# snc

lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k107a_1:" Young girls who are minors and whose fathers are dead. v. <i>infra</i> n. 2."
,k107a_2:" With the permission of their mother or brothers into whose charge they pass after the death of their fathers."
,k107a_3:" <i>Mi'un</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) and no divorce is required."
,k107a_4:" The levirate bond with whom can he severed by <i>halizah</i> only. BaH deletes 'but not&nbsp;&hellip; levir'."
,k107a_5:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 3."
,k107a_6:" And may marry again after each refusal."
,k107a_7:" To be taken up by man after man without receiving proper divorce from the one before being betrothed or married to the other"
,k107a_8:" This is explained in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k107a_9:" For ruling that ONLY BETROTHED WOMEN MAY EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL and that consequently a married minor may not exercise the right."
,k107a_10:" And the validity of the marriage is not in any way impaired even if the condition that was attached to it was not fulfilled. The law assumes that the man tacitly renounces, on cohabitation, the condition."
,k107a_11:" The invalidity of her marriage being assumed to be due, not to her minority, but to some unfulfilled stipulation that was attached to her marriage."
,k107a_12:" Even in the case of one who is of age. Hence Beth Shammai's ruling in our Mishnah. Cf. <i>supra</i> note 1."
,k107a_13:" For the prohibition of <i>mi'un</i>. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k107a_14:" Huppah, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k107a_15:" In such a case, since consummation of marriage has not taken place, there is, surely, no need to provide against the erroneous assumption of the validity of a stipulation in consummated marriage!"
,k107a_16:" If a minor at such a stage in her marriage were allowed <i>mi'un</i> it might be assumed that the reason why her union was severed without a divorce was not because of her minority but owing to an unfulfilled condition that was attached to her entry into the bridal chamber, and so it would be concluded erroneously that even in the case of one who is of age a condition attached is valid."
,k107a_17:" I.e., his successors in authority over the minor, after his death, viz., his wife and sons. (Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 738, n. 2). Where a father is alive the law of <i>mi'un</i> (with the exception of the case mentioned <i>supra</i> p. 2, n. 6) does not apply, since he has the right to give her away in perfect and proper marriage while she is a minor."
,k107a_18:" An act which, though regarded as marriage, is a stage preceding that of entry into the bridal chamber, where a condition is valid, even in the case of a bride who is of age."
,k107a_19:" Between a marriage fully consummated and one in its earlier stage. Since both are cases of marriage, permissibility of <i>mi'un</i> in the latter might lead to an erroneous conclusion concerning the former."
,k107a_20:" Why do they not provide against the possibility of erroneous conclusions."
,k107a_21:" No one would draw comparisons between a marriage the validity of which is only Rabbinical and one which is Pentateuchally binding."
,k107a_22:" V. <i>Supra</i> p. 739, n. 1."
,k107a_23:" Which would be the case were a married minor to be allowed to leave her husband by <i>mi'un</i> only without a proper divorce. <i>Mi'un</i> was, therefore, forbidden in order to encourage the marriage of orphan minors who, if they remain unmarried, are subject to the dangers of immorality and prostitution. Cf. <i>infra</i> 112b."
,k107a_24:" In which case the reason given is inapplicable."
,k107a_25:" Retrospective prostitution."
,k107a_26:" V. <i>Supra</i> p. 739, n. 9."
,k107a_27:" Though such an act on the part of the minor's mother or brothers constitutes marriage in accordance with Rabbinic law, as does such an act on the part of the father even in the case of one who is of age (cf. Keth. 48b), nevertheless the question of fornication does not in such a case arise. Why, then, do Beth Shammai forbid <i>mi'un</i> even at this stage of marriage?"
,k107a_28:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 739, n. 11."
,k107a_29:" How, in view of the reason advanced, could they allow <i>mi'un</i> even in marriage!"
,k107a_30:" Lit., 'there is'."
,k107a_31:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 739, n. 1."
,k107a_32:" Of the minor's <i>melog</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) property."
,k107a_33:" Who after marriage is entitled to the usufruct of his wife's <i>melog</i> property."
,k107a_34:" Lit., 'for in the end she stands to go out'."
,k107a_35:" The wedding feast."
,k107a_36:" Had <i>mi'un</i> been allowed after a marriage no one would, for this reason, ever marry a minor; and this might lead to immoral consequences. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 740, n. 2."
,k107a_37:" v. p. 740, n. 8."
,k107a_38:" Despite the objections pointed out by Beth Shammai."
,k107a_39:" The possible loss does not, therefore, prevent a man from marrying a minor."
,k107a_40:" According to Beth Hillel who allow the right of refusal even against a levir."
,k107a_41:" If the levir made a ma'amar, she can annul it by <i>mi'un</i>, and no divorce is required."
,k107a_42:" Only <i>halizah</i> can sever the levirate bond. In ordinary cases where the levir addressed to the yebamah a ma'amar, she requires for her freedom both a divorce to annul the effect of the ma'amar, and <i>halizah</i> to sever the levirate bond."
,k107a_43:" Because it is due to her marriage with the deceased brother, which, since she did not exercise her right of refusal against him, remained valid."
,k107a_44:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 53b, 54a. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xiii">CHAPTER XIII</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: ONLY THOSE<a id="k107a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; WHO ARE BETROTHED<a id="k107a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL;<a id="k107a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: BOTH THOSE WHO ARE BETROTHED AND THOSE WHO ARE MARRIED. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL<a id="k107a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY BE MADE] AGAINST A HUSBAND BUT NOT AGAINST A LEVIR;<a id="k107a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER AGAINST A HUSBAND OR AGAINST A LEVIR. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [THE DECLARATION]<a id="k107a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; MUST BE MADE IN HIS PRESENCE, BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER IN HIS PRESENCE OR NOT IN HIS PRESENCE. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [THE DECLARATION<a id="k107a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; MUST BE MADE] BEFORE <I>BETH DIN</I>, BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER BEFORE <I>BETH DIN</I> OR NOT BEFORE <I>BETH DIN</I>.
</p><p>
	BETH HILLEL SAID TO BETH SHAMMAI: [A GIRL] MAY EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL WHILE SHE IS A MINOR EVEN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES.<a id="k107a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; BETH SHAMMAI, HOWEVER, ANSWERED THEM: THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL ARE NOT OWNERLESS PROPERTY,<a id="k107a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT, [IF ONE] MAKES A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL, SHE MUST WAIT TILL SHE IS OF AGE, AND DECLARE HER REFUSAL<a id="k107a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; AND MARRY AGAIN.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: What is Beth Shammai's reason?<a id="k107a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Because no stipulation is attachable to a marriage;<a id="k107a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and were a married minor to be allowed to exercise the right of refusal, it would come to be assumed<a id="k107a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; that a stipulation is attachable to a marriage.<a id="k107a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; What reason, however, could be advanced<a id="k107a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; where she only entered the bridal chamber<a id="k107a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and no cohabitation had taken place?<a id="k107a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Because no condition is attachable to an entry into the bridal chamber.<a id="k107a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; What reason, however, could be advanced<a id="k107a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; where the father<a id="k107a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; entrusted her to the representatives of the husband?<a id="k107a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Rabbis made no distinction.<a id="k107a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; And Beth Hillel?<a id="k107a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is well known that the marriage of a minor is only Rabbinically valid.<a id="k107a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Both Rabbah and R. Joseph declared: The reason of Beth Shammai<a id="k107a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; is that no man wishes to treat his cohabitation as mere fornication.<a id="k107a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; What, however, can be the reason<a id="k107a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; where she only entered the bridal chamber and no cohabitation took place?<a id="k107a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; No man would like his bridal chamber to be [an introduction to] a forbidden act.<a id="k107a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; What reason,<a id="k107a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; then, could be advanced where the father<a id="k107a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; had entrusted her to the representatives of the husband?<a id="k107a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Rabbis made no distinction.<a id="k107a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; And Beth Hillel?<a id="k107a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since [a minor's marriage] involves<a id="k107a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; betrothal and <i>kethubah</i> no one would suggest that her husband's cohabitation was an act of fornication.
</p><p>
	R. Papa explained: Beth Shammai's reason<a id="k107a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; is because of the usufruct,<a id="k107a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and Beth Hillel's reason also is because of the usufruct.<a id="k107a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Beth Shammai's reason is because of the usufruct', for should you say that a married minor may exercise the right of refusal, [her husband]<a id="k107a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; might [indiscriminately] pluck [the fruit] and consume it, [knowing as he does] that she might leave him at any moment.<a id="k107a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Beth Hillel, however, [say]: On the contrary; since it is laid down that she may exercise the right of refusal, [her husband] would make every effort to improve her property, fearing that if [he should] not [do this], her relatives might give her their advice [against him] and thus take her away from him.
</p><p>
	Raba stated: The real reason<a id="k107a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; of Beth Shammai is because no man would take the trouble to prepare a meal<a id="k107a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and then spoil it.<a id="k107a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; And Beth Hillel?<a id="k107a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Both are pleased [to be married to each other]<a id="k107a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; in order that they may be known as married people.<a id="k107a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BETH SHAMMAI RULED&nbsp;&hellip; AGAINST A HUSBAND etc. R. Oshaia stated: She may<a id="k107a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; make a declaration of refusal in respect of his ma'amar<a id="k107a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; but she has no right to make a declaration of refusal in respect of his levirate bond.<a id="k107a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Hisda: What is R. Oshaia's reason? &mdash; She has the power to annul a ma'amar which is effected with her consent; she has no power, however, to sever the levirate bond since it is binding on her against her will.<a id="k107a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely, [levirate marriage by] cohabitation may be effected against her will<a id="k107a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k107b_1:" How could she annul a bond which the 'All Merciful has imposed upon her'?"
,k107b_2:" The deceased; so that the levirate bond ceases to exist retrospectively as if it had never been in existence."
,k107b_3:" I.e., a girl who married while she was a minor and whose father did not receive the token of her betrothal. This may occur even during the lifetime of her father if she marries a second time after she had been divorced by her first husband to whom she had been given in marriage by her father. After a divorce the father's right to give his 'minor' daughter in marriage ceases."
,k107b_4:" With the levir, though he is the father or any other forbidden relative of the minor. It is only the rival of a woman whose marriage is Pentateuchally valid who is exempt from both levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i> with the forbidden relative of that woman. The marriage of a minor, who could exercise her right of refusal at any moment, is only Rabbinically valid."
,k107b_5:" <i>Supra</i> 2b. Since after all the minor did not exercise her right of refusal her marriage is valid enough to forbid her rival's levirate marriage, as is the case with a Pentateuchally valid marriage."
,k107b_6:" Who, by the declaration of refusal of the minor, ceases to be her rival."
,k107b_7:" With the minor's forbidden relative."
,k107b_8:" From a minor who becomes subject to <i>halizah</i>. While the minor may, by annulling her marriage retrospectively by the exercise of the right of <i>mi'un</i>, procure exemption from the <i>halizah</i>, her rival cannot, through the minor's exercise of this right, obtain the freedom to marry the minor's forbidden relative."
,k107b_9:" Who, owing to her retrospective annulling by <i>mi'un</i> of her marriage with his son, is to him now a mere stranger."
,k107b_10:" To whom she has become bound by the levirate obligation when her husband, against whom she did not exercise her right of <i>mi'un</i>, died childless."
,k107b_11:" Since she is forbidden to marry the levir's father."
,k107b_12:" The levir's father's."
,k107b_13:" A status which she retains despite the <i>mi'un</i>."
,k107b_14:" Though her <i>mi'un</i> which annulled her marriage retrospectively exempted her from <i>halizah</i>."
,k107b_15:" Her subsequent estrangement, effected by the minor's <i>mi'un</i>, cannot remove her known status of forbidden relative's rival. Cf. <i>supra</i> note 10."
,k107b_16:" A minor."
,k107b_17:" Lit., 'this'."
,k107b_18:" From one of the levirs."
,k107b_19:" Lit., 'not?'"
,k107b_20:" The levir who gave her the letter of divorce."
,k107b_21:" The <i>mi'un</i> which causes her to be forbidden to marry one of the brothers causes her, as in the case of divorce, to be equally forbidden to all the other brothers."
,k107b_22:" And he is presumed to have acted on behalf of all his brothers."
