respect of the paschal lamb is free for deduction. For what could be the meaning of 'A sojourner and a hired servant' which the All Merciful wrote in connection with the paschal lamb?<a id="k70a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; If it be suggested that it means the actual sojourner and hired servant,<a id="k70a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; [could it have been imagined] that [an Israelite]<a id="k70a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; is exempt from the Paschal lamb because he is a sojourner or a hired servant? Surely, we have it as an established law in regard to <i>terumah</i> that such a person is not permitted to eat it,<a id="k70a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k70b_1:" Since a Canaanite slave, whose body is acquired by the master, may eat of his <i>terumah</i>."
,k70b_2:" The Hebrew servant sells only his labour, while he himself remains a free man."
,k70b_3:" In respect of the Paschal lamb."
,k70b_4:" As he is thus a free man, it is obviously his duty to observe the commandment of the Paschal lamb. What need then was there for the specification of A sojourner and hired servant?"
,k70b_5:" A sojourner and a hired servant. Ex. XII, 45."
,k70b_6:" [The verse would then be referring to a non-jew, 'a sojourner' denoting a resident alien and 'a hired servant' an idolater. This, however, would be included in uncircumcised' (Ex. Xli, 48) and 'alien' (verse 43). Consequently the verse must have been written for deduction (Tosaf.)]."
,k70b_7:" The expression. A sojourner and a hired servant."
,k70b_8:" That of the Paschal lamb."
,k70b_9:" Cur. edd. 'Eleazar'."
,k70b_10:" Lit., 'from one side'."
,k70b_11:" For interpretation or deduction."
,k70b_12:" <i>Infra</i> 104a. The analogy in the present instance might be refuted by the objection raised <i>supra</i> 70a."
,k70b_13:" (a) sojourner and (b) hired servant."
,k70b_14:" Both being superfluous and free for deduction."
,k70b_15:" That of <i>terumah</i>."
,k70b_16:" That <i>terumah</i> may not be eaten by the uncircumcised."
,k70b_17:" Paschal lamb."
,k70b_18:" Lit., 'if (you say)'."
,k70b_19:" Since a word analogy has been established."
,k70b_20:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k70b_21:" If the two are compared as regards the uncircumcised they should also be compared in respect of the onan!"
,k70b_22:" Lev. XXII, 10."
,k70b_23:" The non-priest."
,k70b_24:" I.e., the uncircumcised might have been excluded by the text cited, not the onan."
,k70b_25:" Ex. XII, 45."
,k70b_26:" Which includes the uncircumcised in the prohibition."
,k70b_27:" For excluding onan and including the uncircumcised."
,k70b_28:" Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis the following mnemonic as an aid to the recollection of the characteristics which distinguish the uncircumcised from the onan: Acts cut (<i>kareth</i>) in the Word (Revelation) of the servant."
,k70b_29:" Circumcision."
,k70b_30:" If he wilfully neglects the fulfilment of the precept."
,k70b_31:" On Sinai. Lit., 'and it is before (divine) speech'. The commandment concerning circumcision was given to Abraham. V. Gen. XVII, 9ff."
,k70b_32:" A man is forbidden to participate in the eating of the Paschal lamb if any of his sons or slaves who are liable to circumcision remain uncircumcised. Cf. Ex. XII, 44, 48."
,k70b_33:" In the prohibition to eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k70b_34:" Lit., 'it is at all hours'; one may have more than one bereavement in his lifetime, but can be circumcised once only."
,k70b_35:" The cause of an onan's mourning is not controlled by human action. To make oneself fit by circumcision is within man's own power."
,k70b_36:" The restrictions of circumcision."
,k70b_37:" Lit., 'leave out' from the prohibition."
,k70b_38:" v. <i>infra</i> 73a."
,k70b_39:" Lit., 'if (you say)'."
,k70b_40:" Since a word analogy has been established."
,k70b_41:" Ex. XII, 44, emphasis on thereof."
,k70b_42:" Since the expression 'thereof 'is made the basis of an exposition."
,k70b_43:" Ibid. 48."
,k70b_44:" Which, of course, would be contrary to the deduction <i>supra</i>."
,k70b_45:" From which deduction was made that an uncircumcised person may not eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k70b_46:" For including in the prohibition one's own circumcision and excluding that of one's sons and slaves."
,k70b_47:" BaH emends the following version by some transpositions and additions."
,k70b_48:" Ex. XII, 43. emphasis on the last word, [H] of it (E.V. thereof)."
,k70b_49:" [H] (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2), the Paschal lamb. "
}

txt:
<p>
which proves<a id="k70b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; that his master does not acquire his person<a id="k70b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; so that here also<a id="k70b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; his master does not acquire his person!<a id="k70b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [The expression]<a id="k70b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; must consequently [have been written] for the purpose of the deduction.<a id="k70b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But is it<a id="k70b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; not free in one direction only,<a id="k70b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Eliezer<a id="k70b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; was heard to state [that an analogy between expressions of which only] one<a id="k70b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is free<a id="k70b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; may be drawn, but may also be refuted!<a id="k70b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since [the expressions]<a id="k70b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; are not required [for their own context]<a id="k70b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; one of them is allotted to the law<a id="k70b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of which the inference is made<a id="k70b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other is allotted to the law from which the inference is made,<a id="k70b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; so that a word analogy is obtained which is free in both directions.
</p><p>
	Might<a id="k70b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [not the deduction be made:]<a id="k70b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; As the paschal lamb is forbidden to an onan<a id="k70b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; so is <i>terumah</i> forbidden to an onan<a id="k70b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Jose son of R. Hanina replied: Scripture stated, 'There shall no common man,<a id="k70b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; I commanded you concerning its prohibition to the common man<a id="k70b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but not concerning that of the onan. But might it be suggested: But not the uncircumcised!<a id="k70b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely 'A sojourner and a hired servant'<a id="k70b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; was written.<a id="k70b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; And what reason do you see?<a id="k70b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is logical to infer that the case of the uncircumcised is to be included, since<a id="k70b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; it involves the absence of an act<a id="k70b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and that act is one affecting the man's own body; [the uncircumcised] is punishable by <i>kareth</i>;<a id="k70b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; the law<a id="k70b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; was in force before the Revelation;<a id="k70b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars [one from eating of the paschal lamb].<a id="k70b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; On the contrary; the case of the onan should have been included,<a id="k70b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; since mourning is an ever- present possibility,<a id="k70b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; is common to men as well as to women, and no man has the power to cure himself of it!<a id="k70b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Those<a id="k70b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; are more in number.
</p><p>
	Raba said: Even if those<a id="k70b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; were not more in number, you could not suggest that uncircumcision, which is actually mentioned in respect of the Paschal lamb, should be excluded<a id="k70b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; while the mourning of an onan, which in the case of the paschal lamb itself was deduced from that of the tithe,<a id="k70b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; should be deduced from it.
</p><p>
	Might<a id="k70b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [it not be said:]<a id="k70b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; As the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars one from the eating of the paschal lamb, so should the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debar one from the eating of <i>terumah</i>! &mdash; Scripture stated, When thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof,<a id="k70b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars one from the eating thereof, of the Paschal lamb only; the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves does not, however, debar one from the eating of <i>terumah</i>. If so,<a id="k70b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [why not] say, But no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof<a id="k70b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [also implies:] He may not eat 'thereof' only but may eat <i>terumah</i>!<a id="k70b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Surely it was written A sojourner and a hired servant.<a id="k70b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; And what reason do you see?<a id="k70b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is only logical to include a man's own circumcision, since the act is performed on his own person and its neglect is punishable by <i>kareth</i>. On the contrary; the circumcision of one's male children and slaves should have been excluded because it may occur at any time! &mdash; The former restrictions are more in number. And if you prefer I might say that even if those were not more in number your suggestion could not be entertained; for is there anything which is not debarred by his own state of uncircumcision but is debarred by that of the other!
</p><p>
	Now that it has been said that the expression. 'Thereof,' was introduced for expository purposes. what<a id="k70b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; was the purpose of the text, There shall no alien eat of it?<a id="k70b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Only with regard to it<a id="k70b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k84a_1:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k84a_2:" By means of the 'Caesarean operation'."
,k84a_3:" Tem. 17a. V. also <i>op. cit</i>. 11a and Bek. 42a."
,k84a_4:" If any of these was exchanged for a consecrated beast. (Cf. Lev. XXVII, 10). That these cannot be directly consecrated is obvious. Cf. Bek. 14a."
,k84a_5:" If they themselves were sacred. In the case of the hybrid, <i>tumtum</i> and hermaphrodite their sanctity is possible only where they were born from a consecrated beast. In the case of the <i>terefah</i> and the one extracted by means of the Caesarean operation sanctity is possible if the former was consecrated before it became <i>terefah</i> and the latter while it was still in its embryonic state."
,k84a_6:" Cf. Lev. XXVII, 10."
,k84a_7:" A town in Upper Galilee notorious for its fierce cocks who do not allow the intrusion of a strange cock among them (Rashi)."
,k84a_8:" In marriage."
,k84a_9:" If their husbands died without issue when, in ordinary cases, it is the duty of the levir to marry his deceased brother's widow."
,k84a_10:" Lit., 'and these'."
,k84a_11:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k84a_12:" Eligible to marry a priest."
,k84a_13:" Of pure priestly stock."
,k84a_14:" But did not marry her. If marriage took place the woman would in consequence be ineligible to marry even a common priest."
,k84a_15:" Lit., 'and these'."
,k84a_16:" In marriage."
,k84a_17:" Lit., 'to these and to these'."
,k84a_18:" Of pure priestly stock."
,k84a_19:" v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k84a_20:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 201, 211."
,k84a_21:" If, for instance, the woman was the husband's mother's mother and the levir was his paternal, but not his maternal brother."
,k84a_22:" Which the husband had consumed. The reason is given <i>infra</i> 89a."
,k84a_23:" Which she brought to her husband at their marriage. She has no claim upon such clothes even if they were still available (Rashi). According to Tosaf. (<i>infra</i> 85a, s.v. [H]) she is entitled to such clothes, and the ruling here applies to compensation for clothes which have been completely worn out. Cf Keth. 201a."
,k84a_24:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k84a_25:" In the first section of our Mishnah."
,k84a_26:" Even if only betrothal had taken place the woman would be permitted to her husband and forbidden to the levir."
,k84a_27:" Of the levirate marriage."
,k84a_28:" Where the levir is a High Priest."
,k84a_29:" A virgin&nbsp;&hellip; shall (positive) he take (Lev. XXI, 14) but not a widow (negative). A negative derived from a positive has only the force of a positive."
,k84a_30:" A widow&nbsp;&hellip; shall he not (negative) take (ibid.)."
,k84a_31:" Were the levirate marriage to take place two precepts would have been overridden by the single positive precept of the levirate marriage."
,k84a_32:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 7. The positive precept. A virgin&nbsp;&hellip; shall he take (v. <i>supra</i> note 6) is not in this case infringed, since a widow after a betrothal is still in her virginity."
,k84a_33:" Of the levirate marriage."
,k84a_34:" A bastard, for instance, to an Israelite."
,k84a_35:" To his brother who is a common priest."
,k84a_36:" Lit., 'to him'."
,k84a_37:" In the first section of our Mishnah."
,k84a_38:" Lit., 'and instead of teaching on account of'."
,k84a_39:" Lit., 'let him teach on account of'."
,k84a_40:" Where the expression used was BETROTHED, and not 'married'."
,k84a_41:" In the use of the expression of MARRIED."
,k84a_42:" Lit., 'but because of the daughter of the (same) valley'."
,k84a_43:" To his brother."
,k84a_44:" In the first case, that of the common priest who married a widow."
,k84a_45:" Who, becoming a widow after her husband's death, is, like one who was married as a widow, forbidden to a High Priest. "
}

txt:
<p>
A hybrid, <i>terefah</i>,<a id="k84a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; one that was extracted through the abdominal wall,<a id="k84a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; the <i>tumtum</i> and the hermaphrodite can neither become sacred nor can they impart sanctity to others;<a id="k84a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and Samuel explained: They neither become sacred by means of exchange,<a id="k84a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; nor do they impart sanctity [to any other beast]<a id="k84a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; by causing it to become an exchange.<a id="k84a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves [what has been said].
</p><p>
	R. ELIEZER STATED&nbsp;&hellip; THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. It was taught: Rabbi related, 'When I went to learn Torah at [the school of] R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a, his disciples combined against me like the cocks of Beth Bukya<a id="k84a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and did not let me learn more than this single thing in our Mishnah: R. ELIEZER STATED: [FOR COPULATION WITH] AN HERMAPHRODITE THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_ix">CHAPTER IX</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. SOME WOMEN ARE PERMITTED<a id="k84a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBLDDEN<a id="k84a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; TO THEIR LEVIRS,<a id="k84a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; OTHERS ARE PERMITTED<a id="k84a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN<a id="k84a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; TO THEIR HUSBANDS, OTHERS ARE PERMITTED TO BOTH THE FORMER AND THE LATTER, WHILE OTHERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO THE FORMER AS WELL AS TO THE LATTER. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE WOMEN<a id="k84a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE PERMITTED TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBIDDEN TO THEIR LEVIRS: IF A COMMON PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST; IF A HALAL<a id="k84a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS<a id="k84a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS;<a id="k84a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED<a id="k84a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBIDDEN<a id="k84a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; TO THEIR LEVIRS.
</p><p>
	THE FOLLOWING<a id="k84a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE PERMITTED<a id="k84a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN<a id="k84a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; TO THEIR HUSBANDS: IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO BETROTHED A WIDOW<a id="k84a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; HAD A BROTHER A COMMON PRIEST; IF ONE OF LEGITIMATE STATUS<a id="k84a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO MARRIED A HALALAH<a id="k84a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; HAD A BROTHER A HALAL;<a id="k84a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN TO THEIR HUSBANDS.
</p><p>
	THE FOLLOWING<a id="k84a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE FORBIDDEN<a id="k84a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; TO BOTH THE FORMER AND THE LATTER;<a id="k84a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST, OR IF A COMMON PRIEST OF LEGITIMATE STATUS<a id="k84a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO MARRIED A HALALAH<a id="k84a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS,<a id="k84a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; OR IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE FORBIDDEN<a id="k84a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; BOTH TO THE FORMER AND THE LATTER.<a id="k84a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; ALL OTHER WOMEN ARE PERMITTED<a id="k84a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; TO BOTH THEIR HUSBANDS AND THEIR LEVIRS.
</p><p>
	[IN RESPECT OF] RELATIVES OF THE SECOND GRADE, [WHO ARE FORBIDDEN] BY THE ORDINANCES OF THE SCRIBES,<a id="k84a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; A WOMAN WHO IS WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE HUSBAND BUT NOT WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE LEVIR,<a id="k84a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; IS FORBIDDEN TO THE HUSBAND AND PERMITTED TO THE LEVIR; [A WOMAN WHO IS WITHIN] THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE LEVIR BUT NOT WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE HUSBAND IS FORBIDDEN TO THE LEVIR AND PERMITTED TO THE HUSBAND; [WHILE ONE WHO IS WITHIN] THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE ONE AND TO THE OTHER IS FORBIDDEN TO THE ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER. SHE CANNOT CLAIM EITHER <I>KETHUBAH</I>,<a id="k84a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; OR USUFRUCT,<a id="k84a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; OR ALIMONY, OR HER WORN CLOTHES.<a id="k84a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [SHOULD A] CHILD [BE BORN HE] IS ELIGIBLE [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD]; BUT THE HUSBAND MUST BE COMPELLED TO DIVORCE HER. A WIDOW, HOWEVER, WHO WAS MARRIED TO A HIGH PRIEST, A DIVORCEE OR <I>HALUZAH</I> WHO WAS MARRIED TO A COMMON PRIEST, A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH<a id="k84a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE, OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS MARRIED TO A NATHIN<a id="k84a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; OR A BASTARD IS ENTITLED TO HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>.
</p><p>
	GEMARA. What was the point in teaching MARRIED?<a id="k84a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; He could have taught: 'Betrothed'!<a id="k84a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; And were you to reply that the reason [for the prohibition<a id="k84a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is only] because he MARRIED, since [in that case]<a id="k84a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; a positive<a id="k84a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; as well as a negative<a id="k84a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; precept is involved,<a id="k84a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; but where betrothal only took place the positive precept<a id="k84a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; does override the negative;<a id="k84a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; but [it could be retorted] the whole of our section deals with a positive,<a id="k84a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; versus a negative precept.<a id="k84a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; and the positive nevertheless does not override the negative! &mdash; As it was desired to state in the final clause, A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW, [who is forbidden]<a id="k84a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; only where [the High Priest] MARRIED her, since in that case he caused her to be a halalah, but [not where he only] betrothed [her in which case] she is permitted [to his brother],<a id="k84a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; he taught in the first clause also: MARRIED.
</p><p>
	But why should the expression<a id="k84a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; be determined by<a id="k84a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; the final clause? Let it be determined by<a id="k84a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; the middle clause: IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO BETROTHED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A COMMON PRIEST!<a id="k84a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The determining factor,<a id="k84a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; rather, is the case immediately following in the same context.<a id="k84a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; As it was desired to teach, IF A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS, where the reason [for her prohibition<a id="k84a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; is] because [the halal] MARRIED her and thus caused her to become a halalah, but where he had only betrothed her she would have been permitted to him; MARRIED was, therefore, taught [here also].<a id="k84a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What point, however, was there in teaching, A widow? He should have taught: 'A virgin'!<a id="k84a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k84b_1:" Of the deceased brother."
,k84b_2:" Of the woman to the levirate marriage, i.e., the widow's status at the time of her husband's death is determined by the status in which she found herself when he married her, not by that in which his death placed her, consequently if at the time of the marriage she was a virgin she would not have been regarded as a widow and would, therefore, have been permitted to marry a priest."
,k84b_3:" Who becomes, thereby. disqualified from marrying his brother."
,k84b_4:" Had this been the case, his brother should have been permitted to marry her, owing to the fact that at the time of her marriage with the deceased (when she presumably became subject to the levirate marriage) she was no halalah."
,k84b_5:" The mention of WIDOW rather than 'virgin'."
,k84b_6:" To her husband who was a High Priest. and to the levir who was a common priest."
,k84b_7:" Who becomes a halalah through such a forbidden marriage."
,k84b_8:" The High Priest, (her first husband) and, after his death, also his brother if he was a common priest."
,k84b_9:" In the first case, that of the common priest who married a widow."
,k84b_10:" Lit., 'if there is that'."
,k84b_11:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k84b_12:" <i>Supra</i> 78a."
,k84b_13:" The sons."
,k84b_14:" I.e., if the son of the Egyptian of the second generation, who thus belongs to the third and is permitted to enter the assembly (v. Deut. XXIII, 9), married the daughter of an Israelite; while the other who belongs to the second generation married an Egyptian of the second generation."
,k84b_15:" Should one of the brothers die without issue. The son of the third generation is forbidden to marry the Egyptian of the second generation, while the son of the second generation is forbidden to marry the daughter of an Israelite."
,k84b_16:" I.e., if the son of the second generation married the daughter of an Israelite, while the son of the third generation married an Egyptian of the second generation."
,k84b_17:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 5 mutandis mutandis."
,k84b_18:" Cf. <i>supra</i>. 6 mutatis mutandis."
,k84b_19:" Who are not included in the term 'assembly of the Lord' (v. Deut. XXIII, 9)."
,k84b_20:" Both the Israelite and (for the reason indicated in n. 10) the Egyptian of the second generation may marry a proselyte."
,k84b_21:" The son of the second generation may not marry her because she is the daughter of an Israelite, while after his death she is forbidden to his brother because a woman who is incapable of procreation is not subject to the levirate marriage and is consequently forbidden to him as his brother's wife."
,k84b_22:" In respect of such a maimed person, prohibition and permission similar to those in our Mishnah could be stated: If he is maimed and his brother is fit the woman is forbidden to him (v. Deut. XXIII, 2) and permitted to his brother; if he is fit and his brother maimed she is permitted to him and forbidden to his brother; if both are maimed etc. proselyte women are permitted to both."
,k84b_23:" Lit., 'if because of'."
,k84b_24:" And among these, this case also is included. What proof, then, is there that any cases other than that of R. Dimi were omitted?"
,k84b_25:" Lit., 'did be not teach and then taught again'."
,k84b_26:" Which proves that the Mishnah did not avoid giving more than one example of the same type of prohibition."
,k84b_27:" Of a halal who married a woman of legitimate status."
,k84b_28:" Kid. 731, 76a, <i>infra</i> 85a. The purpose of our Mishnah in giving the law of the halal was not to teach the prohibition of the woman to the levir (which, of course, as pointed out <i>supra</i>, was unnecessary) but her permission to marry a husband though he is a halal and she is of legitimate status or of pure priestly stock. The prohibition to marry one of impure stock is incumbent upon the man and not upon the woman."
,k84b_29:" Which shews that the Mishnah did not avoid giving more than one example of the same type of prohibition."
,k84b_30:" The case of the halal is applicable to priests only, not to Israelites."
,k84b_31:" Lit., 'surely he taught'."
,k84b_32:" Also a case of a negative precept! (cf. n. 7). Cur. edd. insert In parenthesis 'and a bastard who married a bastard and he has a brother an Israelite', which Rashal omits."
,k84b_33:" Lit., 'but not'?"
,k84b_34:" Though he may marry the daughter of an Israelite he should preferably marry the daughter of a priest. Cf. Pes. 49a. [The bracketed words are rightly omitted in MS.M]."
,k84b_35:" Lit., 'and what'."
,k84b_36:" To marry a priest. Which is in agreement with the opinion of Rab."
,k84b_37:" I.e., to marry an Israelite."
,k84b_38:" Surely not!"
,k84b_39:" I.e., since the term 'legitimate status in the case of the man has reference to a priest, so the reference in the case of the woman must be to a priestess which shews that a priestess may marry one of tainted birth."
,k84b_40:" Lit., 'that as it is and that as it is'."
,k84b_41:" Lev. XXI, 7."
,k84b_42:" Since the expression was repeated."
,k84b_43:" This is now assumed to mean that as the untainted priest may not marry a halalah so may not the untainted priestess marry a halal. An objection against the opinion of Rab."
,k84b_44:" The halalah whom an untainted priest is forbidden to marry is herself forbidden to marry such a priest. The untainted priestess however, whom a halal is not forbidden to marry, may also marry the halal."
,k84b_45:" The equality of men and women in respect of prohibitions"
,k84b_46:" Num. v, 6."
,k84b_47:" Whether flogging or <i>kareth</i>."
,k84b_48:" That of the priesthood does not apply to Israelites. Hence it was necessary to have the text of Lev. XXI, 7. >"
}

txt:
<p>
And should you reply that this Tanna holds the opinion that the original marriage<a id="k84b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; causes the subjection;<a id="k84b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; behold, [it may be pointed out, the case of] the HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS<a id="k84b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; where it is not said that 'the original marriage causes the subjection'!<a id="k84b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This<a id="k84b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is certainly due to the final clause. As it was desired to teach in the final clause, IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST OR A COMMON PRIEST, where [the prohibition<a id="k84b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; applies to] a WIDOW only<a id="k84b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but [not to] a virgin who is eligible to marry him,<a id="k84b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore, WIDOW was taught [here also].<a id="k84b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa demurred: If the law is in agreement with the following ruling<a id="k84b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; which R. Dimi, when he came,<a id="k84b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; reported in the name of R. Johanan, viz., that if an Egyptian of the second generation married an Egyptian woman of the first generation her son is regarded as belonging to the second generation,<a id="k84b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [our Mishnah] should also have taught: If an Egyptian of the second generatlon married two Egyptian women, one of the first, and the other of the second generation, and he had sons from the first and from the second, [the wives of these sons], if they<a id="k84b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; married in the proper manner,<a id="k84b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs,<a id="k84b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and if they married in the reverse order<a id="k84b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [the wives] are permitted to their levirs<a id="k84b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and forbidden to their husbands;<a id="k84b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; proselyte women<a id="k84b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; are permitted to the one as well as to the other,<a id="k84b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and women who are incapable of procreation are forbidden to the one as well as the other!<a id="k84b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He taught some cases and omitted others. What else did he omit that he should have omitted this also? &mdash; He omitted [the case of the man] wounded in the stones.<a id="k84b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; If this is all that can be pointed out,<a id="k84b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; the case of the man wounded in the stones cannot be regarded as an instance of an omission, since those that are subject to the penalty of negative precepts were [already] mentioned!<a id="k84b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Were not several specific cases mentioned<a id="k84b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; of those that are subject to the penalty of negative precepts? Surely it was stated, IF A COMMON PRIEST MARRIED A WIDOW and then again IF A HALAL MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS!<a id="k84b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; That case<a id="k84b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; was required [for the specific purpose] of informing us [that the law is] in agreement with [the ruling] Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: Women of legitimate [priestly] status were not forbidden to be married to men of tainted birth.<a id="k84b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But, surely, he taught regarding A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS and then again regarding AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE AND HE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD!<a id="k84b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This also is not a repetition of what was already taught, since thereby he taught us [first] regarding a negative precept which is not applicable to all<a id="k84b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and then he taught us regarding a negative precept which is applicable to all. But did he not teach<a id="k84b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE!<a id="k84b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Con sequently<a id="k84b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; it must be concluded that he taught some cases while others he omitted. This proves it.