,k107b_23:" And if she did exercise It she still remains permitted to the levir, v. <i>supra</i> p. 741, n. 8."
,k107b_24:" For the invalidity of the <i>mi'un</i>."
,k107b_25:" She is equally bound to the two levirs, and her refusal was declared against one of them only."
,k107b_26:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k107b_27:" Who stated <i>supra</i> that if a minor made a declaration of refusal against one of the brothers she is forbidden to all."
,k107b_28:" R. Johanan permitted her to marry the brothers only where there were several of them (the reason being the same as that of R. Assi that a part of a levirate bond cannot be severed); where, however, there was only one brother R. Johanan forbids him to marry the minor who made a declaration of refusal against him. This ruling is contrary to that of R. Oshaia who in all cases regards <i>mi'un</i> against a levirate bond as invalid."
,k107b_29:" Much more so R. Oshaia (v. <i>supra</i> n. 13). Even R. Assi who, unlike R. Oshaia agrees with R. Johanan in permitting the marriage of a minor, after her <i>mi'un</i>, only where the number of levirs is more than one, differs, nevertheless, from him in allowing the minor to marry the very levir against whom her declaration of refusal was made."
,k107b_30:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to bend' [H], a measure of capacity having a deep receptacle at one end and a shallow one at the other, to defraud thereby sellers and buyers; 'a false measure'. This is a metaphor expressing Pishon's double dealing with his wife in pretending merely to eat the fruit of her <i>melog</i> property, to which he was in fact entitled, while in reality he was encroaching upon the property itself which belonged to her."
,k107b_31:" He was paid 'measure for measure', 'tit for tat'. In other cases, however, <i>mi'un</i> must be declared before <i>Beth din</i> only."
,k107b_32:" Of the minor's <i>melog</i> property."
,k107b_33:" Not merely betrothed. Before marriage, even if betrothal had taken place, a husband is not entitled to the usufruct of his wife's <i>melog</i> property."
,k107b_34:" How then could she here at all make such a declaration!"
,k107b_35:" Metaph. He was subjected to two penalties. [H] sing. [H] (Heb. [H]) 'knot', 'bond'."
,k107b_36:" <i>Supra</i> 101b, Sanh. 2a."
,k107b_37:" Whose ruling this statement represents."
,k107b_38:" Who require the presence of a <i>Beth din</i> (v. our Mishnah) which consists of three men."
,k107b_39:" Lit., 'until here'."
,k107b_40:" <i>Mumhin</i>, plur. of <i>mumhe</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k107b_41:" 'Of experts'. This is the reading <i>supra</i> 101b."
,k107b_42:" Which confirms Abaye's opinion."
,k107b_43:" Cur. edd., [H] (= 'son'), is apparently a misprint for [H] (= 'son of R.'), which is the reading <i>supra</i>, <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k107b_44:" Cf. <i>loc. cit</i>. where the reading is 'Jose'."
,k107b_45:" Sanh. 2a, <i>supra</i> <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k107b_46:" Who require a quorum of two only, v. <i>supra</i> <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k107b_47:" When she was a minor. Why then does our Mishnah speak of a second declaration of refusal after she has become of age?"
,k107b_48:" By the second refusal (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 8) only the confirmation of the first was intended. Without such confirmation it might be possible to assume that she had changed her opinion and withdrawn her first declaration."
,k107b_49:" When she may no more exercise the right of <i>mi'un</i> even after a betrothal only."
,k107b_50:" While still a minor. Since, according to Beth Shammai, <i>mi'un</i> after a marriage is invalid she would not be able, once she was married, to exercise that right again. The word [H] translated AND DECLARES etc. should be rendered OR DECLARES etc."
,k107b_51:" 'OR&nbsp;&hellip; REFUSAL is wanting in cur. edd., but is to be added (cf. our Mishnah)."
,k107b_52:" That she abides by her declaration."
,k107b_53:" If she desires to leave her husband."
,k107b_54:" She may leave her husband without any legal formality, and may marry any other man."
,k107b_55:" The money or object whereby the <i>kinyan</i> of betrothal is effected. Cf. Kid. 2af."
,k107b_56:" Cf. BaH, Bomb. ed. and separate edd. of the Mishnah; Cur. edd., 'Eleazar'."
,k107b_57:" If she was given away in marriage."
,k107b_58:" Her marriage being invalid, she remains in her father's control, and, like any other daughter of an Israelite who never married a priest, is forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k107b_59:" As the daughter of a priest who never married an Israelite. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 6."
,k107b_60:" Lit., 'retention (in the house of her husband)'."
,k107b_61:" Lit., 'as if she was'."
,k107b_62:" Lit., 'as if she was not'. "
}

txt:
<p>
and yet she may annul it! &mdash; [This,] however, [is really the reason]: She may annul [a <i>kinyan</i> by] cohabitation or by a ma'amar, because it is the levir who effects it; she cannot, however, annul the levirate bond which the All Merciful has imposed upon her.
</p><p>
	'Ulla said: She may exercise her right of refusal even in respect of his levirate bond. What is the reason?<a id="k107b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [By her refusal] she annuls the marriage of her first husband.<a id="k107b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba raised an objection against 'Ulla: The rival of anyone, entitled to make a declaration of refusal,<a id="k107b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; who did not exercise her right, must perform the ceremony of <i>halizah</i><a id="k107b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [if her husband died childless] but may not contract levirate marriage.<a id="k107b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But why? Let her exercise her right of refusal now and thereby annul the marriage of her first husband, and then let her rival<a id="k107b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; contract the levirate marriage!<a id="k107b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The rival of a forbidden relative is different.<a id="k107b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; For Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: If a minor made a declaration of refusal against her husband she is permitted to marry his father,<a id="k107b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but if against the levir<a id="k107b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; she is forbidden to marry his father. It is thus evident<a id="k107b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; that at the time she became subject to the levirate marriage she is looked upon as his<a id="k107b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; daughter-in-law;<a id="k107b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; similarly here also<a id="k107b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [marriage of the rival is forbidden because] at the time of her subjection to the levirate marriage she is looked upon as his daughter's rival.<a id="k107b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab stated: If she<a id="k107b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; made a declaration of refusal against one<a id="k107b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the levirs] she is forbidden [to marry] the others<a id="k107b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; also; her case being analogous to that of the recipient of a letter of divorce.<a id="k107b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; As<a id="k107b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; the recipient of a letter of divorce is forbidden to all [the brothers] as soon as she is forbidden to one<a id="k107b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; so is there no difference here also.<a id="k107b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Samuel, however, stated: If she<a id="k107b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; exercised her right of refusal against one<a id="k107b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the levirs] she is permitted [to marry] the others;<a id="k107b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; her case being unlike that of the recipient of a letter of divorce.<a id="k107b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; For with the recipient of a letter of divorce<a id="k107b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; it is he<a id="k107b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; who took the initiative against her;<a id="k107b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; but here it is she who took the initiative against him, declaring, 'I do not like you and I do not want you; it is you whom I dislike but I do like your fellow'.
</p><p>
	R. Assi ruled: If she<a id="k107b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; made a declaration of refusal against one [levir] she is permitted [to marry] even him. May it be assumed that he is of the same opinion as R. Oshaia who maintains that a minor has no right to make a declaration of refusal in respect of his levirate bond?<a id="k107b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In respect of one levir she may well be entitled to annul [the levirate bond]; here, however, we are dealing with two levirs [the reason<a id="k107b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; being] that no declaration of refusal is valid against half a levirate bond.<a id="k107b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When Rabin came<a id="k107b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; he reported in the name of R. Johanan: If she<a id="k107b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; exercised her right of refusal against one<a id="k107b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the levirs] she is permitted to marry the other brothers. [They], however did not agree with him. Who [are they who] did not agree with him? &hellip; Abaye said: Rab;<a id="k107b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: R. Oshaia;<a id="k107b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and others said: [Even] R. Assi.<a id="k107b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BETH SHAMMAI RULED&nbsp;&hellip; IN HIS PRESENCE etc. It was taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai, 'Did not the wife of Pishon the camel driver make her declaration of refusal in his absence?' 'Pishon the camel driver', answered Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel, 'used a reversible measure;<a id="k107b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; they, therefore, used against him also a reversible measure'.<a id="k107b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Since, however, he was eating the usufruct<a id="k107b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; it is obvious that [the minor] was married to him;<a id="k107b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; but [if this was the case] did not Beth Shammai rule [it may be asked] that a married minor may not exercise the right of refusal!<a id="k107b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; They bound him with two bonds.<a id="k107b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BETH SHAMMAI RULED:&nbsp;&hellip; BEFORE <I>BETH DIN</I> etc. Elsewhere we learned: <i>Halizah</i> and declarations of <i>mi'un</i> [must be witnessed by] three men.<a id="k107b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Who is the Tanna?<a id="k107b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah replied: This [ruling is that of] Beth Shammai.<a id="k107b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: You may even say [that it is the ruling of] Beth Hillel. All that<a id="k107b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; Beth Hillel really stated was that no experts<a id="k107b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; are required; three men, however, are indeed required. As it was, in fact, taught: Beth Shammai ruled [that <i>mi'un</i> must he declared] before <i>Beth din</i>,<a id="k107b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; and Beth Hillel ruled: 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.<a id="k107b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose son of R.<a id="k107b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon<a id="k107b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled: [<I>Mi'un</I> is] valid [even if It was declared] before two.<a id="k107b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph b. Manyumi reported in the name of R. Nahman that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with this pair.<a id="k107b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BETH SHAMMAI, HOWEVER, ANSWERED&nbsp;&hellip; AND SHE DECLARES HER REFUSAL etc. But, surely, she has already made a declaration of refusal!<a id="k107b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel replied: [The meaning is] TILL SHE IS OF AGE and states, 'I am willing to abide by the first declaration of refusal'.<a id="k107b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Ulla replied: Two [different statements] are here made: Either she declares her refusal 'and is betrothed after she is of age,<a id="k107b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; or she declares her refusal, and is married forthwith.<a id="k107b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>
</p><p>
	According to 'Ulla one can well understand why the expression, TILL SHE IS OF AGE OR DECLARES HER REFUSAL<a id="k107b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; AND MARRIES AGAIN, was used. According to Samuel, however, it should have been stated 'TILL SHE IS OF AGE and states'.<a id="k107b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is a difficulty.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WHICH MINOR MUST MAKE THE DECLARATION OF REFUSAL?<a id="k107b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; ANY WHOSE MOTHER OR BROTHERS HAVE GIVEN HER IN MARRIAGE WITH HER CONSENT. IF, HOWEVER, THEY GAVE HER IN MARRIAGE WITHOUT HER CONSENT SHE NEED NOT MAKE ANY DECLARATION OF REFUSAL.<a id="k107b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS RULED: ANY CHILD WHO IS UNABLE TO TAKE CARE OF HER TOKEN OF BETROTHAL<a id="k107b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; NEED NOT MAKE ANY DECLARATION OF REFUSAL.<a id="k107b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. ELIEZER<a id="k107b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; RULED: THE ACT OF A MINOR HAS NO VALIDITY AT ALL, BUT [SHE<a id="k107b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; IS TO BE REGARDED] AS ONE SEDUCED. IF, THEREFORE, SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE [AND WAS MARRIED] TO A PRIEST SHE MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>,<a id="k107b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST [AND WAS MARRIED] TO AN ISRAELITE SHE MAY EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>.<a id="k107b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: IN THE CASE OF ANY HINDRANCE [IN REMARRYING]<a id="k107b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT WAS DUE TO THE HUSBAND, [THE MINOR] IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN<a id="k107b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS WIFE; BUT IN THE CASE OF ANY HINDRANCE [IN REMARRYING] THAT WAS NOT DUE TO THE HUSBAND SHE IS NOT DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN<a id="k107b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS WIFE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Rab Judah stated, and others say that it was taught In a Baraitha: Originally, a certificate of <i>mi'un</i> was drafted [as follows]: 'I do not like him and I do not want him and I do not desire to be married to him'. When, however, it was observed that the formula was too long and it was feared that
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k112a_1:" Though he was alone with her no cohabitation may have taken place. [H] 'to be shy', 'bashful'. Cf. [H]."
,k112a_2:" Lit., 'from under her hand'. After a divorce by the levir, the levirate marriage is forbidden. It is now assumed that the letter of divorce spoken of is one by which the levir had severed their union after the consummation of their marriage."
,k112a_3:" After contracting levirate marriage."
,k112a_4:" He cannot be compelled."
,k112a_5:" After thirty days from their marriage."
,k112a_6:" If they desire their union to be severed."
,k112a_7:" No <i>halizah</i> is necessary, the woman being believed, since more than thirty days have elapsed after their marriage."
,k112a_8:" Since after thirty days it is assumed that cohabitation had taken place."
,k112a_9:" Because she herself by her declaration that no cohabitation had taken place and that the levirate bond was consequently still in force has caused her own prohibition to all other men until she has performed the <i>halizah</i>. Now, as in this case it is specifically mentioned that a letter of divorce is required, it is to be presumed that in all cases spoken of in this Baraitha the woman had no divorce; why then in the absence of a divorce, is the levir in the first case, compelled to submit to <i>halizah</i> and not rather to the performance of the levirate marriage?"
,k112a_10:" Which is already in her possession. The clause 'even if he withdrew' his statement etc,' does not emphasize the necessity of giving a letter of divorce but the ruling that where the levir first declared after thirty days that he consummated the marriage he may only be requested and not compelled to submit to <i>halizah</i> even though he later asserted that no cohabitation had taken place."
,k112a_11:" In the first clause of the Baraitha under discussion."
,k112a_12:" And this has caused the woman to be forbidden to the levir, in consequence of which <i>halizah</i> only but no levirate marriage is possible."
,k112a_13:" In the final clause."
,k112a_14:" The purport of the clause 'even if he withdrew' his statement etc.' being that although the levir admitted later that no cohabitation had taken place, in consequence of which it might have been presumed that <i>halizah</i> alone is sufficient, a letter of divorce is nevertheless required, because, more than thirty days having elapsed after the marriage, his first statement admitting cohabitation is accepted as the true one."
,k112a_15:" After the levir had first declared that consummation of marriage had taken place."
,k112a_16:" A sister-in-law who declared that the levirate marriage had not been consummated."
,k112a_17:" Is the rival also forbidden to marry again before the other had performed the <i>halizah</i>?"
,k112a_18:" Obviously not. The sister-in-law in question may indeed have placed herself under a prohibition as a result of her own declaration. The rival, however, since every levirate marriage is usually consummated, remains free."
,k112a_19:" Even if the husband is reluctant."
,k112a_20:" The wife of a priest."
,k112a_21:" Through outrage. A priest is forbidden to live with a wife in such circumstances."
,k112a_22:" A declaration that may be made by a woman whom her husband deprives of her connubial rights. The meaning might be: 'The distance of the heavens lies between us' or 'heaven knows (if no man does) our miserable relationship'."
,k112a_23:" I.e., a vow to have no sexual intercourse with any of them. Such a vow is assumed to be the result of the pain that connubial intercourse may cause her, and therefore justified."
,k112a_24:" Lit., 'they returned to say'."
,k112a_25:" Whom she would arrange to marry in a place where they are unknown."
,k112a_26:" By inventing the disabilities mentioned."
,k112a_27:" Otherwise her assertion is disregarded."
,k112a_28:" That part of the prohibition that concerns himself."
,k112a_29:" For fuller notes v. Ned., Sonc, ed., pp. 279ff."
,k112a_30:" During the lifetime of her husband."
,k112a_31:" Though her husband is alive."
,k112a_32:" Without issue."
,k112a_33:" Her vow was consequently meant to include the levir; and, since her husband can only invalidate his own share, she remains forbidden to the levir."
,k112a_34:" Her vow may have applied to those men only who are otherwise allowed to marry her if her husband divorced her, her object being to convince him that she had no intention of marrying any other man even after she had left him. As the levir remains in any case forbidden to her after her husband had divorced her she could not have had him in mind. Hence he should be permitted to contract levirate marriage with her."
,k112a_35:" He is excluded from the vow."
,k112a_36:" Even while her husband was alive, that he might die without issue and that she would, therefore, be subject to the levir. "
}

txt:
<p>
towards whom one is rather reserved.<a id="k112a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, instead of being compelled to submit to <i>halizah</i>, let [the levir] be compelled to take [his sister-in-law] in levirate marriage! &mdash; Rab replied: [This is a case] where her letter of divorce was produced by her.<a id="k112a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: If within thirty days<a id="k112a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; a sister-in-law declared, 'He has not cohabited with me,' he is compelled to submit to <i>halizah</i> from her, whether he says 'I have cohabited' or whether he admits 'I have not cohabited'; if after thirty days, he may only be requested<a id="k112a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to submit to <i>halizah</i> from her. If she declares,<a id="k112a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 'He cohabited with me,' and he states, 'I did not cohabit', behold, he may<a id="k112a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; release her by a letter of divorce.<a id="k112a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; If he declares, 'I have cohabited' and she states, 'He has not cohabited with me,' It is necessary for him, even if he withdrew his statement and admitted, 'I have not cohabited', [to give her] a letter of divorce<a id="k112a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and [to submit to her] <i>halizah</i>!<a id="k112a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Ammi replied: [The meaning is that] she requires <i>halizah</i> together with her letter of divorce.<a id="k112a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi replied: There<a id="k112a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the letter of divorce [was given] in respect of his levirate bond;<a id="k112a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; while here<a id="k112a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; the letter of divorce [is required in respect] of his cohabitation.<a id="k112a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[A couple] both of whom admitted<a id="k112a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [that there was no consummation of the levirate marriage] once came before Raba. 'Arrange the <i>halizah</i> for her', said Raba to his disciples, 'and dismiss her case'. 'But, surely', said R. Sherebya to Raba, 'it was taught: She requires<a id="k112a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; both a letter of divorce and <i>halizah</i>!' 'If it was so taught', the other replied, 'well, then it was taught'.
</p><p>
	Hon son of R. Nahman enquired of R. Nahman: What [is the law in respect of] her<a id="k112a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; rival?<a id="k112a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: Shall the rival be forbidden [to marry again] because we compel or request [the levir]!<a id="k112a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A WOMAN VOWED TO HAVE NO BENEFIT etc. We learned elsewhere: At first it was held that [the following] three [classes of] women must be divorced<a id="k112a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and they also receive their <i>kethubah</i>: One<a id="k112a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; who declares, 'I am unclean for you',<a id="k112a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; or 'heaven is between me and you',<a id="k112a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; or 'May I be kept away from the Jews'.<a id="k112a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; This ruling was afterwards withdrawn<a id="k112a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; in order that a wife might not cast eyes upon another man<a id="k112a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and thus disgrace her husband;<a id="k112a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but [instead it was ordained that] one<a id="k112a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; who declared, 'I am unclean for you'<a id="k112a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; must bring evidence in support of her statement;<a id="k112a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [in respect of a woman who tells her husband] 'heaven is between me and you',<a id="k112a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [peace] is made between them by way of a request [addressed to the husband]; [and if a woman vowed], 'May I be kept away from the Jews' [the husband] invalidates his part [of the vow]<a id="k112a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and she may continue connubial intercourse with him, though she remains removed from [other] Jews.<a id="k112a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; The question was raised: What [is her relation] to the levir [if a woman had vowed],<a id="k112a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; 'May I be kept from the Jews?' Is [it assumed that]<a id="k112a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; it occurred to her that her husband may possibly die<a id="k112a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and that she might become subject to the levir<a id="k112a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?<a id="k112a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab replied: The levir has not the same status as the husband;<a id="k112a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and Samuel replied: The levir has the same status as the husband.
</p><p>
	Said Abaye: Logical deduction is in agreement with Rab. For we learned, IF A WOMAN VOWED TO HAVE NO BENEFIT FROM HER BROTHER-IN-LAW, THE LATTER IS COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO HER <I>HALIZAH</I> [IF HER VOW WAS MADE] DURING THE LIFETIME OF HER HUSBAND. Now, if it is [to be assumed] that it occurred to her'<a id="k112a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></p>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k112b_1:" And not compelled; since it is the woman's fault that the levirate marriage cannot be contracted."
,k112b_2:" Lit., 'that all this', i.e., that all her children as well as her husband would die, and that the death of the former would precede that of the latter."
,k112b_3:" Which, referring to a case where the woman's intention was known, is altogether different from the previous one."
,k112b_4:" Spoken of, where it is not definitely known whether the levirate marriage was or was not in her mind."
,k112b_5:" That the levir is compelled to submit to <i>halizah</i>."
,k112b_6:" Since no such distinction was drawn."
,k112b_7:" Lit., 'there is no difference'."
,k112b_8:" 'Deaf and dumb', as is to be understood throughout by the term 'deaf'. Marriages contracted by parties of whom one is a deaf-mute are only Rabbinically valid."
,k112b_9:" By a letter of divorce."
,k112b_10:" Which in the case of a deaf person take the place of the prescribed formulae."
,k112b_11:" Though her marriage was Pentateuchally valid."
,k112b_12:" By a letter of divorce, for the reason to be explained <i>infra</i>."
,k112b_13:" This is a Rabbinic provision, and the reason is given in the Gemara."
,k112b_14:" Because his marriage was Pentateuchally valid while his divorce, being that of a deaf person, has no such validity."
,k112b_15:" The Sages."
,k112b_16:" Such a marriage is Pentateuchally valid since her father is empowered to act on her behalf."
,k112b_17:" Even after attaining her majority when she is no longer under her father's control."
,k112b_18:" The Sages."
,k112b_19:" R. Johanan b. Nuri."
,k112b_20:" Lit., 'this', one of sound senses that became deaf, who formed the subject of R. Johanan b. Nuri's enquiry in the preceding paragraph."
,k112b_21:" V. Git. 55a."
,k112b_22:" As the marriages of both sisters are of equal invalidity in Pentateuchal, and of equal validity in Rabbinic law, their levirate obligations and degree of relationship are also on the same legal level. Each sister, therefore, exempts the other, as in the case of marriages between normal brothers and sisters, from both the levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i>."
,k112b_23:" To one another; i.e., if they were not sisters or near of kin in any other way."
,k112b_24:" Since no <i>halizah</i> is possible with a deaf-mute (v. <i>supra</i> p. 788, n. 1) who cannot recite the formulae."
,k112b_25:" After marriage."
,k112b_26:" By gestures, as they did in the case of the marriages."
,k112b_27:" From levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i>."
,k112b_28:" Because the levirate bond with his sister-in-law, whose marriage (as one between normal persons) was Pentateuchally valid, causes his wife whose marriage with him (a deaf person) was only Rabbinically valid, to be forbidden to him as the sister of his zekukah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k112b_29:" Since, as a deaf man (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 789. n. 8), he is incapable of participating in her <i>halizah</i>, while levirate marriage cannot be contracted because she is his wife's, or divorcee's sister."
,k112b_30:" From levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i>."
,k112b_31:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1 <i>mutatis mutandis</i>."
,k112b_32:" Since both he and his sister-in-law are normal persons."
,k112b_33:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 790, n. 2."
,k112b_34:" His divorce, which has only Rabbinical, but not Pentateuchal validity, cannot sever the levirate bond between him and his sister-in-law, which arose out of the pentateuchally valid marriage of his brother."
,k112b_35:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 789. n. 10."
,k112b_36:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 789. n. 10."
,k112b_37:" As is evident from our Mishnah. Since <i>halizah</i> was required it is obvious that the preceding marriage, without which the question of <i>halizah</i> could never have arisen, is recognized as valid despite the fact that a deaf-mute (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 788. n. 1), owing to his inferior intelligence, is elsewhere ineligible to effect a <i>kinyan</i>."
,k112b_38:" <i>Supra</i> 69b, 96b."
,k112b_39:" Deaf-mutes might well lead a happy matrimonial life, not only when the husband or wife is deaf, but even where both are afflicted with deafness."
,k112b_40:" proverb. There can be no happy or enduring matrimonial union between an imbecile and a sane person or between two imbeciles."
,k112b_41:" As has been stated in the Baraitha just cited."
,k112b_42:" And were not his marriage recognized as valid, at least in Rabbinic law, marriage for him would have become an impossibility."