</p><p>
	[Reverting to] the main text, 'Rab Judah reported in the name Of Rab: Women of legitimate [priestly] status were not forbidden to be married to men of tainted birth'. Might it be suggested that the following provides support for his view? [It was stated], A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS; does not [this refer to] a priestess (who was fitting unto him);<a id="k84b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; and is not the meaning of<a id="k84b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; LEGITIMATE STATUS eligible for priesthood!<a id="k84b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; [it might refer to] the daughter of an Israelite, and LEGITIMATE STATUS means<a id="k84b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; eligible for the assembly.<a id="k84b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS would also [mean] 'eligible for the assembly', from which it would follow that he himself is ineligible for the assembly!<a id="k84b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it must refer to a priest; and since he is a priest she also must be a priestess.<a id="k84b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; What an argument! Each phrase may bear its own peculiar interpretation.<a id="k84b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabin b. Nahman raised an objection: They shall not take&nbsp;&hellip; they shall not take<a id="k84b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; teaches<a id="k84b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; that the prohibition was addressed to the woman through the man!<a id="k84b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba replied, [This is the meaning]: Where the prohibition is applicable to him it is also applicable to her, but where it is not applicable to him it is also inapplicable to her.<a id="k84b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; Is this,<a id="k84b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; however, deduced from this text? Surely it was deduced from a text which Rab Judah expounded in the name of Rab! For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab and so it was taught at the school of R. Ishmael: When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit;<a id="k84b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; Scripture compared the woman to the man in respect of all the punishments in the Torah!<a id="k84b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If deduction had been made from that [text]<a id="k84b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed [to apply only to] a prohibition that is equally applicable to all, but not to a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all.<a id="k84b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k87a_1:" She loses through her marriage the right she enjoyed as the daughter of a priest while she was still unmarried."
,k87a_2:" Lev. XXII, 13."
,k87a_3:" By the priest."
,k87a_4:" That her son by the priest enables her again to eat <i>terumah</i> even though she was deprived of that right during the period she lived with the Levite and the Israelite."
,k87a_5:" Lev. XXII, 13."
,k87a_6:" From the superfluous <i>Waw</i> in [H]."
,k87a_7:" Is this deduction made."
,k87a_8:" And not in accordance with the view of the Rabbis (cf. Sanh. 51b) who are in the majority and differ from R. Akiba. V. <i>supra</i> 68b."
,k87a_9:" The previous verse (Lev. XXII, 12) also speaking of the priest's daughter it would have been quite sufficient for v. 13 to begin with the personal pronoun, 'But if she be'."
,k87a_10:" The priest's daughter who was a widow or divorced and have no child. (V. Lev. XXII, 13)."
,k87a_11:" Unto her father's house (v. ibid.)."
,k87a_12:" Which are also among the priestly gifts. Cf. Ex. XXIX, 27, Lev. VII, 34 X, 14."
,k87a_13:" That the breast and shoulder remain forbidden to her even after she returns to her father's house."
,k87a_14:" Lev. XXII, 12, where instead of [H] only [H] could have been written."
,k87a_15:" [H] from the same rt. as [H] (v. <i>supra</i> n. 12)."
,k87a_16:" The sacrifices; reference to the breast and shoulder. (V. <i>supra</i> n. 10). These are forbidden to her even after she returns to her father's house. (V. <i>supra</i> 68b)."
,k87a_17:" To the enquiry of R. Hisda."
,k87a_18:" [H] here taken in its wider signification of 'food' (cf. Dan. V, 1). The <i>Mem</i> of [H] (<i>of</i> but <i>not all</i> food) indicates limitation."
,k87a_19:" The limitation implied by the Mem. V. <i>supra</i> n. 16."
,k87a_20:" By her father; even when his daughter returns to his house and resumes her right to eat <i>terumah</i>. Before marriage, a daughter's vows may be invalidated by her father. Cf. Num. XXX, 4ff."
,k87a_21:" Num. XXX, 10."
,k87a_22:" And since none of them could in consequence annul her vows, it is obvious that such vows stand against her. What need, then, was there for the text of Num. XXX, 10?"
,k87a_23:" To her husband's home."
,k87a_24:" Lit., 'how I read about her'."
,k87a_25:" Since she has not reached the house of her husband and has consequently not yet passed entirely out of her father's authority. Hence her father would still have the power of invalidating her vows."
,k87a_26:" And her vows, like those of any other widow, could not be invalidated by her father."
,k87a_27:" Lit., 'but'."
,k87a_28:" V. Keth. 49a."
,k87a_29:" To the enquiry of R. Hisda."
,k87a_30:" Lev. XXII, 13."
,k87a_31:" The breast and the shoulder."
,k87a_32:" <i>Terumah</i> which is regarded as the property of the priests."
,k87a_33:" These are only the remains of certain sacrifices which do not belong to the priests but to the altar, 'the table of the Most High', and are given to the priests as the leavings of His meal."
,k87a_34:" Lev. X, 14."
,k87a_35:" I.e., before their marriage to non-priests, may the breast and the shoulder be eaten by them."
,k87a_36:" A priest's daughter."
,k87a_37:" V. p. 588, n. 16; or the daughter of an Israelite. (V. next note)."
,k87a_38:" If she was married, for instance, to an Israelite and after his death resumed her right to eat <i>terumah</i> by virtue of a son whom she previously had by a priest."
,k87a_39:" Since the exclusion of the right to the breast and the shoulder was mentioned in the former case only."
,k87a_40:" That of the woman who derives her right to <i>terumah</i> from her son."
,k87a_41:" Among those entitled to eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k87a_42:" V. Lev. XXII, 13."
,k87a_43:" The daughter who derives her right to <i>terumah</i> from her father."
,k87a_44:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 3."
,k87a_45:" Who is not eligible to eat <i>terumah</i>, because she is not completely returned to her father's house, being still bound to the levir."
,k87a_46:" Who, being with child, does not return as in her youth."
,k87a_47:" That a pregnant woman, like one who has a born child, does not regain her right to eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k87a_48:" A woman whose husband died without issue is not exempt from the levirate marriage, though she may have a son by a former husband."
,k87a_49:" A pregnant woman is not subject to the levirate marriage."
,k87a_50:" A priest's daughter whose Israelite husband died without issue is forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>, just as if she had had a son by him, if she had a son by any former Israelite husband of hers. Now, since the law could be arrived at by inference <i>a minori ad majus</i>, the Scriptural text stating the same law is, surely, superfluous!"
,k87a_51:" Lit., 'what (reasoning) for me'!"
,k87a_52:" A child whose death occurred after the death of his father exempts his mother from the levirate marriage as if he were still alive."
,k87a_53:" Only a live child deprives his mother, the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite, from her right to eat <i>terumah</i> after the death of her husband. As soon as the child dies his mother regains her lost right."
,k87a_54:" Lev. XXII, 13."
,k87a_55:" Cf. BaH. Cur. edd. omit 'As&nbsp;&hellip; exclude'."
,k87a_56:" Lit., 'and it was necessary to write'."
,k87a_57:" So BaH. Cur. edd. omit, 'To exclude&nbsp;&hellip; child'."
,k87a_58:" Before her marriage."
,k87a_59:" Mother and born child."
,k87a_60:" As in her youth. "
}

txt:
<p>
THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>.<a id="k87a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE DIED AND SHE HAD A SON BY HIM SHE MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>. IF SHE WAS [SUBSEQUENTLY] MARRIED TO A LEVITE SHE MAY EAT TITHE. IF THE LATTER DIED AND SHE HAD A SON BY HIM SHE MAY EAT TITHE. IF SHE WAS [SUBSEQUENTLY] MARRIED TO A PRIEST SHE MAY EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>. IF THE LATTER DIED AND SHE HAD A SON BY HIM SHE MAY EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>. IF HER SON BY THE PRIEST DIED SHE MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>. IF HER SON BY THE LEVITE DIED SHE MAY NOT EAT TITHE. IF HER SON BY THE ISRAELITE DIED SHE RETURNS TO THE HOUSE OF HER FATHER; AND IT IS CONCERNING SUCH A WOMAN THAT IT WAS SAID, AND IS RETURNED UNTO HER FATHER'S HOUSE, AS IN HER YOUTH, SHE MAY EAT OF HER FATHER'S BREAD.<a id="k87a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	GEMARA. IF HER SON BY THE LEVITE DIED SHE MAY AGAIN EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>, because she is again entitled to eat it by virtue of her son;<a id="k87a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; whence is this<a id="k87a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; derived? &mdash; R. Abba replied in the name of Rab: [From the use of the expression,] But a daughter<a id="k87a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [instead of] 'a daughter'.<a id="k87a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; In accordance with whose view?<a id="k87a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it in accordance with that of R. Akiba who bases expositions on Wawin!<a id="k87a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It may be said [to be in agreement] even [with the view of the] Rabbis, since the entire expression But a daughter<a id="k87a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is superfluous.<a id="k87a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: When she<a id="k87a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; returns,<a id="k87a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; she returns only to [the privilege of eating] <i>terumah</i>, but does not return to [the privilege of eating] the breast and the shoulder.<a id="k87a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Hisda in the name of Rabina b. Shila, 'What Scriptural text proves this?<a id="k87a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; She shall not eat of the <i>terumah</i> of the holy things,<a id="k87a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; she must not eat of that which is set apart<a id="k87a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; from the holy things'.<a id="k87a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman replied<a id="k87a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Of [her father's] bread,<a id="k87a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but not all [her father's] bread;<a id="k87a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; this excludes the breast and the shoulder.<a id="k87a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Rami b. Hama demurred: Might it not be suggested that this<a id="k87a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; excludes the invalidation of vows!<a id="k87a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba replied: A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael has long ago settled this difficulty. For a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: What need was there for Scripture to state, But the vow of a widow, or of her that is divorced&nbsp;&hellip; shall stand against her?<a id="k87a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Is she not free from the authority of her father and also from that of her husband!<a id="k87a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; The fact is that where the father had entrusted [his daughter] to the representatives of the husband, or where the representatives of the father had entrusted her to the representatives of the husband, and on the way<a id="k87a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; she became a widow or was divorced, [it would not have been known] whether she was to be described as of<a id="k87a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; the house of her father<a id="k87a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; or as of the house of her husband;<a id="k87a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; hence the need for the text<a id="k87a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; to tell you that as soon as she had left her father's authority, even if only for a short while, he may no more invalidate her vows.<a id="k87a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Safra replied:<a id="k87a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; She may eat of her father's bread,<a id="k87a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; only bread but no flesh.<a id="k87a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa replied:<a id="k87a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; She may eat of her father's bread,<a id="k87a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; only the bread which is the property of her father;<a id="k87a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; excluding however, the breast and the shoulder which [priests] obtain from the table of the Most High.<a id="k87a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba, however, replied:<a id="k87a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; And the breast of the waving and the thigh of heaving shall ye eat&nbsp;&hellip; thou, and thy daughters with thee,<a id="k87a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; only when they are with thee.<a id="k87a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Adda b. Ahabah stated that a Tanna taught: When she<a id="k87a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; returns to her father's house, she returns [only to the privilege of eating] <i>terumah</i>, but does not return to [the privilege of eating] the breast and the shoulders. [If she<a id="k87a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; returns, however,] by virtue of her son,<a id="k87a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; she returns also to [the privilege of eating] the breast and the shoulder.<a id="k87a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Mordecai went and recited this traditional statement in the presence of R. Ashi, when the latter said to him, 'Whence [has this case]<a id="k87a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; been included?<a id="k87a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; From "But a daughter".<a id="k87a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Should she, then, be more important than the other!'<a id="k87a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There,<a id="k87a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; the excluding texts were written;<a id="k87a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; but here<a id="k87a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; no excluding texts were written.