,k112b_43:" Wherein does she differ from the boy minor that she should be subject to a different law?"
,k112b_44:" The case of the girl minor."
,k112b_45:" Take liberties with her."
,k112b_46:" Since in the case of either, marriage is Pentateuchally invalid. "
}

txt:
<p>
it should have been [stated that he is only] to be requested!<a id="k112b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What we are dealing with here is the case of a woman who has children, so that such a remote possibility<a id="k112b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; does not occur to her.
</p><p>
	What, however, [would be the law if] she had no children? [Would the levir in that case have] to be requested! Instead, then, of stating, IF THIS, HOWEVER, WAS IN HER MIND [EVEN IF HER VOW WAS MADE] DURING THE LIFETIME OF HER HUSBAND, THE LEVIR MAY ONLY BE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT TO HER <I>HALIZAH</I>,<a id="k112b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; a distinction should have been made in the very same case:<a id="k112b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; This<a id="k112b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable only where she has children, but where she has no children he may only be requested!' Consequently<a id="k112b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; it must be inferred that whether<a id="k112b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; she has children or not, the levir is compelled [to submit to <i>halizah</i>], in accordance with the opinion of Rab. Thus our contention is proved.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xiv">CHAPTER XIV</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A DEAF<a id="k112b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; MAN WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES OR A MAN OF SOUND SENSES WHO MARRIED A DEAF WOMAN MAY, IF HE WISHES TO RELEASE HER, DO SO;<a id="k112b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF HE WISHES TO RETAIN HER HE MAY ALSO DO SO. AS HE MARRIES [THE WOMAN] BY GESTURES<a id="k112b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; SO HE DIVORCES HER BY GESTURES.
</p><p>
	IF A MAN OF SOUND SENSES MARRIED A WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES AND SHE BECAME DEAF, HE MAY,<a id="k112b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE WISHES, RELEASE HER;<a id="k112b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF HE WISHES HE MAY RETAIN HER. IF SHE BECAME AN IMBECILE HE MAY NOT DIVORCE HER.<a id="k112b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE, HOWEVER, BECAME DEAF OR INSANE, HE MAY NEVER DIVORCE HER.<a id="k112b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. JOHANAN B. NURI ASKED: WHY MAY A WOMAN WHO BECAME DEAF BE DIVORCED WHILE A MAN WHO BECAME DEAF MAY NOT DIVORCE [HIS WIFE]? THEY<a id="k112b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; ANSWERED HIM: A MAN WHO GIVES DIVORCE IS NOT LIKE A WOMAN WHO IS DIVORCED. FOR WHILE A WOMAN MAY BE DIVORCED WITH HER CONSENT AS WELL AS WITHOUT IT, A MAN CAN GIVE DIVORCE ONLY WITH HIS FULL CONSENT.
</p><p>
	R. JOHANAN B. GUDGADA TESTIFIED CONCERNING A DEAF [MINOR] WHO WAS GIVEN IN MARRIAGE BY HER FATHER<a id="k112b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT SHE MAY BE RELEASED BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE.<a id="k112b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY<a id="k112b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID TO HIM:<a id="k112b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; THE OTHER<a id="k112b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; ALSO IS IN A SIMILAR POSITION.<a id="k112b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF TWO DEAF BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO DEAF SISTERS, OR TO TWO SISTERS WHO WERE OF SOUND SENSES, OR TO TWO SISTERS ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER WAS OF SOUND SENSES; AND SO ALSO IF TWO DEAF SISTERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO BROTHERS WHO WERE OF SOUND SENSES, OR TO TWO DEAF BROTHERS, OR TO TWO BROTHERS ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, BEHOLD THESE [WOMEN] ARE EXEMPT FROM <I>HALIZAH</I> AND FROM LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<a id="k112b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; IF [THE WOMEN, HOWEVER], WERE STRANGERS<a id="k112b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [THE RESPECTIVE LEVIRS] MUST MARRY THEM,<a id="k112b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF THEY WISH TO DIVORCE THEM,<a id="k112b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY MAY DO SO.<a id="k112b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF TWO BROTHERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS WHO WERE OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE SISTER OF SOUND SENSES, DO? [NOTHING; SINCE HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] IS EXEMPT,<a id="k112b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; AS BEING HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? HE MUST RELEASE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE<a id="k112b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; WHILE HIS BROTHER'S WIFE IS FORBIDDEN FOREVER [TO MARRY AGAIN].<a id="k112b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF TWO BROTHERS OF SOUND SENSES WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? [NOTHING; SINCE HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] IS EXEMPT<a id="k112b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; AS HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DO? HE MUST DIVORCE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE<a id="k112b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; AND [HE RELEASES] HIS BROTHER'S WIFE BY <I>HALIZAH</I>.<a id="k112b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF TWO BROTHERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DIED, WHAT SHOULD [THE BROTHER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? [NOTHING; SINCE THE WIDOW] IS RELEASED BY VIRTUE OF HER BEING HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DO? HE RELEASES HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE. WHILE HIS BROTHER'S WIFE IS FOREVER FORBIDDEN [TO MARRY AGAIN].<a id="k112b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF TWO BROTHERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, WERE MARRIED TO TWO STRANGERS WHO WERE OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF [THE WOMAN WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES, DO? &mdash; HE EITHER SUBMITS TO <I>HALIZAH</I> OR CONTRACTS LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE WOMAN WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN WHO WAS OF SOUND SENSES, DO? HE MUST MARRY HER AND HE MAY NEVER DIVORCE HER.<a id="k112b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF TWO BROTHERS OF SOUND SENSES WERE MARRIED TO TWO STRANGERS,<a id="k112b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE OF WHOM WAS OF SOUND SENSES AND THE OTHER DEAF, AND THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF WOMAN DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES, DO? HE MARRIES [THE WIDOW] AND IF HE WISHES TO DIVORCE HER HE MAY DO SO. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF WOMAN, DO? HE MAY EITHER SUBMIT TO <I>HALIZAH</I> OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.
</p><p>
	IF TWO BROTHERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, WERE MARRIED TO TWO STRANGERS,<a id="k112b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF WOMAN, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES. DO? HE MUST MARRY [THE WIDOW], BUT IF HE WISHES TO DIVORCE HER HE MAY DO SO.<a id="k112b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF WOMAN, DO? HE MUST MARRY [THE WIDOW] AND HE MAY NEVER DIVORCE HER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Rami b. Hama stated: Wherein lies the difference between a deaf man or a deaf woman [and an imbecile] that the marriage of the former should have been legalized by the Rabbis<a id="k112b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; while that of the male imbecile or female imbecile was not legalized by the Rabbis? For it was taught: If an imbecile or a minor married, and then died, their wives are exempt from <i>halizah</i> and from the levirate marriage!<a id="k112b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [In the case of] a deaf man or a deaf woman, where the Rabbinical ordinance could be carried into practice,<a id="k112b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; the marriage was legalized by the Rabbis; [in that of] a male, or female imbecile, where the Rabbinical ordinance cannot be carried into practice, since no one could live with a serpent in the same basket,<a id="k112b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; the marriage was not legalized by the Rabbis.
</p><p>
	And wherein lies the difference between a minor [and a deaf person] that the marriage of the former should not have been legalized<a id="k112b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; by the Rabbis while that of the deaf person was legalized by the Rabbis? &mdash; The Rabbis have legalized the marriage of a deaf person since [Pentateuchally] he would never be able to contract a marriage;<a id="k112b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; they did not legalize the marriage of a minor since in due course he would be able to contract [a Pentateuchally valid] marriage. But, surely, [in the case of] a girl minor, who would in due course be able to contract [a Pentateuchally valid] marriage, the Rabbis did legalize her marriage.<a id="k112b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There<a id="k112b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [it was legalized] in order that people might not treat her as ownerless property.<a id="k112b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And why is there a difference<a id="k112b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; between a minor [and a deaf woman] that the former should be permitted to exercise the right of <i>mi'un</i> while the deaf woman should not be permitted to exercise the right of <i>mi'un</i>? &mdash; Because, if [the latter also were allowed to do] so,
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k114a_1:" Or, 'let them play' (Rashi)."
,k114a_2:" R. Pedath, who saw no objection to the children's desecration of the Sabbath."
,k114a_3:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Symbolic of any religious transgression."
,k114a_4:" Lit., 'to separate him'."
,k114a_5:" On the Sabbath, from a public domain."
,k114a_6:" If he does that of his own accord. Which proves that though a child may not be ordered to break a religious law he need not he interfered with if he does it on his own account."
,k114a_7:" The plants in which draw no nourishment from the ground and cannot consequently he regarded as attached to it."
,k114a_8:" <i>Karmelith</i> [H] neither a public nor a private domain. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k114a_9:" In the case of Pentateuchal prohibitions, however, a child must he stopped even if he acts quite innocently."
,k114a_10:" On the Sabbath when labour is forbidden to an Israelite."
,k114a_11:" Lit., 'upon them'."
,k114a_12:" Shab. 121a. Which shews, contrary to the opinion of R. Pedath, that even where a child acts in pure innocence, he must he prevented from transgressing a law."
,k114a_13:" I.e., if his father is present at the time he commits the transgression. The father's silence is interpreted as approval and encouragement of the child to continue his forbidden act. Hence the rule that he must he prevented from the desecration of the Sabbath. When, however, the child acts in the absence of his father it is no one's duty to restrain him."
,k114a_14:" Mentioned in the same context (Shab 121a)."
,k114a_15:" Surely not. Whatever an Israelite is forbidden to do on the Sabbath he must not ask an idolater to do for him."
,k114a_16:" He does not wait for the Israelite's encouragement, since he well knows that after the Sabbath he will he duly rewarded for his labour. Hence it is not necessary for any Israelite to prevent him from acting as he desires."
,k114a_17:" [H], lit., 'associate' (v. Glos). One who observes all religious laws including those relating to the priestly and Levitical gifts, which were occasionally neglected by the <i>'am ha-arez</i>."
,k114a_18:" [H], lit., 'people of the land' (v. <i>supra</i> n. 12)."
,k114a_19:" Produce of the land on which the levitical dues have not been given."
,k114a_20:" I.e., any land produce, liable to levitical dues."
,k114a_21:" The child's."
,k114a_22:" I.e., he may eat of it, though, as the fruit of an <i>'am ha-arez</i>, on which the necessary dues may not have been given, it is forbidden for consumption. From this it follows that there is no need to prevent a child from transgression. An objection against those who hold the contrary view!"
,k114a_23:" [H], land produce belonging to an <i>'am ha-arez</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>), since the prohibition of such produce is due to suspicion only. It is not certain that the prescribed dues were not given by the <i>'am ha-arez</i>."
,k114a_24:" Why the child is not prevented from the consumption of the fruit mentioned."
,k114a_25:" If, for instance, it had been definitely known that it had not been tithed."
,k114a_26:" Before the child could be allowed to eat of it."
,k114a_27:" <i>Supra</i>, in explanation of the citation from Shab. 121a."
,k114a_28:" Why, then, should the child, where he acts in all innocence and where his father's approval is not in question, be prevented from eating of the levitically unprepared fruit?"
,k114a_29:" Lit., 'standing here'."
,k114a_30:" Lit., 'thrusts', thus preventing his disciples from drawing any definite, and possibly erroneous, conclusion,"
,k114a_31:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 801, n. 12."
,k114a_32:" V. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 13."
,k114a_33:" The child's."
,k114a_34:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note, <i>mutatis mutandis</i>. The consumption of unclean <i>terumah</i> is forbidden Pentateuchally (cf. <i>supra</i> 73b)!"
,k114a_35:" That which is given from the fruit of the trees (apart from vine and olive trees) which is Pentateuchally exempt."
,k114a_36:" Lit., 'and goes'."
,k114a_37:" Which is forbidden to adults. Cf. Lev. XI, 10ff."
,k114a_38:" Plural of <i>nebelah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k114a_39:" The sing. is <i>terefah</i> q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k114a_40:" When sucking is under certain conditions forbidden, as explained <i>infra</i>."
,k114a_41:" The milk of an unclean beast is for adults Pentateuchally forbidden. Cf. Bek. 6b."
,k114a_42:" When the restrictions on work are not as rigid as those of the Sabbath."
,k114a_43:" Though he is eating a Pentateuchally forbidden food (v. <i>supra</i> n. 6 and cf. <i>supra</i> p. 802, n. 4)!"
,k114a_44:" Without food the child's life is endangered."
,k114a_45:" When life is in danger any religious law may be infringed."
,k114a_46:" Lit., 'requires an estimate'. Before he is allowed to eat of the forbidden food it is necessary to obtain medical opinion that delay until the conclusion of the Sabbath, for instance, would involve him in danger."
,k114a_47:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 11."
,k114a_48:" Lit., 'at'."
,k114a_49:" The circumstances in which Abba Saul and his friends were permitted to commit an apparently forbidden act."
,k114a_50:" Lit., 'not necessary (but)'."
,k114a_51:" Not danger to life."
,k114a_52:" From the breast."
,k114a_53:" Or 'unusual'. [H] lit., 'as if by the back of the hand'."
,k114a_54:" [H] (rt. [H] in Pi'el, 'break down', 'detach') Milking an animal with one's hands is regarded as direct detaching which on the Sabbath is Pentateuchally forbidden (cf Shab. 95a); releasing the milk by sucking is an unusual, or indirect unloading and is only Rabbinically forbidden."
,k114a_55:" For actual unloading."
,k114a_56:" Forbidding also sucking which is indirect unloading."
,k114a_57:" Involving no death penalty."
,k114a_58:" [H] (<i>Kal</i> of [H]). V. <i>infra</i> n. 7."
,k114a_59:" Lev. XI, 42."
,k114a_60:" Since the prohibition of such food for adults has already been mentioned elsewhere."
,k114a_61:" [H] (<i>Hif</i>. of [H])."
,k114a_62:" Lit., 'to warn', 'caution', 'admonish'."
,k114a_63:" Lit., 'what not?'"
,k114a_64:" Even if they act on their own. An objection against R. Pedath (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 801, n. 7)!"
,k114a_65:" BaH. Cur. edd., 'him'."
,k114a_66:" Cf. <i>supra</i>. 801, n. 8, final clause."
,k114a_67:" Lev. XVII, 12."
,k114a_68:" V. <i>supra</i> note 6"
,k114a_69:" Lit., 'they say to them'."
,k114a_70:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 801, n. 7."
,k114a_71:" Lev. XXI, 1, a repetition of the rt. [H]."
,k114a_72:" Lit., 'he tells them, Do not be defiled'. An objection against R. Pedath (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 801, n. 7)! "
}

txt:
<p>
lead forth some boys and girls [to the spot] and let them take a walk<a id="k114a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; there, for if they find [the keys] they will bring them back'. [From this] it is clearly evident that he<a id="k114a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that if a minor eats <i>nebelah</i>,<a id="k114a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not the duty of the <i>Beth din</i> to take it away from him.<a id="k114a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; May it be suggested that the following provides support for his view? A man must not say to a child, 'Bring me<a id="k114a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; a key', or 'bring me<a id="k114a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; a seal'; but he may allow him to pluck or to throw!<a id="k114a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye replied: 'To pluck' [may refer] to a non-perforated plant-pot,<a id="k114a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'to throw' [may refer] to a neutral domain,<a id="k114a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [acts which are no more than prohibitions] of the Rabbis.<a id="k114a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If an idolater came to extinguish [a fire],<a id="k114a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; he is not to be told either. 'Put it out' or 'Do not put it out', because it is not the duty of the Israelites present<a id="k114a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; to enforce his Sabbath rest. If a minor [Israelite], however, came to extinguish [the fire], he must be told, 'Do not put it out', since it is the duty of the Israelites present<a id="k114a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; to enforce his Sabbath rest!<a id="k114a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan replied: [The child is inhibited only] where he [appears to] act with his father's approval.<a id="k114a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Similarly, then, in respect of the idolater,<a id="k114a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [it is a case] where he acts with the approval of an Israelite? Is this, however, permitted!<a id="k114a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; An idolater acts on his own initiative.<a id="k114a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If the child of a <i>haber</i><a id="k114a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; was in the habit of visiting his mother's father who was an <i>'am ha-rez</i>,<a id="k114a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; there is no need to apprehend that [the latter] might feed him with [levitically] unprepared foodstuffs;<a id="k114a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and if fruit<a id="k114a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; was found in his<a id="k114a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; possession, it is not necessary [to take it from] him!<a id="k114a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Johanan replied: The law was relaxed in respect of <i>demai</i>.<a id="k114a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The reason, then,<a id="k114a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is because [the fruit was] <i>demai</i>,<a id="k114a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but [had its prohibition been] certain<a id="k114a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; it would have been necessary to tithe it;<a id="k114a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but, surely [it may be objected] R. Johanan said<a id="k114a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; that [a child is inhibited only] where he [appears to] act with his father's approval<a id="k114a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [the fact is that] R. Johanan was in doubt. When, therefore, he dealt with the one subject<a id="k114a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; he rebutted the argument<a id="k114a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and when he dealt with the other<a id="k114a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; he [again] rebutted the argument.<a id="k114a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If the child of a <i>haber</i><a id="k114a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; who was a priest was in the habit of visiting his mother's father who was a priest and an <i>'am ha-arez</i>,<a id="k114a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; there is no need to apprehend that [the latter] might feed him with unclean <i>terumah</i>; and if fruit was found in his<a id="k114a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; possession it is not necessary [to take it away from] him!<a id="k114a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This refers only] to Rabbinical <i>terumah</i>.<a id="k114a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: An [Israelite] child may be regularly<a id="k114a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; breast fed by an idolatress or an unclean beast, and there is no need to have scruples about his sucking from a detestable thing;<a id="k114a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; but he must not be directly fed with nebeloth,<a id="k114a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; terefoth,<a id="k114a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; detestable creatures or reptiles. From all these, however, he may suck, even on the Sabbath,<a id="k114a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; though this is forbidden to an adult.<a id="k114a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; Abba Saul stated: It was our practice to suck from a clean beast on a festival.<a id="k114a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; At any rate it was here stated that 'there is no need to have scruples about his sucking from a detestable thing'!<a id="k114a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The permissibility] there is due to [the presence of] danger.<a id="k114a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If so, an adult also [should be permitted]!<a id="k114a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [Permissibility for] an adult is dependent on medical opinion.<a id="k114a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [Permissibility for] a child also should be made dependent on medical opinion!<a id="k114a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: The ordinary child is in danger when deprived of his<a id="k114a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; milk.
</p><p>
	'Abba Saul stated: It was our practice to suck from a clean beast on a festival'. How is one to understand this?<a id="k114a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; If danger was involved, [the sucking should be permitted] even on the Sabbath also; and if no danger was involved, it should be forbidden even on a festival! &mdash; This can only be understood as a case where<a id="k114a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; pain<a id="k114a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; was involved, [Abba Saul] being of the opinion [that sucking]<a id="k114a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; is an act of indirect<a id="k114a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; detaching.<a id="k114a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; [In respect of the] Sabbath, therefore, where the prohibition<a id="k114a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; [is one involving the penalty] of stoning, the Rabbis have instituted a preventive measure;<a id="k114a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; [in respect of] a festival, however, where the prohibition<a id="k114a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; [is only that of] a negative precept,<a id="k114a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis have not instituted any preventive measure.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: <i>These ye shall not eat,<a id="k114a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; for they are a detestable thing</i><a id="k114a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; [is to be understood<a id="k114a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; as] <i>'you shall not allow them to eat</i>',<a id="k114a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; this being a warning<a id="k114a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; to the older men concerning the young children. Does not this imply<a id="k114a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; that [minors] must be ordered, you shall not eat [such things']!<a id="k114a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; that [adults] may not give them<a id="k114a_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; with their own hands.<a id="k114a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: <i>No soul of you shall eat blood</i><a id="k114a_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; implies<a id="k114a_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; a warning<a id="k114a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; to the older men concerning the young children. Does not this signify<a id="k114a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; that [minors] must be told,<a id="k114a_69"><sup>69</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Do not eat [blood]'!<a id="k114a_70"><sup>70</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; that [adults] must not give them with their own hands.<a id="k114a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: <i>Speak&nbsp;&hellip; and say</i><a id="k114a_71"><sup>71</sup></a>&nbsp; conveys a warning<a id="k114a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; to the older [Priests] concerning the [priests who are] minors. Does not this imply that minors must be ordered not to defile themselves!<a id="k114a_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; that [adults] must not defile them with their own hands.<a id="k114a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And [all the Scriptural texts cited are] required. For if we had been informed concerning detestable things only,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k114b_1:" Which included minors in the prohibition."
,k114b_2:" To adults."
,k114b_3:" So according to Tosaf. (s.v. [H] a.l.) contrary to Rashi."
,k114b_4:" Involving a penalty."
,k114b_5:" Lit., 'until there is'."
,k114b_6:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k114b_7:" Which included minors in the prohibition."
,k114b_8:" Reptiles and blood."
,k114b_9:" Which applies to priests only. Cf. Lev. XXI, 1ff."
,k114b_10:" As their adults were more restricted than others, greater restriction may have been imposed upon their minors also."
,k114b_11:" The order in our Mishnah is slightly different."
,k114b_12:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> A deaf-mute is no more responsible for his actions than a minor, and no more punishable than a minor. An objection against R. Pedath (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 801, n. 7)! "
,kf114b_13:" His wife who, as a woman in the possession of her senses and faculties, is subject to punishment if she continues to live with him."
,k114b_14:" The order in our Mishnah is slightly different."
,k114b_15:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 805. n. 9. "
,k114b_16:" He is of sound senses and in possession of his faculties. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 805, n. 10, mutatis mutandis."
,k114b_17:" Were the deaf man and deaf woman allowed to continue living together, those who were unacquainted with the law that deaf-mutes are no more responsible for their actions than minors, might assume that their marriage was a valid one and that the sister-in-law, as the deaf levir's wife's sister, is exempt from the levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i> and, consequently, free to marry again."
,k114b_18:" The reason why she is not believed in a time of war is given by Raba in the Gemara <i>infra</i>, while in a case of discord between herself and her husband she is suspected of a desire to get rid of him."
,k114b_19:" The Sages."
,k114b_20:" Lit., 'whether this or this', whether she shows signs of distress and mourning or not."
,k114b_21:" Lit., 'he taught'. sc. in our Mishnah."
,k114b_22:" Though this is superfluous. It being obvious that if a husband and wife lived in peace, her declaration that he is dead should be relied upon."
,k114b_23:" Lit., 'to teach'."
,k114b_24:" Cf. <i>supra</i> nn. 4 and 5 <i>mutatis mutandis</i>."
,k114b_25:" Wanting in cur. edd., and inserted by BaH."
,k114b_26:" Cf. Jast. 'A plaster', or 'bandage' (Rashi)."
,k114b_27:" In respect of accepting a wife's evidence as to the death of her husband in a country beyond the sea."
,k114b_28:" Desiring to probe whether she had actually witnessed her husband's death or spoke from conjecture only."
,k114b_29:" Leaving him to his fate in the famine-stricken area."
,k114b_30:" She thus admitted that she had not actually witnessed her husband's death."
,k114b_31:" Lit., 'he returned'. Finding that even in the case of famine a wife speaks from conjecture."
,k114b_32:" Lit., 'on what men say'."
,k114b_33:" Lit., and a man without (his full tale of) years does not depart'."
,k114b_34:" [Rashi v. 115b s.v. [H] reads, He (Raba) raised the question]."
,k114b_35:" [And she stated, 'He died in war' v. Rashi <i>loc. cit</i>.]."