</p><p>
	THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE etc. Our Rabbis taught: And is returned unto her father's house,<a id="k87a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; excludes one who is awaiting the decision of the levir;<a id="k87a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; as in her youth,<a id="k87a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; excludes a pregnant woman.<a id="k87a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; But could not this [law,<a id="k87a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; however, be arrived at by] logical argument: If where a child by a first husband is not regarded as the child by the second husband, in respect of exempting the woman from the levirate marriage,<a id="k87a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; the embryo is nevertheless regarded as a born child,<a id="k87a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; how much more should the embryo be regarded as a born child where a child by the first husband is regarded as the child of the second, in respect of depriving a woman of her right to <i>terumah</i>!<a id="k87a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; No; this is no argument.<a id="k87a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; If an embryo was regarded as a born child in respect of the levirate marriage, where the dead were given the same status as the living,<a id="k87a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; should an embryo be regarded as a born child in respect of <i>terumah</i>, where the dead were not given the same status as the living?<a id="k87a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently Scripture expressly stated, As in her youth,<a id="k87a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; to exclude a pregnant woman.
</p><p>
	And it was necessary for Scripture to write, As<a id="k87a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; in her youth, to exclude the pregnant woman; and also<a id="k87a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; And have no child,<a id="k87a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; to<a id="k87a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; exclude one who has a born child. For had the All Merciful written only And have no child,<a id="k87a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed [that only a woman who has a born child is forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>, because] at first<a id="k87a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; there was one body and now there are two bodies,<a id="k87a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; but that a pregnant woman, who formed at first<a id="k87a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; one body and is now also one body on]y, may eat, [hence the second text<a id="k87a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; was] required. And had the All Merciful written of the pregnant woman only it might have been assumed [that only she is forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>] because at first<a id="k87a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; her body
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k87b_1:" Lit., 'have no child' (Lev. XXII, 13) i.e., a woman who has a born child and whose case was deduced from this text."
,k87b_2:" And have no child."
,k87b_3:" To indicate that a born child also deprives his mother of her right to <i>terumah</i>."
,k87b_4:" An aid to the memorisation of the following four arguments."
,k87b_5:" The verb 'to make', [H] is rendered in the following discussions by various equivalents in accordance with the requirements of English idiom."
,k87b_6:" Cur. edd. 'her deeds', [H], is apparently a substitute for this reading, [H], which agrees with MS.M."
,k87b_7:" Cur. edd. repeat, 'levirate marriage and terumah'. MS.M. gives it only once."
,k87b_8:" [Deskarah, N.E. of Bagdad. Obermeyer. p. 146]."
,k87b_9:" Lit., 'let us not make'. Cf. mnemonic <i>supra</i>."
,k87b_10:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 589, n. 14."
,k87b_11:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 590, n. 2."
,k87b_12:" And consequently not exempt his mother from the levirate marriage."
,k87b_13:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 589, n. 12."
,k87b_14:" Prov. III, 17. Were a woman, whose child died after its father, to be subjected to the obligations of the levirate marriage, the peace and the pleasantness of family life might be disturbed where the woman, for instance, happened to have married after the death of her husband and the child died subsequently."
,k87b_15:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k87b_16:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 590, n. 1."
,k87b_17:" And consequently disqualify his mother from the right of eating of <i>terumah</i>."
,k87b_18:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 589, n. 14."
,k87b_19:" Lev. XXII, 13."
,k87b_20:" Hence the permission to eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k87b_21:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 590, n. 2."
,k87b_22:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 589, n. 12."
,k87b_23:" And consequently exempt his mother from the levirate marriage."
,k87b_24:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k87b_25:" Lev. XXII, 13."
,k87b_26:" Lit., 'and they came and said to her'. This, as will be explained <i>infra</i>, refers to evidence given by a single witness."
,k87b_27:" If she desires to marry again."
,k87b_28:" Even for the period during which she lived with him."
,k87b_29:" Neither compensation for those that were entirely destroyed nor the clothes themselves should the tatters still be in existence."
,k87b_30:" Pentateuchally if begotten by the second husband; Rabbinically if by the first who resumed living with her."
,k87b_31:" If a priest."
,k87b_32:" If she died. Cf. Lev. XXI, 1ff."
,k87b_33:" A woman's find belongs to her lawful husband. Cf. B.M. 12a."
,k87b_34:" To which a lawful husband is entitled in return for her maintenance."
,k87b_35:" V. Num. XXX. 7ff."
,k87b_36:" From the levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i>."
,k87b_37:" Her first husband, after his return."
,k87b_38:" Of the <i>Beth din</i>; i.e., if she married on the strength of the evidence of two witnesses who testified to her husband's death, in which case no authorization by a court is required."
,k87b_39:" When only one witness testified to the death of her husband."
,k87b_40:" And her first husband subsequently returned."
,k87b_41:" Her second husband."
,k87b_42:" Since she has acted on a ruling of the <i>Beth din</i>. Cf. Hor. 2a."
,k87b_43:" Lit., 'they taught her' or 'directed her'."
,k87b_44:" By immoral conduct. V. <i>infra</i> 922 for fuller explanation."
,k87b_45:" If her first husband subsequently returns."
,k87b_46:" I.e., to contract a lawful marriage, not a forbidden one."
,k87b_47:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 593, n. 1."
,k87b_48:" Lit., 'from the mouth'."
,k87b_49:" <i>Infra</i> 122a, Shab. 145a, Bek. 46b."
,k87b_50:" Unwittingly."
,k87b_51:" [H] forbidden fat."
,k87b_52:" From bringing a sin-offering (cf. Lev. IV, 27ff), Kid. 65b, Ker. 11b."
,k87b_53:" And a beast would have been offered as a sin-offering though its sanctity was entirely dependent on one man's word."
,k87b_54:" Had such evidence been Pentateuchally inadmissible, the sin-offering would consist of a Pentateuchally unconsecrated beast which must not be offered on the altar and is also forbidden to be eaten by the priests."
,k87b_55:" The admissibility of one man's evidence."
,k87b_56:" Lev. IV, 28; only then must he bring a sin-offering."
,k87b_57:" Ibid."
,k87b_58:" Cf. Ker. 11b."
,k87b_59:" Two witnesses are, surely, always relied upon."
,k87b_60:" Lit., 'but not'."
,k87b_61:" And an offering is brought upon the altar on the basis of his word. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7."
,k87b_62:" For the obligation of an offering."
,k87b_63:" Lit., 'you may know' that the reason is because silence is regarded as an admission."
,k87b_64:" Unwittingly."
,k87b_65:" [H] forbidden fat."
,k87b_66:" That the evidence of the two witnesses is accepted despite the denial of the accused."
,k87b_67:" For a presumptuous sin no sin-offering is brought. In such a case the evidence of the witnesses would be of no value. They can only testify to one's action but not to one's motive or state of mind. Since the accused could annul the evidence by such a plea he is also believed when he simply contradicts the evidence."
,k87b_68:" Where the accusation comes from one witness. "
}

txt:
<p>
was empty and now it is full, but not [a woman whose child was already born],<a id="k87b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; whose body was at first empty and is now also empty, [hence was the first text<a id="k87b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; also] required.<a id="k87b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic.<a id="k87b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>He said to him: Let us not make<a id="k87b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and make<a id="k87b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; in death; let us make and not make in the child of the levir and terumah</i>.)<a id="k87b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Rab Judah of Diskarta<a id="k87b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; to Raba: The dead should not be given<a id="k87b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the same status as the living, in respect of the levirate marriage, by inference a minori ad majus: If where a child by the first husband is regarded as the child of the second husband, in respect of disqualifying the woman from the eating of <i>terumah</i>,<a id="k87b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the dead were not given the same status as the living,<a id="k87b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; how much less should the dead be given the same status as the living<a id="k87b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; where the child of the first husband is not regarded as the son of the second, in respect of exempting the woman from the levirate marriage!<a id="k87b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; It was expressly stated, <i>Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace</i>.<a id="k87b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Then let the dead be given<a id="k87b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the same status as the living in respect of <i>terumah</i> by inference a minori ad majus: If where a child by the first husband is not regarded as the child of the second In respect of exempting the woman from the levirate marriage,<a id="k87b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; the dead were given the same status as the living,<a id="k87b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; how much more so should the dead be given the same status as the living<a id="k87b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; where a child of the first husband is regarded as the son of the second, in respect of disqualifying the woman from <i>terumah</i>!<a id="k87b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; It was expressly stated, And [she] have no child<a id="k87b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and she, surely, has none.<a id="k87b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Let the child of the first husband be regarded as the child of the second husband in respect of the levirate marriage by inference a minori ad majus: If where the dead were not given the same status as the living, in respect of <i>terumah</i><a id="k87b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; the child of the first husband is regarded as the son of the second,<a id="k87b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; how much more should the child of the first husband be regarded as the child of the second<a id="k87b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; where the dead were given the status of the living in respect of the levirate marriage!<a id="k87b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It was expressly stated, And [he] have no child,<a id="k87b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and this man, surely, has none.
</p><p>
	Then let the child of the first husband not be regarded as the child of the second husband, in respect of <i>terumah</i>, by inference a minori ad majus: If where the dead were given the same status as the living, in respect of exempting her from the levirate marriage, the child of the first husband was not regarded as the child of the second,<a id="k87b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; how much less should the child of the first husband be regarded as the child of the second, where the dead were not regarded as the living in respect of eating <i>terumah</i>!<a id="k87b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It was specifically stated, And [she] have none,<a id="k87b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but she surely has [one].
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_x">CHAPTER X</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A WOMAN WHOSE HUSBAND HAD GONE TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND ON BEING TOLD,<a id="k87b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'YOUR HUSBAND IS DEAD', MARRIED, MUST, IF HER HUSBAND SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED, LEAVE THE ONE AS WELL AS THE OTHER, AND SHE ALSO REQUIRES<a id="k87b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; A LETTER OF DIVORCE FROM THE ONE AS WELL AS FROM THE OTHER. SHE HAS NO [CLAIM TO HER] <I>KETHUBAH</I>, USUFRUCT, MAINTENANCE<a id="k87b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; OR WORN CLOTHES<a id="k87b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; EITHER AGAINST THE FIRST HUSBAND OR AGAINST THE SECOND. IF SHE HAS TAKEN ANYTHING FROM THE ONE OR FROM THE OTHER, SHE MUST RETURN IT. THE CHILD BEGOTTEN BY THE ONE HUSBAND OR BY THE OTHER IS A BASTARD;<a id="k87b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; NEITHER OF THEM<a id="k87b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY DEFILE HIMSELF FOR HER;<a id="k87b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; NEITHER OF THEM HAS A CLAIM TO WHATEVER SHE MAY FIND<a id="k87b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; OR MAKE WITH HER HANDS;<a id="k87b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; AND NEITHER HAS THE RIGHT OF INVALIDATING HER VOWS.<a id="k87b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; IF SHE WAS THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE, SHE BECOMES DISQUALIFIED FROM MARRYING A PRIEST; IF THE DAUGHTER OF A LEVITE, FROM THE EATING OF TITHE; AND IF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST, FROM THE EATING OF <I>TERUMAH</I>. NEITHER THE HEIRS OF THE ONE HUSBAND NOR THE HEIRS OF THE OTHER ARE ENTITLED TO INHERIT HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>, AND IF [THE HUSBANDS] DIE, THE BROTHER OF THE ONE AND THE BROTHER OF THE OTHER MUST SUBMIT TO <I>HALIZAH</I>, BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. R. JOSE SAID: HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> REMAINS A CHARGE UPON THE ESTATE OF HER FIRST HUSBAND. R. ELEAZAR SAID: THE FIRST HUSBAND IS ENTITLED TO WHATEVER SHE MAY FIND, OR MAKE WITH HER HANDS, AND ALSO HAS THE RIGHT OF INVALIDATING HER VOWS. R. SIMEON SAID: HER COHABITATION OR <I>HALIZAH</I> WITH THE BROTHER OF THE FIRST HUSBAND EXEMPTS HER RIVAL,<a id="k87b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; AND A CHILD BEGOTTEN BY HIM<a id="k87b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; IS NOT A BASTARD. IF SHE MARRIED WITHOUT AN AUTHORIZATION<a id="k87b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MAY RETURN TO HIM.<a id="k87b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; IF<a id="k87b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MARRIED WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE <I>BETH DIN</I>,<a id="k87b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MUST LEAVE,<a id="k87b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IS EXEMPT FROM AN OFFERING.<a id="k87b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; IF SHE MARRIED, HOWEVER, WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE <I>BETH DIN</I>, SHE MUST LEAVE<a id="k87b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IS ALSO LIABLE TO AN OFFERING. THE AUTHORITY OF THE <I>BETH DIN</I> IS THUS MORE EFFECTIVE IN THAT IT EXEMPTS HER FROM THE OFFERING. IF THE <I>BETH DIN</I> RULED<a id="k87b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT SHE MAY BE MARRIED AGAIN AND SHE WENT AND DISGRACED HERSELF<a id="k87b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE<a id="k87b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; MUST BRING AN OFFERING, BECAUSE THE <I>BETH DIN</I> PERMITTED HER ONLY TO MARRY.<a id="k87b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	GEMARA. Since in the final clause it was stated, IF SHE MARRIES WITHOUT PERMISSION SHE MAY RETURN TO HIM, [which means obviously], without the authorization of the <i>Beth din</i> but [in reliance on the evidence] of witnesses, the first clause, it is to be inferred, [speaks of a woman who married] with the permission of the <i>Beth din</i> and on the evidence of a sing]e witness.<a id="k87b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus it clearly follows that one witness is trusted. Furthermore, we learned: The practice was adopted of allowing a marriage on the evidence of one witness reporting<a id="k87b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; another single witness, and of a woman reporting another woman, and of a woman reporting a bondman or a bondwoman;<a id="k87b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; from which it is obvious that one witness is trusted. Furthermore we learned: [The man to whom] one witness said, 'You have eaten<a id="k87b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; suet',<a id="k87b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; and who replied, 'I have not eaten', is exempt.<a id="k87b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; Now the reason [for his exemption is] because he said, 'l have not eaten'; had he, however, remained silent [the witness] would have been trusted.<a id="k87b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; From this it is clearly evident that one witness is trusted in accordance with Pentateuchal law;<a id="k87b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; whence is this<a id="k87b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; deduced? From what was taught: If his sin &hellip; be known to him,<a id="k87b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; but not when others have made it known to him. As it might have been assumed that even where he does not contradict the evidence he is exempt, it was expressly stated, If &hellip; be known to him,<a id="k87b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; in any manner.<a id="k87b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, how is this statement to be understood? If it be suggested [that it refers to a case] where two witnesses appeared, and he does not contradict them, what need then was there for a Scriptural text!<a id="k87b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; Must it not then refer to the case of<a id="k87b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; one witness, and yet [we see that] when the accused does not contradict him he is trusted.<a id="k87b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; From this, then, it maybe inferred that one witness is to be trusted.<a id="k87b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; But whence is it inferred that [the reason<a id="k87b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; is] because he is trusted? Is it not possible that it is due to the fact that the other had remained silent, silence being regarded as an admission! You can have proof that this is so,<a id="k87b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; since in the final clause it was stated: [A man to whom] two witnesses said, 'You have eaten<a id="k87b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; suet,<a id="k87b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; and who replied. 'I have not eaten', is exempt; but R. Meir declares him guilty. Said R. Meir: This<a id="k87b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; may be inferred a minori ad majus. If two witnesses may bring upon a man the severe penalty of death, should they not be able to bring upon him the minor penalty of a sacrifice! The others replied: What if he desired to say, 'I have acted presumptuously'!<a id="k87b_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, in the first clause,<a id="k87b_68"><sup>68</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k97a_1:" Or Jehozadak (cf. Sanh. 90b)."
,k97a_2:" Cant. VII. 10. [H] moving gently."
,k97a_3:" [H]."
,k97a_4:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 5. The rt. [H] signifies both 'to exude' and 'to whisper'."
,k97a_5:" A levir whose brother died without issue and whose duty it is to marry the widow of the deceased or to submit to her <i>halizah</i>."
,k97a_6:" The legal signs of maturity."
,k97a_7:" The relatives of the widow, who are desirous of procuring her exemption from the levirate marriage and the <i>halizah</i>."
,k97a_8:" One incapable of procreation. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> He is no longer regarded as a minor for whose maturity the widow must wait."
,k97a_9:" A widow whose husband died childless. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 661, n. 8."
,k97a_10:" The levir's relatives, cf. <i>supra</i> p. 661, n. 10 mutatis mutandis."
,k97a_11:" <i>Supra</i> 80a, Ned. 57b, Cf, B.B. 155b. From this (cf. p. 661, n. 11) it follows that at the age of twenty a person is considered to have attained legal majority, though his body has not developed any signs of maturity, contrary to our Mishnah which gives such a person the status of a minor."
,k97a_12:" The law that he is regarded as a <i>saris</i>,"
,k97a_13:" Described <i>supra</i> 80b."
,k97a_14:" If, however, these additional symptoms of a <i>saris</i> did not appear, he is as stated in our Mishnah regarded as a minor so long as he has not produced two pubic hairs."
,k97a_15:" That a boy is not regarded as a <i>saris</i> unless apart from the absence of pubic hairs, he has developed also other symptoms of a <i>saris</i>."
,k97a_16:" Implying that he had already other symptoms of a <i>saris</i>."
,k97a_17:" If two pubic hairs did not appear."
,k97a_18:" Lit., 'most of his years', i.e., until he is thirty-six years of age. Man's span of life is taken to be seventy years (cf. Ps. XC, 10)."
,k97a_19:" Of one who reached the age of twenty without having produced two hairs."
,k97a_20:" Or,'R. Hiyya'. Cf. B.B. 155b and Nid. 47b."
,k97a_21:" [H] (rt. [H] Pi'el, 'to fall off'). MS.M. reads, [H] (rt. [H] 'come', 'appear') a reading adopted by Tosaf. in B.B. 155b, s.v. [H]."
,k97a_22:" Only relatives of a married wife are subject to the law of incest."
,k97a_23:" And must suffer the prescribed penalties."
,k97a_24:" In our Mishnah."
,k97a_25:" By immoral intercourse, whether without, or with her consent."
,k97a_26:" Tosef. Yeb. IV and <i>supra</i> 262 q.v. for notes."
,k97a_27:" In the Tosefta cited."
,k97a_28:" In order that illicit intercourse with the suspected woman may not be facilitated through a marriage with one of her near relatives."
,k97a_29:" If the woman outraged or seduced is dead the marriage with any one of her relatives would obviously provide no further facilities for illicit intercourse with her (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7). Hence no preventive measure was instituted."
,k97a_30:" Such as, e.g., a father's wife, a daughter-in-law and an aunt (v. Lev. XX, 11ff)."
,k97a_31:" E.g., lieth (Lev. XX, 11), lie (ibid. 12)."
,k97a_32:" In respect of a woman and her mother, and similar relatives that are forbidden through one's wife."
,k97a_33:" E.g., take (lev. XVIII, 17, 18, ibid. XX, 14, 17)."
,k97a_34:" I.e., when the man contracted with her a lawful marriage; cf. Deut. XXIV, 1: 'When a man taketh a wife'."
,k97a_35:" The relatives of a woman with whom he had illicit intercourse are, therefore permitted."
,k97a_36:" Lit., 'but now'."
,k97a_37:" Lev. XX, 17 emphasis on take. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 6."
,k97a_38:" This would be absurd."
,k97a_39:" As in the case of a woman and her mother or two sisters, where marriage with the first is lawful."
,k97a_40:" Lawful marriage. Only when legal marriage took place with the first is marriage with the second forbidden."
,k97a_41:" Intercourse, for instance, with one's sister."
,k97a_42:" Even illicit intercourse."
,k97a_43:" Lev. XVIII, 10."
,k97a_44:" Lit., 'thus'."
,k97a_45:" A wife's."
,k97a_46:" Lev. XVIII, 17."
,k97a_47:" Lit., 'here'."
,k97a_48:" I.e., applying the first text to cases of marriage and the second to those of outrage."
,k97a_49:" V. Lev. XVIII, 6."
,k97a_50:" Deut. XXIII, 1."
,k97a_51:" Even through outrage."
,k97a_52:" Deut. XXII, 29. a case of outrage."
,k97a_53:" How can they maintain their view in our Mishnah against the Scriptural text."
,k97a_54:" Lit., 'as you said'."
,k97a_55:" Lit., 'and what'."
,k97a_56:" A son."
,k97a_57:" Such a woman, unless she has performed <i>halizah</i> with his father, is permitted to marry no one but his father."
,k97a_58:" To marry the widow who was subject to his father's Ievirate marriage. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 9."
,k97a_59:" Having been the wife of his father's brother. V. Lev. XX, 20. What need then was there for the additional text of Deut. XXIII, 1?"
,k97a_60:" The son. v.. <i>supra</i> note 10."
,k97a_61:" Prescribed in (1) Lev. XX, 20 and (2) Deut. XXIII, 1."
,k97a_62:" V. <i>supra</i> note 10."
,k97a_63:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 9."
,k97a_64:" Lit., 'to the market', i.e., any man other than the levir. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 11 second clause."
,k97a_65:" The two referred to <i>supra</i> p. 665, n. 13 as well as the one last mentioned."
,k97a_66:" In reply to the last objection."
,k97a_67:" When marriage with the widow is not subject to the last mentioned prohibition (that of a sister-in-law to a stranger) and only two prohibitions (v. <i>supra</i> p. 665, n. 13) remain. "
}

txt:
<p>
that a traditional statement may be reported in my name in this world'; for R. Johanan<a id="k97a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: The lips of a [deceased] scholar, in whose name a traditional statement is reported in this world, move gently in the grave. Said R. Isaac b. Ze'ira, or it might be said, Simeon the Nazirite: What is the Scriptural proof of this? And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine that glideth down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those who are asleep,<a id="k97a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; like a heated mass of grapes. As a heated mass of grapes, as soon as a man places his finger upon it, exudes<a id="k97a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; immediately so with the scholars as soon as a traditional statement is made in their name in this world, their lips move gently<a id="k97a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; in the grave.
</p><p>
	WHETHER HE IS OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS etc. A contradiction was pointed out: If at the age of twenty he<a id="k97a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; did not produce two [pubic] hairs,<a id="k97a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k97a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; must bring evidence that he is twenty years of age, and he [is then confirmed as a] <i>saris</i>;<a id="k97a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; he may neither submit to <i>halizah</i> nor may he perform the levirate marriage. If a woman<a id="k97a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; at the age of twenty did not produce two [pubic] hairs, they<a id="k97a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age, and she [is then confirmed as a] woman who is incapable of procreation; she may neither perform <i>halizah</i> nor contract levirate marriage!<a id="k97a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Surely in connection with this Mishnah it was stated: R. Samuel b. Isaac said in the name of Rab that this<a id="k97a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to the case where [other] symptoms<a id="k97a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; of a <i>saris</i> also appeared on him.<a id="k97a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Raba: This<a id="k97a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; may also be arrived at by deduction. For it was taught, 'And he [is confirmed as a] <i>saris</i>',<a id="k97a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; from which this<a id="k97a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; may well be deduced.
</p><p>
	And where no symptoms of a <i>saris</i> developed, how long [is one regarded as a minor]?<a id="k97a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It was taught at the school of R. Hiyya: Until he has passed middle age.<a id="k97a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Whenever people came [with such a case]<a id="k97a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; before Raba,<a id="k97a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; he used to tell them, if [the youth was] emaciated, 'Let him first be fattened'; and if he was stout, he used to tell them, 'Let him first be made to lose weight'; for these symptoms disappear<a id="k97a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; sometimes as a result of emaciation and sometimes they disappear<a id="k97a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; as a result of stoutness.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xi">CHAPTER XI</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY [THE NEAR RELATIVE] OF A WOMAN [WHOM HE HAS] OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED.<a id="k97a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; HE, HOWEVER, WHO OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED [A RELATIVE] OF HIS MARRIED WIFE, IS GUILTY.<a id="k97a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; A MAN MAY MARRY THE WOMAN WHOM HIS FATHER HAS OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED OR THE WOMAN WHOM HIS SON HAS OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED. R. JUDAH FORBIDS [MARRIAGE] WITH THE WOMAN WHOM ONE'S FATHER HAS OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Here<a id="k97a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; we learn what the Rabbis taught: 'A man who has outraged a woman<a id="k97a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted to marry her daughter; if, however, he married the woman, he is forbidden to marry her daughter'. A contradiction, however, may be pointed out: A man who is suspected of intercourse with a woman is forbidden to marry her mother, her daughter and her sister!<a id="k97a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This [prohibition<a id="k97a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is only] Rabbinical.<a id="k97a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Would it be stated, however, where a Rabbinical prohibition exists, that A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY even from the outset! &mdash; Our Mishnah refers only to [a marriage] after [the suspected woman's] death.<a id="k97a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Whence is this ruling deduced? &mdash; From what the Rabbis taught: In the case of all those [illicit relationships]<a id="k97a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; Scripture used the expression of 'lying',<a id="k97a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; but here<a id="k97a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; it made use of the expression of 'taking',<a id="k97a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; in order to tell you [that only when intercourse with a woman was in] the manner of 'taking'<a id="k97a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; did the Torah forbid [marriage with her relatives].<a id="k97a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Papa to Abaye: If that is so,<a id="k97a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; then in respect of one's sister, concerning whom it is written, And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter;<a id="k97a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; is [intercourse] here also forbidden only [if it is in] the manner of 'taking',<a id="k97a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; but permitted [if it is in] the manner of 'lying'!<a id="k97a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: The word 'taking' is used in the Torah without being defined, [so that a text] to which 'taking' is applicable,<a id="k97a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [signifies] 'taking'<a id="k97a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; while one to which only 'lying' is applicable,<a id="k97a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [signifies] 'lying'.<a id="k97a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba stated: [That a man who] outraged a woman is permitted to marry her daughter, [is deduced] from here: It is written, The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, thou shalt not uncover;<a id="k97a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; from which it follows<a id="k97a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; that the daughter of her<a id="k97a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; son and the daughter of her<a id="k97a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; daughter may be uncovered; but it is also written in Scripture, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; thou shalt not take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter!<a id="k97a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; How then [are these to be reconciled]? The former<a id="k97a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to cases of outrage and the latter to those of marriage. Might not [the application]<a id="k97a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; be reversed? &mdash; In respect of forbidden relatives the expression kin<a id="k97a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; is written, and kinship exists only by means of marriage; but no kinship exists by means of outrage.