,k114b_36:" Where a person has no benefit from a lie he may obviously be presumed to be speaking the truth. "
}

txt:
<p>
it might have been assumed [that the law<a id="k114b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; applies to them], because their prohibition applies<a id="k114b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; to even the minutest [objectionable creature]<a id="k114b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to blood the minimum quantity of which<a id="k114b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; must be no less than<a id="k114b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; a quarter [of a <i>log</i>].<a id="k114b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And if we had been informed concerning blood only, it might have been assumed [that the law<a id="k114b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; applies to this] because [the eating of it] involves the penalty of <i>kareth</i>, but not to reptiles. And if we had been informed concerning these two,<a id="k114b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed [that the law<a id="k114b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; applies to these] because their prohibition applies equally to all but not to uncleanness.<a id="k114b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And had we been informed concerning uncleanness it might have been assumed [that the law<a id="k114b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only here because] priests are different [from other people], since more commandments have been imposed upon them,<a id="k114b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to these.<a id="k114b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [Hence the three Scriptural texts were] required.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: IF TWO BROTHERS ONE OF WHOM WAS OF SOUND SENSES<a id="k114b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE OTHER DEAF WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS WHO WERE OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE SISTER OF SOUND SENSES, DO? &mdash; [NOTHING; SINCE HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] IS EXEMPT AS BEING HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? HE MUST RELEASE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE WHILE HIS BROTHER'S WIFE IS FORBIDDEN FOREVER [TO MARRY AGAIN]. Now, why should he RELEASE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE? Let her continue to live with him [since he is only like] a minor who eats <i>nebelah</i>.<a id="k114b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; On account of the prohibition imposed upon her.<a id="k114b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: IF TWO BROTHERS OF SOUND SENSES WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS ONE OF WHOM WAS OF SOUND SENSES<a id="k114b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE OTHER DEAF, AND THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER. DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? [NOTHING; SINCE HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] IS EXEMPT AS HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES. DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DO? &mdash; HE MUST DIVORCE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE, AND [RELEASE] HIS BROTHER'S WIFE BY <I>HALIZAH</I>. But why must he DIVORCE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE? Let her continue to live with him [since she is only like] a minor who eats <i>nebelah</i>!<a id="k114b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Owing to the prohibition that is imposed upon him.<a id="k114b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said, Come and hear: IF TWO BROTHERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS OF SOUND SENSES<a id="k114b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE OTHER DEAF, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DIED, WHAT SHOULD [THE BROTHER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? [NOTHING; SINCE THE WIDOW] IS RELEASED BY VIRTUE OF HER BEING HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DO? HE RELEASES HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE, WHILE HIS BROTHER'S WIFE IS FOREVER FORBIDDEN [TO MARRY AGAIN]. Now here, surely, no prohibition is involved either for him or for her, and yet it was stated, HE RELEASES HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE!<a id="k114b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Shemaia replied: This is a preventive measure against the possibility of allowing a sister-in-law to marry a stranger.<a id="k114b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xv">CHAPTER XV</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A WOMAN AND HER HUSBAND WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA [AT A TIME WHEN THERE WAS] PEACE BETWEEN HIM AND HER AND [WHEN THERE WAS ALSO] PEACE IN THE WORLD, AND SHE CAME BACK AND SAID, MY HUSBAND IS DEAD', SHE MAY MARRY AGAIN; AND IF SHE SAID, 'MY HUSBAND IS DEAD [AND HAS LEFT NO ISSUE]' SHE MAY CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. [IF, HOWEVER, THERE WAS] PEACE BETWEEN HIM AND HER, BUT WAR IN THE WORLD, [OR IF THERE WAS] DISCORD BETWEEN HIM AND HER, BUT PEACE IN THE WORLD, AND SHE CAME BACK AND SAID, 'MY HUSBAND IS DEAD', SHE IS NOT BELIEVED.<a id="k114b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: SHE IS NEVER BELIEVED UNLESS SHE COMES WEEPING AND HER GARMENTS ARE RENT. THEY,<a id="k114b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; HOWEVER, SAID TO HIM: SHE MAY MARRY IN EITHER CASE.<a id="k114b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Mention was made of<a id="k114b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; PEACE BETWEEN HIM AND HER<a id="k114b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; because it was desired to speak of<a id="k114b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; DISCORD BETWEEN HIM AND HER, and PEACE IN THE WORLD was mentioned<a id="k114b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; because it was desired to mention<a id="k114b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; WAR IN THE WORLD.
</p><p>
	Raba stated: What is the reason [why a wife is not believed in a time] of war? Because she speaks from conjecture. 'Could it be imagined' [she thinks]<a id="k114b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; 'that among all those who were killed he alone escaped!' And should it be contended that since there was peace between him and her she would wait until she saw [what had actually happened to him]. it may sometimes happen [It may be retorted] that he was struck by an arrow or spear and she would think that he was certainly dead, while in fact someone night have applied an emollient<a id="k114b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [to his wound] and he might have recovered
</p><p>
	Raba was [at first] of the opinion<a id="k114b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; that famine is not like war, since [in the former case] she does not speak from conjecture. [Later. however]. Raba changed his opinion. stating that famine is like war. For a woman once appeared before Raba and said to him, 'My husband died during a famine'. 'You have acted well', he remarked to her.<a id="k114b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; 'in that you saved your own life,<a id="k114b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; since it could hardly be imagined that he would survive on the little remnant of flour that you left for him'. 'The Master then'. she replied. 'also understands that in such circumstances he could not survive'.<a id="k114b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; After this<a id="k114b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba ruled: Famine<a id="k114b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is worse than war; for whereas in the case of war it is only when the wife states, 'My husband died in the war', that she is not believed, but [if her statement is that]. 'He died in his bed', she is believed, in the case of famine she is not believed unless she states, 'He died and I buried him'.
</p><p>
	A ruin<a id="k114b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is regarded as war, for [in this case also] she speaks from conjecture. A visitation of serpents or scorpions<a id="k114b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is regarded as war, for [here also a wife] speaks from conjecture. As to pestilence. some hold that it is like war, while others hold that it is not like war. 'Some hold that it is like war', because a wife, they maintain. speaks from conjecture; while 'others hold that it is not like war' because, they maintain, a wife relies upon the common saying.<a id="k114b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; 'A pestilence may rage for seven years but none dies before his time'.<a id="k114b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised:<a id="k114b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the law if it was she who established that there was a war in the world?<a id="k114b_35"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Do we apply the argument. 'What motive could she have for telling a lie?'<a id="k114b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k3a_1:" In respect to their exemption from the levirate marriage."
,k3a_2:" By deduction from the law of a wife's sister."
,k3a_3:" V. n. 2."
,k3a_4:" Others, 'Rab', who was a disciple of R. Isaac b. Abdimi, v. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l."
,k3a_5:" [H] ('they' or 'theirs') in Lev. XVIII, 10 which deals according to Talmudic interpretation with the daughter of his son, or of his daughter that was born from an outraged woman, but not with the daughter herself."
,k3a_6:" Ibid. v. 17 which places a daughter on the same footing as a son's and a daughter's daughter. By this analogy the inference is arrived at that intercourse even with a daughter from an outraged woman is forbidden."
,k3a_7:" [H] ('lewdness' or 'wickedness'), ibid. where the penalty of burning is not mentioned."
,k3a_8:" Ibid. XX, 14 where the penalty of burning with fire is explicitly stated. Thus it is shown that the very foundation of the prohibition of sexual intercourse with a daughter from an outraged woman, as well as the death penalty of burning which the crime involves, are entirely dependent on inferences arrived at by exposition, v. Sanh. 51a."
,k3a_9:" Lit., 'let him teach'."
,k3a_10:" In the list in our Mishnah; since, as will be shewn <i>infra</i>, the exemption from levirate marriage in respect of all the others is derived by exposition from 'his wife's sister'."
,k3a_11:" 'His mother's sister', v. our Mishnah."
,k3a_12:" Which deals with the prohibitions through sisterhood."
,k3a_13:" Of the list."
,k3a_14:" His wife's."
,k3a_15:" Lit., 'his own'."
,k3a_16:" While a daughter-in-law is not consanguineous."
,k3a_17:" A daughter-in-law should, consequently, receive priority."
,k3a_18:" In our Mishnah."
,k3a_19:" Which might imply that the levirate marriage in these cases is not obligatory but optional."
,k3a_20:" v. <i>supra</i> p. 4, n. 13."
,k3a_21:" Since, in fact, no marriage with a deceased brother's widow is permitted whenever the obligation of the levirate marriage does not exist."
,k3a_22:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k3a_23:" Since a prohibition could not very well apply to <i>halizah</i> which is a harmless act, the expression of 'prohibit' in respect of <i>halizah</i> would have been interpreted as a 'prohibition to be married to anyone before <i>halizah</i> had been performed'."
,k3a_24:" By the use of the expression, 'exempt'."
,k3a_25:" In our Mishnah."
,k3a_26:" And, consequently, the expression 'prohibit' which is preferable to that of 'exempt' (v. <i>supra</i> notes 6 and 8) could well be used for the levirate marriage."
,k3a_27:" Lit., 'what does he do', i.e., there is no reason why <i>halizah</i> should be forbidden. Hence the expression of 'prohibit' could not properly be used."
,k3a_28:" The expression of 'prohibit' in relation to <i>halizah</i> could, consequently, properly have been used. Why then was 'exempt' preferred to 'prohibit'?"
,k3a_29:" Of one's daughter, for instance."
,k3a_30:" If his daughter, e.g., had married one who was not his near of kin, her rival, on the death of her husband, is not forbidden to marry the father; v. <i>infra</i> 13a."
,k3a_31:" 'Prohibit' might have implied that a daughter, e.g., always causes her rival to be prohibited to her father whether the precept of the levirate marriage is applicable or not."
,k3a_32:" Lit., 'let him teach'."
,k3a_33:" It is obvious that if one is exempt from the levirate marriage there could be no question of being subject to <i>halizah</i> which is only the result of a refusal to contract the prescribed marriage."
,k3a_34:" In order that the law of the levirate marriage be not entirely abrogated."
,k3a_35:" By the use of the expression, exempt'."
,k3a_36:" Lit., 'goes up' sc. to the gate, i.e., the court (cf. Deut. XXV, 7.)"
,k3a_37:" In our Mishnah."
,k3a_38:" The marriage surely is of greater importance than the <i>halizah</i>, the latter being only an alternative of the former. V. Deut. XXV. 7."
,k3a_39:" The exemption from the marriage being then self-evident."
,k3a_40:" <i>Infra</i> 39b, 109a. And if only FROM THE <I>HALIZAH</I> had been stated, there would be no basis for this inference."
,k3a_41:" Of our Mishnah, 'FIFTEEN'."
,k3a_42:" Of the list; 'ALL THESE', implying the 'FIFTEEN' mentioned. If nothing were to be excluded, there would be no need for the addition of a cardinal at the beginning, or of a reference to it at the end of a list which presumably enumerated all possible cases. "
}

txt:
<p>
[The law, surely,] concerning all the others also was arrived at<a id="k3a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; by exposition!<a id="k3a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Granted that in respect of [exemption from] the levirate marriage [the law in relation to them] was arrived at by exposition, the principle of prohibition [of sexual intercourse] with them has been explicitly enunciated in Scripture, [while as regards] his daughter<a id="k3a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the very principle underlying the prohibition [of intercourse with her] has been arrived at by exposition; for Raba<a id="k3a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; stated: R. Isaac b. Abdimi told me, 'Hennah<a id="k3a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is derived from hennah<a id="k3a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and zimmah<a id="k3a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is derived from zimmah'.<a id="k3a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now that it has been stated that preference is given to whatever is arrived at by exposition, the Tanna should have placed<a id="k3a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS WIFE'S SISTER last!<a id="k3a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As he was dealing with a prohibition due to sisterhood<a id="k3a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; he mentioned also HIS WIFE'S SISTER. Then let him relegate<a id="k3a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the entire passage<a id="k3a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; to the end!<a id="k3a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [this is really the explanation]: The Tanna follows the order of the respective degrees of kinship. He, therefore, mentions [first] HIS DAUGHTER, THE DAUGHTER OF HIS DAUGHTER AND THE DAUGHTER OF HIS SON because they are his own next of kin; and since he enumerated three generations of his relatives in descending order he enumerated also three generations of her<a id="k3a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; relatives in descending order. Having enumerated three generations of her<a id="k3a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; relatives in descending order he proceeded to enumerate also three generations of her relatives in ascending order. He then mentions HIS SISTER and HIS MOTHER'S SISTER who are his blood<a id="k3a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; relatives;<a id="k3a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and while dealing with prohibitions due to brotherhood he also mentions HIS WIFE'S SISTER. And it would indeed have been proper that HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW should be placed before THE WIFE OF HIS BROTHER WHO WAS NOT HIS CONTEMPORARY, since it is not on account of kinship<a id="k3a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; that the latter is forbidden, but as he was dealing with a prohibition due to brotherhood he mentioned also THE WIFE OF HIS BROTHER WHO WAS NOT HIS CONTEMPORARY and then mentioned HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW.