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH FORBIDS MARRIAGE WITH THE WOMAN WHOM ONE'S FATHER HAD OUTRAGED etc. R. Giddal stated in the name of Rab: What is R. Judah's reason? Because it is written, A man shall not take his father's wife, and shall not uncover his father's skirt:<a id="k97a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; the skirt which his father saw<a id="k97a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; he shall not uncover. Whence, however, is it inferred that Scripture speaks of an outraged woman? &mdash; From the preceding section of the text where it is written, Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsels father fifty <i>shekels</i> of silver.<a id="k97a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; And the Rabbis?<a id="k97a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If one text had occurred in close proximity to the other your exposition would have been justified;<a id="k97a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; now, however, that it does not occur in close proximity, the text is required for [an exposition] like that of R. Anan. For R. Anan stated in the name of Samuel that the Scriptural text<a id="k97a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; speaks of a woman awaiting the levirate decision of his father; and the meaning of<a id="k97a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; his father's skirt<a id="k97a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; is: He<a id="k97a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; shall not uncover the skirt which is designated for his father.<a id="k97a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[This prohibition,<a id="k97a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; however], might be deduced from the fact that she is his aunt!<a id="k97a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The text<a id="k97a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; was necessary] to make him<a id="k97a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; guilty of the transgression of two negative commandments.<a id="k97a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; [The prohibition,<a id="k97a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; however] might be inferred from the fact [that the widow as a] sister-in-law<a id="k97a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; [is forbidden] to marry any stranger!<a id="k97a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The text<a id="k97a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; was necessary] to make him guilty of the transgression of three negative commandments.<a id="k97a_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you prefer I might say:<a id="k97a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; After [his father's] death.<a id="k97a_67"><sup>67</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k97b_1:" This and the following unlikely propositions are merely riddles on the possible complications of consanguinity."
,k97b_2:" Such a riddle may be put by a daughter who was born as a result of outrage by his father where the son of the man by another wife has subsequently married her mother."
,k97b_3:" Since, according to R. Judah, marriage is forbidden with a woman one's father had outraged."
,k97b_4:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 4."
,k97b_5:" And a son was born from the union. The mother of the child might put such a riddle."
,k97b_6:" The son born from such a union, since he is the paternal brother of his mother's mother, might be addressed by his mother in the terms of this riddle."
,k97b_7:" Lit., 'drawers who draw the bucket'. Men engaged in the irrigation of fields (cf. Rashi and last.); scholars drawing from the fountains of wisdom (cf. Aruk. and Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k97b_8:" So Aruk. Cur. edd., 'let it fall among you'."
,k97b_9:" The son born from this union is the paternal brother of his mother's father."
,k97b_10:" The idolater's father."
,k97b_11:" The daughter."
,k97b_12:" The daughter may describe the idolater as her maternal brother, her natural father and her actual husband. Owing to her cohabitation with his father (the grandfather) he is the son of her husband, while through his cohabitation with her mother he is her mother's husband and she is, of course, the daughter of his wife. The children resulting from the union between her and the grandfather are his (the idolater's) paternal brothers and, of course, the children of his daughter."
,k97b_13:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 666, n. 4."
,k97b_14:" [H] may be rendered 'brothers', 'brother and sister' and 'sisters'. It sometimes signifies 'relatives' or mere 'friends'."
,k97b_15:" [MS.M. 'when his sister']."
,k97b_16:" So MS.M. Cur. edd., 'calls'."
,k97b_17:" The son."
,k97b_18:" She and the son are brother and sister, being the offspring of the same father. She and his father are brother and sister from the same mother, while she and his mother are sisters both paternally and maternally."
,k97b_19:" His brother, Reuben, Simeon and Levi, the sons of Jacob and Leah (v. Gen. XXIX, 32ff) are chosen as an illustration of brotherly relationship."
,k97b_20:" So BaH a.l. wanting in cur. edd."
,k97b_21:" He and Levi's grandson are the children of two sisters (Reuben's daughters); he and Levi's son (the grandson's father) are children of two brothers (Simeon and Levi), while he and the grandson's mother are children of the two brothers Reuben and Simeon."
,k97b_22:" Should one of the brothers die without issue."
,k97b_23:" I.e., before his mother became a proselyte."
,k97b_24:" After his mother became a proselyte."
,k97b_25:" A proselyte having the status of a newly born child, all his previous family relationships are dissolved. The prohibition against marriage with a brother's wife does not, therefore, apply."
,k97b_26:" Between R. Aba and R. Shesheth."
,k97b_27:" Marriage of a brother's wife in the case of proselytes."
,k97b_28:" It is well known that their father was no Israelite, and that it is for this reason that the marriage was permitted. No one would assume that they were the sons of the same father, since idolaters' wives were known to be faithless, and, consequently, no one would erroneously infer that proper Israelites may also marry their brother's wives."
,k97b_29:" Their mother being known, they might he assumed to be lawful brothers and, should marriage of a brother's wife he permitted in their case, an erroneous conclusion (v. <i>supra</i> note 6) might he formed."
,k97b_30:" R. Aba."
,k97b_31:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 6."
,k97b_32:" V. <i>supra</i> 22a and cf <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k97b_33:" Of the prohibition. Lit., 'what is the reason'."
,k97b_34:" The law of the levirate marriage being inapplicable in their case, the prohibition against marrying a brother's wife remains in force. An objection against R. Aha"
,k97b_35:" The Mishnah implying that the brothers are not obliged to perform the religious rites."
,k97b_36:" Lit., 'to the world'."
,k97b_37:" Marriage of a brother's wife in the case of proselytes."
,k97b_38:" Who may marry one another's wives."
,k97b_39:" To marry each other's wives."
,k97b_40:" On the contrary; this should be an additional reason for permissibility."
,k97b_41:" Lit., 'exchange'."
,k97b_42:" And so permit a deceased brother's wife to marry a stranger without previous <i>halizah</i>."
,k97b_43:" Because (cf. Rashi) it is known that the duty of levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i> is determined by paternal brotherhood which is inapplicable in the case of a father who was an idolater (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 668, n. 6.) [They, themselves, would however be forbidden to marry each other's widows where they were both born in holiness. It is only with reference to the first clause of our Mishnah that R. Aha stated <i>supra</i> that they were permitted (Rashi)]."
,k97b_44:" To marry each other's wives."
,k97b_45:" The fact that they were both born in holiness should be an additional reason for the prohibition."
,k97b_46:" Who may marry one another's wives."
,k97b_47:" Though, in the case of twins, paternal brotherhood is certain (cf. <i>infra</i> 89a)."
,k97b_48:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 668, n. 3."
,k97b_49:" Since the duty of levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i> is dependent on paternal brotherhood. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 669, n. 3."
,k97b_50:" <i>Kareth</i>."
,k97b_51:" Whom even a maternal brother is forbidden to marry. "
}

txt:
<p>
	'My<a id="k97b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; paternal, but not my maternal brother; and he is the husband of my mother and I am the daughter of his wife'!<a id="k97b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rami b. Hama said: Such [a relationship is] not [legally possible] according to the ruling of R. Judah in our Mishnah.<a id="k97b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'He<a id="k97b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; whom I carry on my shoulder is my brother and my son and I am his sister'? &mdash; This is possible when an idolater cohabited with his daughter'.<a id="k97b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Greetings<a id="k97b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to you my son; I am the daughter of your sister'? &mdash; This is possible where an idolater cohabited with his daughter's daughter.<a id="k97b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Ye<a id="k97b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; water-drawers,<a id="k97b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; we shall ask you<a id="k97b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; a riddle that defies solution: He whom I carry is my son and I am the daughter of his brother'? &mdash; This is possible where an idolater cohabited with the daughter of his son.<a id="k97b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Woe,<a id="k97b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; woe, for my brother who is my father; he is my husband and the son of my husband; he is the husband of my mother and I am the daughter of his wife; and he provides no food for his orphan brothers, the children of his daughter'? &mdash; This is possible when an idolater cohabited with his mother and begot from her a daughter; then he cohabited with that daughter; and then the grandfather<a id="k97b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; cohabited with her<a id="k97b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and begot from her sons.<a id="k97b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'I<a id="k97b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and you are brother and sister,<a id="k97b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; I and your father are brother and sister, and I and your mother are sisters'? &mdash; This is possible where an idolater cohabited with his mother and from her begot two daughters, and then he cohabited with one of these and begot from her a son. When the sons's mother's sister<a id="k97b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; carries<a id="k97b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; him<a id="k97b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; she addresses him thus.<a id="k97b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'I<a id="k97b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and you are the children of sisters,<a id="k97b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; I and your father are the children of brothers, and I and your mother are the children of brothers'? &mdash; This indeed is possible also in the case of a lawful marriage; where, for instance, Reuben had two daughters, and Simeon<a id="k97b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; came and married one of them, and then came the son of Levi<a id="k97b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and married the other.
</p><p>
	The son of Simeon can thus<a id="k97b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; address the son of the son of Levi.<a id="k97b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THE SONS OF A FEMALE PROSELYTE WHO BECOME PROSELYTES TOGETHER WITH HER NEITHER<a id="k97b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; PARTICIPATE IN <I>HALIZAH</I> NOR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, EVEN IF THE ONE WAS NOT CONCEIVED IN HOLINESS.<a id="k97b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT WAS BORN IN HOLINESS,<a id="k97b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE OTHER WAS BOTH CONCEIVED AND BORN IN HOLINESS. SO ALSO [IS THE LAW] WHERE THE SONS OF A BONDWOMAN WERE EMANCIPATED TOGETHER WITH HER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. When the sons of the bondwoman Yudan were emancipated. R. Aha b. Jacob permitted them to marry one another's wives.<a id="k97b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to him: But R. Shesheth forbade [such marriages]. The other replied: He forbade, but I allow.