</p><p>
	What argument can be advanced for using<a id="k3a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; the expression EXEMPT<a id="k3a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and not that of<a id="k3a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'prohibit'?<a id="k3a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If 'prohibit' had been used it might have been assumed that the levirate marriage only was forbidden but that <i>halizah</i><a id="k3a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; must nevertheless be performed,<a id="k3a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it was taught<a id="k3a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [that <i>halizah</i> also need not be performed]. Let it then be stated,<a id="k3a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; 'She is forbidden to perform <i>halizah</i>!<a id="k3a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No harm, surely, is thereby done.<a id="k3a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; But why indeed should not [the expression of prohibition be applicable to <i>halizah</i>]? If you were to say that <i>halizah</i> is permissible, [one might say that] levirate marriage is also permitted!<a id="k3a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As a rival<a id="k3a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; is forbidden only where the commandment [of the levirate marriage] is applicable but is permitted where the commandment is not applicable,<a id="k3a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; it was therefore necessary to use the expression, EXEMPT.<a id="k3a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What justification is there for stating, FROM THE <I>HALIZAH</I> AND FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE when it would have been sufficient to state<a id="k3a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE only?<a id="k3a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE only had been stated it might have been assumed that she must perform <i>halizah</i><a id="k3a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; though she is exempt from the levirate marriage, hence it was taught<a id="k3a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; that whoever is subject<a id="k3a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; to the obligation of levirate marriage is also subject to <i>halizah</i> and whosoever is not subject to the obligation of the levirate marriage is not subject to <i>halizah</i>.
</p><p>
	Let it [first] be stated,<a id="k3a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE [and then] FROM THE <I>HALIZAH</I>,<a id="k3a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; or else only FROM THE <I>HALIZAH</I>?<a id="k3a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This Mishnah represents the view of Abba Saul who maintains that the commandment of <i>halizah</i> takes precedence over that of levirate marriage.<a id="k3a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What [was intended] to be excluded [by the] numeral at the beginning<a id="k3a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; and what [again was intended] to be excluded [by the] numeral at the end?<a id="k3a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k3b_1:" <i>Infra</i> 11a and 12a."
,k3b_2:" A minor who was one of the wives of a deceased childless brother, on declaring her refusal to marry the levir, exempts thereby her rivals from the levirate marriage but not from <i>halizah</i>."
,k3b_3:" If one of the widows of a deceased brother was divorced once, and then remarried to him after she had married another man, she causes the exemption of her rivals from the levirate marriage, v. <i>infra</i> 11b. The <i>halizah</i>, however, must be performed."
,k3b_4:" According to Rab that of R. Assi, and vice versa."
,k3b_5:" The subjects of their respective rulings, i.e., the sotah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) and the barren wife, who, they maintain, <i>infra</i> 11a, 11b, exempt their rivals both from the levirate marriage and from <i>halizah</i>."
,k3b_6:" V. our Mishnah."
,k3b_7:" Since neither a sotah nor a barren woman may marry any one of the brothers."
,k3b_8:" Of our Mishnah, that forbidden relatives as well as their rivals and rivals' rivals, ad infinitum, are exempt from the levirate marriage and from <i>halizah</i>."
,k3b_9:" Lit., 'whence these words'."
,k3b_10:" Lev. XVIII, 18."
,k3b_11:" Which does not add any point to the law enunciated."
,k3b_12:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k3b_13:" Lit., 'I hear'."
,k3b_14:" Since it drew no distinction between a brother's wife who was a forbidden relative and one that was not forbidden."
,k3b_15:" I.e., 'beside her'."
,k3b_16:" I.e., 'unto her'. In both cases the respective terms 'beside her' and 'unto her' are expressed by the same Heb. word [H]."
,k3b_17:" That of levirate marriage."
,k3b_18:" Two sisters, Lev. XVIII, 18. The verse in Lev. thus means that the prohibition of marrying the wife's sister is in force even where she is his dead brother's widow, in regard to whom the precept, 'her husband's brother shall go in unto her', might apply."
,k3b_19:" Lit., 'there is not to me but she', sc. the forbidden relative herself."
,k3b_20:" [H] 'to be a rival',"
,k3b_21:" [H] 'to oppress', the longer form li-zeror implies many rivals, i.e., rivals of the rivals. The last question and answer are deleted by R. <i>Tam</i> and Nahmanides. Cf. [H]"
,k3b_22:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k3b_23:" The forbidden relatives."
,k3b_24:" Enumerated <i>infra</i> 13a."
,k3b_25:" Relating to the other forbidden relatives."
,k3b_26:" If they and their rivals were married to a stranger."
,k3b_27:" To marry the man whom the forbidden relatives themselves are not allowed to marry."
,k3b_28:" Lit., 'say'."
,k3b_29:" I.e., the rival's exemption from the levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i>."
,k3b_30:" Where one of the widows is a forbidden relative of one of the surviving brothers and no forbidden relative of the deceased. As the relative is forbidden to marry the brother, her rival also is forbidden to him as 'his brother's wife'. Where the relative, however, is married to a stranger, her rival is permitted to those to whom the relative herself is forbidden."
,k3b_31:" Lev. XVIII, 29."
,k3b_32:" Why a wife's sister is forbidden the levirate marriage."
,k3b_33:" V. the texts from Lev. and Deut. and the analogy <i>supra</i>."
,k3b_34:" The commandment of the levirate marriage."
,k3b_35:" The prohibition to marry one's wife's sister."
,k3b_36:" Lit., 'say'. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; [They were intended] to exclude the respective rulings of Rab and R. Assi.<a id="k3b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; What, [however, do the numerals] exclude according to Rab and R. Assi? &mdash; If they share each other's views, one numeral would serve to exclude the rival of one who made a declaration of refusal,<a id="k3b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other to exclude the rival of a wife whom [her husband] remarried after having divorced her.<a id="k3b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If they do not share the views of each other, [each would regard] one [numeral as serving] to exclude the ruling of his colleague;<a id="k3b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other numeral, as serving to exclude either the rival of one who made a declaration of refusal<a id="k3b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; or the rival of a wife whom [her husband] remarried after having divorced her.<a id="k3b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	According to Rab and R. Assi these<a id="k3b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; should have been enumerated in our Mishnah! &mdash; [This could not be done] because the law of the rival's rival<a id="k3b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is not applicable [to these cases].<a id="k3b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Whence is this law<a id="k3b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; derived?<a id="k3b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [From] what our Rabbis taught: And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, 'aleha [beside her] in her lifetime,<a id="k3b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; what need was there for the expression ''aleha'?<a id="k3b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Because it was stated, Her husband's brother shall go in 'aleha [unto her],<a id="k3b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been imagined<a id="k3b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; that Scripture<a id="k3b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; speaks even of any of all the forbidden relatives enumerated in the Torah. Hence it was here<a id="k3b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; stated, ''aleha'<a id="k3b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and elsewhere<a id="k3b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; it was also stated ''aleha'.<a id="k3b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as elsewhere it is in the case of a precept<a id="k3b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; so here also it is in the case of a precept;<a id="k3b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet did not the All Merciful say, Thou shalt not take.<a id="k3b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; We are thus in a position to know the law concerning herself;<a id="k3b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; whence do we derive the law concerning her rival? &mdash; From the Scriptural expression, To be a rival to her.<a id="k3b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; We have so far deduced the law concerning her rival only. Whence do we arrive at the law concerning her rival's rival? &mdash; From the fact that Scripture uses the expression li-zeror<a id="k3b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and not that of la-zor.<a id="k3b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus we have deduced the law concerning a wife's sister, whence is the law concerning the other forbidden relatives to be inferred? &mdash; It can be answered: As a wife's sister is singled out in that she is a forbidden relative, the penalty for presumptuous intercourse with her is <i>kareth</i><a id="k3b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and for unwitting intercourse a sin-offering, and she is forbidden to the levir, so also any woman who is a forbidden relative, and the penalty for presumptuous intercourse with whom is <i>kareth</i><a id="k3b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and for unwitting intercourse a sin-offering, is forbidden to the levir. Now we know the law concerning themselves only;<a id="k3b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; whence is the law con cerning their rivals deduced? &mdash; It may be answered: As a wife's sister is singled out in that she is a forbidden relative, <i>kareth</i> is incurred by presumptuous intercourse with her and a sin-offering for unwitting intercourse, and she is forbidden to the levir, and her rival is forbidden, so also in the case of any woman who is a forbidden relative, and for presumptuous intercourse with whom is incurred the penalty of <i>kareth</i> and for unwitting intercourse a sin-offering, and who is forbidden to the levir, her rival is forbidden. Hence have the Sages said: FIFTEEN [CATEGORIES OF] WOMEN EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS AND THEIR RIVALS' RIVALS, AND SO ON, AD INFINITUM, FROM THE <I>HALIZAH</I> AND FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. One might assume that the six more rigidly forbidden relatives<a id="k3b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; are also included in the ruling,<a id="k3b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; so that their rivals also<a id="k3b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; are forbidden,<a id="k3b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it must be stated:<a id="k3b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; As a wife's sister is singled out in that she is a forbidden relative, <i>kareth</i> is incurred for presumptuous intercourse with her and a sin-offering for unwitting intercourse, she may be married to the other brothers, but is forbidden to the levir, and her rival is forbidden, so also in the case of any woman who is a forbidden relative, for presumptuous intercourse with whom is incurred the penalty of <i>kareth</i> and for unwitting intercourse a sin-offering, who may marry one of the other brothers, but is forbidden to the levir, her rival also is forbidden; excluded, however, are the six more rigidly forbidden relatives. Since they may not be married to the other brothers, their rivals are permitted; for [the law of] 'rival'<a id="k3b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable only [to widows] of a brother.<a id="k3b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Thus we have deduced the prohibition. Whence, however, is the penalty inferred? &mdash; Scripture said, For whosoever shall do any of these abominations etc. [shall be cut off from among their people.]<a id="k3b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The reason,<a id="k3b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; then, is because the All Merciful has written, ''aleha',<a id="k3b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; otherwise it would have been said that levirate marriage may be contracted with the wife's sister; what is the reason? Is it because we assume that a positive precept,<a id="k3b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; supersedes a negative precept?<a id="k3b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely, it is possible that<a id="k3b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; the rule that a positive precept supersedes a negative precept applies only where the latter is a mere prohibition; does it, however, supersede a prohibition involving the penalty of <i>kareth</i>?<a id="k3b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, whence is it derived that it may supersede even a mere prohibition?
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k4a_1:" This is an answer to the second question. The first is answered <i>infra</i> 5b."
,k4a_2:" Deut. XXII, 11."
,k4a_3:" Ibid. 12."
,k4a_4:" V. Ber. 10a."
,k4a_5:" Heb. Semukim [H] (rt. [H] 'to join'); i.e., the exegetical principle that we deduce laws from the proximity of Biblical texts."
,k4a_6:" 'Semukim'."
,k4a_7:" Ps. CXI, 8. The proximity of the two texts (Deut. XXII, 11 and 12) may consequently be taken to indicate that though the wearing of mingled stuff (linen and wool) is forbidden in ordinary cases (Deut. XXII, 11) it is nevertheless permitted in the case of the performance of a positive precept such as that of the making of 'twisted cords' or zizith (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) on the four corners of a garment (ibid. v. 12)."
,k4a_8:" Mak. 23a."
,k4a_9:" I.e., she is not prevented from objecting to the levirate marriage, and is entitled to <i>halizah</i>. 'Muzzled' (rt. [H]) is taken from Deut. XXV, 4 from which this law is derived."
,k4a_10:" Deut. XXV, 4."
,k4a_11:" Ibid. v. 5, forming the introduction to the law of <i>halizah</i>. Thus it has been shewn that a law may be based on the proximity of Biblical texts, and this confirms the conclusion in respect of 'mingled stuff' in zizith (v. Deut. XXII, 11)."
,k4a_12:" Where the texts of 'mingled stuff' and zizith occur."
,k4a_13:" Ber. 21b. Cf. Pes. 67b."