</p><p>
	[In respect of proselyte brothers] from the same father and not from the same mother, there is no difference of opinion<a id="k97b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; that this<a id="k97b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted;<a id="k97b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [in respect of brothers] from the same mother and not from the same father, there is no difference of opinion<a id="k97b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; that this<a id="k97b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is forbidden.<a id="k97b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; They differ only [in respect of proselytes whose brotherhood is] both paternal and maternal. He<a id="k97b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; who permits it<a id="k97b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [does so because children are] ascribed to their father, since they are spoken of as 'the children of such and such a man'.<a id="k97b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shesheth, however, [holds that they] are also spoken of as 'the children of such and such a woman'.<a id="k97b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Another reading: R. Aha b. Jacob disputed [the illegality of marriage]<a id="k97b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; even in respect of maternal brothers. And what is his reason? &mdash; Because a man who has become a proselyte is like a child newly born.<a id="k97b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learned, THE SONS OF A FEMALE PROSELYTE WHO BECAME PROSELYTES TOGETHER WITH HER NEITHER PARTICIPATE IN <I>HALIZAH</I> NOR CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, is not the reason<a id="k97b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; because they are forbidden [to marry a brother's wife]!<a id="k97b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; it is because [the widow] is not subject to the law of <i>halizah</i> and levirate marriage.<a id="k97b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; She is permitted, however, to strangers.<a id="k97b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and the brothers also are permitted[to marry her]. But, surely, it was stated EVEN! Now were you to admit that [the brothers] are forbidden.<a id="k97b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; one could well justify the expression of EVEN: EVEN IF THE ONE WAS NOT CONCEIVED IN HOLINESS BUT WAS BORN IN HOLINESS. AND THE OTHER WAS BOTH CONCEIVED AND BORN IN HOLINESS, [so that the two might well be regarded] as [the sons of] two mothers,<a id="k97b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; they are nevertheless forbidden; if you maintain, however, that they are permitted,<a id="k97b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; what [can be the purport of] EVEN!<a id="k97b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Even though the birth of both was in holiness, and people might mistake<a id="k97b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; them for Israelites,<a id="k97b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [the widow] is nevertheless permitted [to marry a stranger].<a id="k97b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Others read: Logical reasoning also supports the view that they are permitted,<a id="k97b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; since the expression EVEN was used. For, if you grant that they are permitted<a id="k97b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; it is quite correct to say EVEN: Even though the birth of both was in holiness and people might mistake<a id="k97b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; them for Israelites.<a id="k97b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; they are nevertheless permitted;<a id="k97b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; if, however, you maintain that they are for bidden<a id="k97b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; what [can be the purport of] EVEN!<a id="k97b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; EVEN IF THE ONE WAS NOT CONCEIVED IN HOLINESS BUT WAS BORN IN HOLINESS, AND THE OTHER WAS BOTH CONCEIVED AND BORN IN HOLINESS [so that they might well be regarded] as [the sons of] two mothers,<a id="k97b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; they are nevertheless forbidden.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Twin brothers who were proselytes, and similarly if they were emancipated slaves,<a id="k97b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; may neither participate in <i>halizah</i> nor contract levirate marriage, nor are they guilty [of a punishable offence] for [marrying] a brother's wife.<a id="k97b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; If however, they were not conceived in holiness but were born in holiness, they neither participate in <i>halizah</i> nor contract levirate marriage<a id="k97b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; but are guilty [of a punishable offence]<a id="k97b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; for [marrying] a brother's wife.<a id="k97b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; If they were both conceived and born in holiness, they are regarded as Israelites in all respects. At all events, it was stated that they are not 'guilty [of a punishable offence] for [marrying] a brother's wife'; [from which it follows that] no punishable offence is incurred
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k101a_1:" The son concerning whom it is unknown, as in our Mishnah, which of his mother's two husbands was his father."
,k101a_2:" Lit., 'this', one of his mother's two husbands."
,k101a_3:" Since one of the two is certainly his father. As to the necessary caution v. <i>infra</i> nn. 12 and 13."
,k101a_4:" He struck or cursed."
,k101a_5:" The specific caution that must precede any forbidden act that is punishable by a court is here effected when the witnesses cautioned the offender by one statement against the striking or the cursing of the two, e.g., 'do not strike them'."
,k101a_6:" Though he may have been duly cautioned in each particular case, no penalty can be imposed upon him by any court, since each caution was of a doubtful character, it being unknown in each case whether the particular man he was about to strike or curse was his father or not. A caution of a doubtful character is, in the opinion of R. Judah, of no validity. while in the opinion of the first Tanna it is valid."
,k101a_7:" V. <i>supra</i> note 8."
,k101a_8:" If the offender struck or cursed simultaneously. One of the victims must surely have been his father!"
,k101a_9:" Euph. for 'cursing'."
,k101a_10:" Lit., 'below'. V. Ex. XXI. 17."
,k101a_11:" V. Lev. XXIV, 15."
,k101a_12:" Only when the curse referred to a single individual is the offender subject to punishment."
,k101a_13:" Since both acts, in the case of parents. appear in Ex. XXI, in close proximity. vv. 15 (striking) and 17 (cursing). Such proximity, according to the opinion here expressed, serves the purpose of an analogy. According to another opinion, the analogy is disturbed by the intervening v. 16. Cf. Sanh. 85a."
,k101a_14:" To take part in the Temple service, even though he derives no material benefit from it."
,k101a_15:" The past tense, implying contingency."
,k101a_16:" Why should he be compelled?"
,k101a_17:" Should he abstain from the Temple service, rumour might attribute his abstention to some serious disqualification which would bring discredit upon all his family. Its members, therefore, may compel him to join in the service."
,k101a_18:" Plur. of mishmar."
,k101a_19:" Each mishmar asserting that he does not belong to them."
,k101a_20:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> A mishmar consisted of six families each of which was described as beth ab, performing service on a different day in the week."
,k101a_21:" Cf. MS.M. and BaH. Cur. edd. omit to the end of the sentence."
,k101a_22:" Not professional judges."
,k101a_23:" Made of soft leather and covering the upper part of the foot (cf. Rashi and Jast.) opp. to sandal (v. <i>infra</i> n. 3)."
,k101a_24:" Though the shoe required for <i>halizah</i> purposes should properly be a sandal made of hard leather and consisting of a sole with straps attached for fastening it to the foot."
,k101a_25:" [H] Cf. infilia, [G], shoes or socks made of felt."
,k101a_26:" [H], [G]."
,k101a_27:" Cf. Rashi. According to others the law refers not to the shoe itself but to the sandal straps."
,k101a_28:" Where, for instance, the levir (according to Rashi) had his foot amputated. According to the other interpretation 'below', and 'above' the knee refers to the position of the straps on the leg."
,k101a_29:" The levir."
,k101a_30:" To constitute a tribunal for <i>halizah</i>."
,k101a_31:" Deut. XXV, 7-9."
,k101a_32:" The appropriate texts in the original Hebrew are dictated by members of the court to the levir and his sister-in-law, respectively, who must repeat them precisely as they hear them. Cf. Sot. 32a."
,k101a_33:" Tosef. Yeb. XII. Our Mishnah is in agreement with the first Tanna of this Baraitha."
,k101a_34:" Deut. XXV, 7."
,k101a_35:" An even number of judges might, when a difference of opinion arose, be equally divided and this would make a decision by majority impossible."
,k101a_36:" Why does he require five?"
,k101a_37:" Deut. XXV, 8."
,k101a_38:" Ibid. 9."
,k101a_39:" As eligible members of the tribunal."
,k101a_40:" Deut. XXV, 9 (E.V., In the presence of)."
,k101a_41:" I.e., professional judges."
,k101a_42:" [H], lit., 'house of law' 'court', applied also to the members of the Sanhedrin or of any court engaged in legal decisions or in the administration of the law."
,k101a_43:" In their character, free from all possible suspicion."
,k101a_44:" Heb, mum, 'blemish'. "
}

txt:
<p>
	IF THE TWO [HUSBANDS] WERE PRIESTS etc. Our Rabbis taught: If he<a id="k101a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; struck one<a id="k101a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and then struck the other, or if he cursed one<a id="k101a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and then cursed the other, or cursed them both simultaneously or struck them both simultaneously, he is guilty.<a id="k101a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah. however, said: If<a id="k101a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; simultaneously, he is guilty;<a id="k101a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; if<a id="k101a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; successively he is exonerated.<a id="k101a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely, it was taught: R. Judah stated that he<a id="k101a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is exonerated [even if his offences were] simultaneous! &mdash; Two Tannaim differ as to what was the opinion of R. Judah.
</p><p>
	What is the reason of him who exonerated?<a id="k101a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanina replied: 'Blessing'<a id="k101a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is spoken of in Scripture [in respect of parents] on earth<a id="k101a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and blessing<a id="k101a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is spoken of [in respect of God] above.<a id="k101a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; As there is no association above so must there be no association below;<a id="k101a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and striking has been compared to cursing.<a id="k101a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HE MAY GO UP [TO SERVE] IN THE MISHMAR etc. Since, however, HE DOES NOT RECEIVE A SHARE why should he go up? &mdash; [You ask] 'Why should he go up'; surely. he might say: I wish to perform a commandment!<a id="k101a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [this is the difficulty]: It does not say. '[If] he went up'<a id="k101a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but HE GOES up, implying even against his will!<a id="k101a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Aha b. Hanina in the name of Abaye in the name of R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan replied: In order [to avert any possible] reflection on his family.<a id="k101a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF, HOWEVER, BOTH SERVED IN THE SAME MISHMAR etc. In what respect do two mishmaroth<a id="k101a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; differ [from one] that [in the former case] he should not [receive a share]? [Is it] because when he comes to the one mishmar he is driven away and when he comes to the other mishmar he is again driven away?<a id="k101a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Then, even in the case of one mishmar also, when he comes to one beth ab<a id="k101a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; he is driven away and<a id="k101a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; when he comes to the other beth ab he is also driven away! &mdash; R. Papa replied: It is this that was meant: IF, HOWEVER, BOTH SERVED IN THE SAME MISHMAR and in the same beth ab, HE RECEIVES A SINGLE PORTION.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xii">CHAPTER XII</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	MISHNAH. THE COMMANDMENT OF <I>HALIZAH</I> MUST BE PERFORMED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE JUDGES, EVEN THOUGH ALL THE THREE ARE LAYMEN.<a id="k101a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE WOMAN PERFORMED THE <I>HALIZAH</I> WITH A SHOE,<a id="k101a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; HER <I>HALIZAH</I> IS VALID,<a id="k101a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [BUT IF] WITH A SOCK<a id="k101a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS INVALID; IF WITH A SANDAL<a id="k101a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; TO WHICH A HEEL IS ATTACHED IT IS VALID, BUT [IF WITH ONE] THAT HAS NO HEEL IT IS INVALID. [IF THE SHOE WAS WORN]<a id="k101a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; BELOW THE KNEE<a id="k101a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; THE <I>HALIZAH</I> IS VALID, BUT IF ABOVE THE KNEE<a id="k101a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS INVALID. IF THE WOMAN PERFORMED THE <I>HALIZAH</I> WITH A SANDAL<a id="k101a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM,<a id="k101a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; OR WITH A WOODEN SANDAL, OR WITH THE ONE OF THE LEFT FOOT [WHICH HE<a id="k101a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS WEARING] ON HIS RIGHT FOOT, THE <I>HALIZAH</I> IS VALID.
</p><p>
	IF SHE PERFORMED THE <I>HALIZAH</I> WITH A SANDAL TOO LARGE [FOR HIM],<a id="k101a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; IN WHICH, HOWEVER, HE IS ABLE TO WALK, OR WITH ONE TOO SMALL WHICH, HOWEVER, COVERS THE GREATER PART OF HIS FOOT, HER <I>HALIZAH</I> IS VALID.
</p><p>
	GEMARA. Since even THREE LAYMEN [are sufficient],<a id="k101a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; what need is there for JUDGES? &mdash; It is this that we were taught: That three men are required, who are capable of dictating [the prescribed texts]<a id="k101a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; like judges.<a id="k101a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus we have learned here what the Rabbis taught: The commandment of <i>halizah</i> is performed in the presence of three men who are able to dictate [the prescribed texts]<a id="k101a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; like judges.<a id="k101a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah said: In the presence of five.<a id="k101a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What is the first Tanna's reason? &mdash; Because it was taught: Elders<a id="k101a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [implies] two; but as no court may be evenly balanced,<a id="k101a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; one man more is added to them; behold here three. And R. Judah?<a id="k101a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The elders of<a id="k101a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [implies] two; and elders<a id="k101a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; [implies another] two; but since no court may be evenly balanced,<a id="k101a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; one man more is added to them; behold here five.
</p><p>
	As to the first Tanna, what deduction does he make [from the expression] the elders of?<a id="k101a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He requires it for the purpose of including<a id="k101a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; even three laymen. Whence, then, does R. Judah deduce the eligibility of laymen?<a id="k101a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He deduces it from Before the eyes of;<a id="k101a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; a Master having said: 'Before the eyes of', excludes blind men. Now, since the expression 'Before the eyes of' is required to exclude blind men it follows that even laymen [are eligible]. For should it be suggested [that only members of] the Sanhedrin<a id="k101a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; are required. what need was there to exclude blind men, [an exclusion which could have been] deduced from that which R. Joseph learnt! For R. Joseph learnt: As the <i>Beth din</i><a id="k101a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; must be clean<a id="k101a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of righteousness so must they be clear from all physical defects,<a id="k101a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k101b_1:" Cant. IV, 7."
,k101b_2:" The first Tanna."
,k101b_3:" Deut. XXV, 9. Cf. <i>infra</i> 106b."
,k101b_4:" R. Judah."
,k101b_5:" Deut. XXV, 9, (E.V., In the presence of)."
,k101b_6:" Since the text of Deut. XXV, 9 is required for Rab's deduction."
,k101b_7:" As eligible members of the tribunal."
,k101b_8:" Deut. XXV, 7 (Rash). or ibid. 10 (Golds.)."
,k101b_9:" The first Tanna."
,k101b_10:" Cf. BaH and <i>supra</i> n. 7."
,k101b_11:" Cf. Kid. 14a."
,k101b_12:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7."
,k101b_13:" The second expression, In Israel."
,k101b_14:" V. Deut. XXV, 10."
,k101b_15:" Since deduction has been made from the expression of elders etc."
,k101b_16:" Deut. XXV, 9."
,k101b_17:" The plural representing no less than two."
,k101b_18:" Who deduced from the other texts the number of five judges."
,k101b_19:" Limiting the number of judges, as deduced <i>supra</i>, to three."
,k101b_20:" Emphasis on they."
,k101b_21:" The levir."
,k101b_22:" The sister-in-law."
,k101b_23:" Lit., 'what to thee at'."
,k101b_24:" <i>Supra</i> 44a."
,k101b_25:" Of our Mishnah."
,k101b_26:" Lit., 'like him', sc. like the first Tanna of the Baraitha cited, <i>supra</i> 101a."
,k101b_27:" The <i>halachah</i> is, as a rule, in agreement with the anonymous statements in a Mishnah."
,k101b_28:" A declaration of refusal to live with her husband made by a minor. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k101b_29:" Anonymously."
,k101b_30:" Sanh. 2a. Cf. <i>infra</i> 107b."
,k101b_31:" V. <i>supra</i> note 6."
,k101b_32:" Mumhin, plur. of mumhe. v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k101b_33:" Or 'Simeon' (cf. marg. note in cur. edd. and <i>infra</i> 107b)."
,k101b_34:" Sanh. 2a. Cf. <i>infra</i> 107b."
,k101b_35:" Who require a quorum of two only, contrary to the anonymous teachings <i>supra</i> which require a quorum of three!"
,k101b_36:" Concerning <i>mi'un</i>."
,k101b_37:" On <i>halizah</i>."
,k101b_38:" One here (our Mishnah) and the other in Sanh. 2a."
,k101b_39:" <i>Mi'un</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k101b_40:" A Sage who, if he had previously pronounced the woman forbidden to her husband owing to a vow she had made, would not have been allowed to marry her in order to avoid any suspicion that his motive in forbidding her to her husband was his intention to marry her himself."
,k101b_41:" In these circumstances."
,k101b_42:" Bek. 31a, <i>supra</i> 25b. <i>Mi'un</i> and <i>halizah</i>, unlike disallowance and confirmation of vows, must be witnessed by a court, or quorum of three, and three persons would not be suspected of ulterior motives even though one of them subsequently married the woman concerned. This Mishnah, then, adds a second anonymous statement to the one previously mentioned, both requiring a quorum of three for <i>mi'un</i>."
,k101b_43:" Concerning <i>mi'un</i>."
,k101b_44:" On <i>halizah</i>."
,k101b_45:" The Mishnah cited last, which adds one anonymous teaching to the single one of <i>mi'un</i>, also adds one to the two anonymous teachings concerning <i>halizah</i>."
,k101b_46:" Why the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the anonymous teaching in respect of <i>halizah</i> and not with that in respect of <i>mi'un</i>."
,k101b_47:" In respect of <i>halizah</i>."
,k101b_48:" In which R. Judah participated."
,k101b_49:" On the head of a sin-offering of the congregation. V. Lev. IV, 15."
,k101b_50:" V. Deut. XXI, 4."
,k101b_51:" 'Simeon', according to a marg. note and Sanh. 2a."
,k101b_52:" Sanh. <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k101b_53:" With the ruling that a quorum of three only is required for <i>halizah</i>, though in a previous discussion (<i>supra</i> 102a) he maintained that a quorum of five was required."
,k101b_54:" And agreed with the anonymous teaching. Hence R. Nahman's ruling that as regards the quorum for <i>halizah</i> the <i>halachah</i> agrees with the anonymous teaching. In respect of <i>mi'un</i>, however, the anonymous teaching has not been mentioned in connection with a dispute in which R. Jose and R. Eleazar participated. Hence it must be assumed that they adhered to their first opinions contrary to the anonymous teaching, which consequently does not represent the <i>halachah</i>."
,k101b_55:" For the performance of the rite of <i>halizah</i>."
,k101b_56:" I.e., a specified place."
,k101b_57:" Deut. XXV, 7. "
,k101b_58:" Lit., performed an act'."
,k101b_59:" Did they insist on a quorum of five."
,k101b_60:" Agreeing that only three are required for a <i>halizah</i> quorum."
,k101b_61:" In adding to the prescribed quorum."
,k101b_62:" That it should be widely known that the woman was a <i>haluzah</i> and so no priest would marry her; while prospective husbands, on hearing that she had been freed by <i>halizah</i> from her levirate bond, might begin to woo her (cf. Rashi). The question of R. Judah's first opinion did not at all enter into consideration."
,k101b_63:" At a <i>halizah</i> ceremonial."
,k101b_64:" The spot appointed for the performance of the <i>halizah</i> (cf. Raba's ruling <i>supra</i>)."
,k101b_65:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 696."
,k101b_66:" Lit., 'mouth'."
,k101b_67:" Though in such lawsuits the evidence of two witnesses is required."
,k101b_68:" Deut. XIX, 15. The evidence of one witness is not sufficient. Cf. <i>supra</i> note 9. The numeral 'two' which in cur. edd. and some MSS. is given in the absolute form, [H], appears in M.T. in the construct, [H]. Cf. ibid. XVII, 6, which, however, refers to evidence in capital cases."
,k101b_69:" Should he declare that the note was already redeemed the debtor would not be ordered to pay the debt, though the creditor also could not be compelled to destroy the note (cf. Rashi, Keth. 85a). According to some of the Tosafists the debt may not be collected unless the creditor takes the prescribed oath, as is the case wherever one witness declares a debt recorded on a note of indebtedness to have been paid, v. Keth. 8a. R. Samuel's superiority over the ordinary witness is limited to the following only: While the latter, if a relative, is not believed, to enforce an oath on the creditor, R. Samuel would always be believed (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]). "
}

txt:
<p>
for it is said in Scripture, Thou art all fair, my love; and there is no spot in thee.<a id="k101b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As to the former,<a id="k101b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; however, what deduction does he make from the expression. 'Before the eyes of'? &mdash; That expression serves the purpose of a deduction like that of Raba, Raba having stated: The judges must see the spittle issuing from the mouth of the sister-in-law, because it is written in Scripture, Before the eyes of the elders&nbsp;&hellip; and spit.<a id="k101b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But does not the other<a id="k101b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; also require the text<a id="k101b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for a deduction like that of Raba! &mdash; This is so indeed. Whence, then,<a id="k101b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; does he deduce [the eligibility of] laymen?<a id="k101b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He deduces it from in Israel<a id="k101b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [implying] any Israelite whatsoever. As to the former,<a id="k101b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; however, what deduction does he make from 'In Israel'?<a id="k101b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He requires it for a deduction like that which R. Samuel b. Judah taught: 'In Israel' [implies that <i>halizah</i> must be performed] at a <i>Beth din</i> of Israelites but not at a <i>Beth din</i> of proselytes.<a id="k101b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; And the other?<a id="k101b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'In Israel' is written a second time.<a id="k101b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And the former?<a id="k101b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He requires it<a id="k101b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; for another deduction in accordance with what was taught: R. Judah stated, 'We were once sitting before R. Tarfon when a sister-in-law came to perform <i>halizah</i>, and he said to us, "Exclaim all of you: The man that had his shoe drawn off"'.<a id="k101b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; And the other? &mdash; This is deduced from And [his name] shall be called.<a id="k101b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; If this is so'<a id="k101b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And they shall call<a id="k101b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [implies] two;<a id="k101b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; And they shall speak<a id="k101b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [also implies] two,<a id="k101b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [so that] here also [one might deduce]: According to R. Judah,<a id="k101b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; behold there are here nine; and according to the Rabbis,<a id="k101b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; behold there are here seven! &mdash; That text<a id="k101b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is required for a deduction in accordance with what was taught: And they<a id="k101b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; shall call him<a id="k101b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but not their representative; And they shall speak unto him<a id="k101b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; teaches that they give him suitable advice. If he,<a id="k101b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; for instance, was young and she<a id="k101b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; old, or if he was old and she was young, he is told, 'What would you with<a id="k101b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; a young woman?' Or 'What would you<a id="k101b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; with an old woman? Go to one who [is of the same age] as yourself, and introduce no quarrels into your home'.<a id="k101b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba stated in the name of R. Nahman: The <i>halachah</i> is that <i>halizah</i> is to be performed in the presence of three men, since the Tanna<a id="k101b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; has taught us so<a id="k101b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; anonymously.<a id="k101b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to R. Nahman: If so [the same ruling should apply to] <i>mi'un</i><a id="k101b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; also, for we learned:<a id="k101b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>Mi'un</i> and <i>halizah</i> [must be witnessed] by three men!<a id="k101b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you reply [that the <i>halachah</i>] is so indeed, surely [It may be retorted] it was taught: <i>Mi'un</i>,<a id="k101b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Beth Shammai ruled, [must be declared before] a <i>Beth din</i> of experts;<a id="k101b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and Beth Hillel ruled: [It may be performed] either before a <i>Beth din</i> or not before a <i>Beth din</i>. Both, however, agree that a quorum of three is required. R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Jose<a id="k101b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled: [The <i>mi'un</i> is] valid [even if it was declared] before two.<a id="k101b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Joseph b. Manyumi reported in the name of R Nahman<a id="k101b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with this pair!<a id="k101b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There,<a id="k101b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; only one anonymous [teaching] is available while here<a id="k101b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; two anonymous [teachings]<a id="k101b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; are available.
</p><p>
	There<a id="k101b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; also two anonymous [teachings] are available! For we learned: If, however, a woman made a declaration of refusal<a id="k101b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; or performed <i>halizah</i> in his presence, he<a id="k101b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; may marry her,<a id="k101b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; since he [was but one of the] <i>Beth din</i>!<a id="k101b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, [the fact is that while] there,<a id="k101b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; only two anonymous [teachings] are available; here,<a id="k101b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; three anonymous [teachings] are available.<a id="k101b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Consider! The one<a id="k101b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; is an anonymous [teaching], and the other<a id="k101b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; is an anonymous [teaching]; what difference does it make to me whether the anonymous [teachings] are one, two or three? &mdash; Rather, said R. Nahman b. Isaac, [the reason<a id="k101b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; is] because the anonymity<a id="k101b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; occurs in a passage recording a dispute.<a id="k101b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learned: 'The laying on of hands by the elders,<a id="k101b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; and the breaking of the heifer's neck<a id="k101b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; is performed by three elders; so R. Jose,<a id="k101b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Judah stated: By five elders. <i>Halizah</i> and declarations of <i>mi'un</i>, [however, are witnessed] by three men';<a id="k101b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; and since R. Judah does not express disagreement,<a id="k101b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be inferred that R. Judah changed his opinion.<a id="k101b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves it.
</p><p>
	Raba stated: The judges must appoint a place;<a id="k101b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is written, Then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate<a id="k101b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; unto the elders.<a id="k101b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua arranged a halizah'<a id="k101b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; in the presence of five. In accordance with whose view?<a id="k101b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; Was it in accordance with that of R. Judah? He, surely, had changed his opinion!<a id="k101b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; [Their object<a id="k101b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; was] to give the matter due publicity.<a id="k101b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi once happened to be at R. Kahana's, when the latter said to him, 'The Master has come up to us [at an opportune moment] to complete a quorum of five'.<a id="k101b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Kahana stated: I was once standing in the presence of Rab Judah, when he said to me, 'Come, get on to this bundle of reeds<a id="k101b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; that you may be included in a quorum of five'.<a id="k101b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; On being asked, 'What need is there for five?' he replied, 'In order that the matter be given due publicity'.<a id="k101b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Judah once stood before Rab Judah when the latter said to him, 'Come, get on to this bundle of reeds<a id="k101b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; to be included in a quorum of five,<a id="k101b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; in order that the matter be thereby given due publicity'.<a id="k101b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; 'We learned', the first remarked, 'In Israel [implies that <i>halizah</i> must be performed] at a <i>Beth din</i> of Israelites but not at a <i>Beth din</i> of proselytes<a id="k101b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; while I am, in fact, a proselyte'. 'On the word<a id="k101b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; [of a man] like R. Samuel b. Judah', Rab Judah said, 'I would withdraw money [from its possessor]'.<a id="k101b_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; [You say] 'Withdraw'! Could this be imagined? Surely the All Merciful said, At the mouth of two witnesses!<a id="k101b_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather [it is this that he meant]. 'I would on his word<a id="k101b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; impair the validity of a note of indebtedness.<a id="k101b_69"><sup>69</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba stated:
</P>