,k4a_14:" R. Judah."
,k4a_15:" Interpretations based on semukim or proximity of texts."
,k4a_16:" Ex. XXII, 17."
,k4a_17:" Ibid. 18."
,k4a_18:" Lit., 'this' sc. the sorceress."
,k4a_19:" Lit., 'but'."
,k4a_20:" V. Lev. XX, 27."
,k4a_21:" R. Judah."
,k4a_22:" Ber. 21a, <i>infra</i> 97a."
,k4a_23:" Deut. XXIII, 1."
,k4a_24:" Deut. XXII, 29."
,k4a_25:" Deut. XXIII, 1."
,k4a_26:" Represented by the view of the first Tanna who differs from R. Judah. How do they, in view of R. Judah's exposition, allow the marriage of a woman outraged or seduced by one's father?"
,k4a_27:" Lit., 'as you said'."
,k4a_28:" Cur. edd. contain within parentheses: 'Since the text, A man shall not take his father's wife is written between them'."
,k4a_29:" Whether he will marry her or consent to <i>halizah</i>."
,k4a_30:" Of the levir for whose decision the woman is waiting."
,k4a_31:" <i>Infra</i> 97a. One is that of marrying a woman who is virtually his father's wife being subject still to the levirate marriage, and the other is that of marrying an aunt, the wife of his father's deceased brother."
,k4a_32:" From the proximity of the texts."
,k4a_33:" Lit., 'free', 'disengaged'. i.e., unnecessary for the contexts and consequently free for interpretation and exposition."
,k4a_34:" Lit., 'if so', i.e., if the text was meant to convey its plain meaning only."
,k4a_35:" Cf. previous note."
,k4a_36:" Lit., 'wherefore to me'. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; Because<a id="k4a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it is written, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff&nbsp;&hellip;<a id="k4a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Thou shalt make thee twisted cords,<a id="k4a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Eleazar said,<a id="k4a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Whence is the rule of proximity [of texts] derived from the Torah?<a id="k4a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; As it is said, They are established<a id="k4a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; for ever and ever, they are done in truth and uprightness.'<a id="k4a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, R. Shesheth stated<a id="k4a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of R. Eleazar who stated it in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah: Whence is it proved that a sister-in-law, who falls to the lot of a levir who is afflicted with boils, is not muzzled?<a id="k4a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; From the Biblical text, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn,<a id="k4a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and in close proximity to it is written If brethren dwell together.<a id="k4a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore R. Joseph said: Even he who does not base interpretations on the proximity [of Biblical texts] anywhere else does base them [on the texts] in Deuteronomy,<a id="k4a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Judah who does not elsewhere base any interpretations [on textual proximity], bases such interpretations on the Deuteronomic text.<a id="k4a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; And whence is it proved that elsewhere he<a id="k4a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; does not advance such interpretation?<a id="k4a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; From what has been taught: Ben 'Azzai said, It was stated, Thou shall not suffer a sorceress to live,<a id="k4a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is also stated, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death;<a id="k4a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; one subject was placed near the other to indicate that as the man who lies with a beast is to suffer the death penalty of stoning so also is a sorceress to suffer the death penalty of stoning. Said R. Judah to him: Shall we, because one subject was placed in close proximity to the other, lead out a person<a id="k4a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to be stoned? In truth<a id="k4a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [the penalty of the sorceress is derived from the following]: The necromancer and the charmer were included among the sorcerers; why then were they mentioned separately?<a id="k4a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; In order that the others may be compared to them, and to tell you that as the necromancer and the charmer are subject to the death penalty of stoning,<a id="k4a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; so is a sorceress also subject to the penalty of stoning.
</p><p>
	And whence is it proved that in Deuteronomy he<a id="k4a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; does advance such interpretation?<a id="k4a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; From what we learned: A man may marry a woman who has been outraged or seduced by his father or his son. R. Judah prohibits in the case of a woman outraged or seduced by one's father.<a id="k4a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; And in connection with this, R. Giddal said 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="k4a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; the 'skirt' which his father saw he shall not uncover. And whence is it inferred that this is written with reference to 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 damsel's father fifty <i>shekels</i> of silver<a id="k4a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; near which it is stated, A man shall not take etc.<a id="k4a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And the Rabbis?<a id="k4a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If one text had occurred in close proximity to the other the exposition would have been justified;<a id="k4a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; now, however, that it does not occur in close proximity<a id="k4a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [it must be concluded that] the context speaks of a woman who is awaiting the decision of the levir<a id="k4a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and that, [in marrying such a woman, a son]<a id="k4a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; transgresses two negative precepts.<a id="k4a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And what is the reason why [R. Judah] derives laws [from the proximity of texts] in Deuteronomy? &mdash; If you wish I might say: Because [there the deduction]<a id="k4a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; is obvious; and if you prefer I might say: Because [there the text] is superfluous.<a id="k4a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If you prefer I might say: Because [there the deduction] is obvious', for, otherwise,<a id="k4a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; the All Merciful should have written the prohibition in the section of forbidden relatives. 'And if you prefer I might say: Because [there the text] is superfluous', for otherwise<a id="k4a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; the All Merciful should have written, A man shall not take his father's wife.<a id="k4a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; what need was there for adding,<a id="k4a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; And shall not uncover his father's skirt?<a id="k4a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k4b_1:" V. <i>supra</i> note 10."
,k4b_2:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k4b_3:" To the question why R. Judah expounds semukim in Deuteronomy."
,k4b_4:" In Deuteronomy."
,k4b_5:" To the question why R. Judah expounds semukim in Deuteronomy."
,k4b_6:" In Deuteronomy."
,k4b_7:" V. p. 12, n. 10."
,k4b_8:" Lit., 'if so', i.e., if the text was meant to convey its plain meaning only."
,k4b_9:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k4b_10:" None. Consequently it must have been intended for a deduction on the basis of semukim."
,k4b_11:" Lev. XIX, 19."
,k4b_12:" Deut. XXII, 11."
,k4b_13:" V. p. 12, n. 10."
,k4b_14:" Lev. XIX, 19 and Deut. XXII, 11."
,k4b_15:" Lev. XIX, 19."
,k4b_16:" Who put on garments for mere business display or transport and not for bodily comfort or protection."
,k4b_17:" Deut. XXII, 11, emphasis on wear."
,k4b_18:" Ibid."
,k4b_19:" Since both texts, then, are required for the purpose mentioned, how could they be employed for the deduction of a new law?"
,k4b_20:" That the texts were required only for the purpose mentioned."
,k4b_21:" Should it be suggested that the text was required to indicate that the 'mingled stuff' forbidden was that of wool and linen."
,k4b_22:" Without specifying the material they are made of."
,k4b_23:" With reference to plagues in garments, Lev. XIII, 47, 48."
,k4b_24:" V. p. 12, n. 10, <i>supra</i>."
,k4b_25:" 'Wool and linen' (Deut. XXII, 11)."
,k4b_26:" Of the materials to wool and linen."
,k4b_27:" How, then, could this text which is required for another purpose be expounded on the basis of semukim?"
,k4b_28:" Lit., 'kept silence from it'."
,k4b_29:" Which has just been enunciated, i.e., that only wool and linen are forbidden."
,k4b_30:" Deut. XXII, 11."
,k4b_31:" Lev. XIX, 19."
,k4b_32:" As the latter applies to wool and linen only, so also the former."
,k4b_33:" Num. XV, 38."
,k4b_34:" In the description of the materials of the High Priests' garments (Ex. XXXIX, 1ff)."
,k4b_35:" As the garments were either of wool or flax, and linen (flax) was specified in the case of one, all the others must have been wool. Now since it has been shewn that purple is wool, it obviously follows that woollen zizith or fringes are permissible in a garment of flax. What was the need, then, for a specific text to prove the permissibility of mingling wool and flax in zizith?"
,k4b_36:" Num. XV, 38."
,k4b_37:" I.e., if the material of the corner is wool the fringes must be wool; if of flax the fringes must be of flax."
,k4b_38:" Cf. Deut. XXII, 11f: Mingled stuff, wool and linen thou shalt make the twisted cords, which shews that the fringes may be made either of wool or of flax whatever the material of the corner might be."
,k4b_39:" Silk for instance."
,k4b_40:" So also according to the Tanna of R. Ishmael's school, (as will be explained in the Gemara anon) if Scripture had not specified 'wool and linen' it might have been assumed that in a woollen garment the fringes must be made of wool while in a garment of flax they must be made of flax, hence wool and linen were specified to shew on the basis of semukim that mingled stuffs also are allowed in zizith."
,k4b_41:" At the moment it is assumed that the suggestion is that he is in agreement with Raba's argument in all respects."
,k4b_42:" For, according to him, since 'garment' denotes only such as is made of wool and linen, garments made of other materials require no fringes (zizith). What need, then, was there for the expression of wool and linen to differentiate these from other materials?"
,k4b_43:" Wool and linen."
,k4b_44:" Though not his view, applying his method of reasoning only in regard to a garment made of wool or linen."
,k4b_45:" I.e., that mingled stuffs are permissible in the performance of the precept of zizith. "
}

txt:
<p>
Hence it must be concluded that the text was meant to provide a superfluous text.<a id="k4b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Similarly in the case of zizith,<a id="k4b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; if you wish I might reply:<a id="k4b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Because [there<a id="k4b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the deduction] is obvious. And if you prefer I might reply:<a id="k4b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Because [there<a id="k4b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the text] is superfluous.<a id="k4b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If you prefer I might say: Because [there the deduction] is obvious', for otherwise,<a id="k4b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; the All Merciful should have written [the precept] in the section of zizith;<a id="k4b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; with what other practical rule in view has he written it here?<a id="k4b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And if you prefer, I might reply: Because [there the text] is superfluous', for observe: It is written, Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.<a id="k4b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What need then was there for stating, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff?<a id="k4b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it must be concluded that the object was to provide a superfluous text.<a id="k4b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But [surely] both these texts<a id="k4b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; are required? For if the All Merciful had only written, Neither shall there come upon thee<a id="k4b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed that all kinds of 'putting on' were forbidden by the All Merciful, even that of clothes dealers,<a id="k4b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; hence the All Merciful, has written, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,<a id="k4b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [shewing that the 'putting on' must be] of the same nature as that of wearing for personal comfort. And if the All Merciful had only written, Thou shalt not wear<a id="k4b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed that only wear [is forbidden] because the pleasure derived therefrom is great, but not mere 'putting on', hence the All Merciful has written, Neither shall there come upon thee!<a id="k4b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so,<a id="k4b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; the All Merciful should have written, 'Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff' what need was there for adding, 'Wool and linen'? For<a id="k4b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; observe: It is written, Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together,<a id="k4b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and in connection with this a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Whereas garments generally<a id="k4b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; were mentioned in the Torah, and in one particular case<a id="k4b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Scripture specified wool and linen,<a id="k4b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; all must consequently be understood as having been made of wool and linen, what need, then, was there for the All Merciful's specific mention of wool and linen? Consequently it must be concluded that its object was to provide a superfluous text.<a id="k4b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But the text<a id="k4b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; is still required [for another purpose]! For it might have been assumed [that the limitation<a id="k4b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; applies] only to 'putting on', where the benefit is not great, but that in respect of wear, the benefit from which is great, any two kinds were forbidden by the All Merciful, hence has the All Merciful written, 'wool and linen'!<a id="k4b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so, Scripture should have omitted it altogether<a id="k4b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the law<a id="k4b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; would have been] deduced [by analogy between] 'mingled stuff'<a id="k4b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'mingled stuff'<a id="k4b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [the latter of which occurs in connection with the law] of 'putting on'.<a id="k4b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As to the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael, is the reason [why 'mingled stuff' is permitted in zizith] because the All Merciful has written 'wool and linen', but if He had not done so, would it have been assumed that the All Merciful had forbidden two kinds of stuff in the zizith? But, surely. it is written, And they shall make them fringes in the corners of their garments<a id="k4b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael [taught]: Wherever 'garment' [is written] such as is made of wool or flax [is meant], and yet the All Merciful said that in them 'purple' shall be inserted, and purple, surely, is wool. And whence is it deduced that purple is wool? Since linen<a id="k4b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; is flax, purple must be wool.<a id="k4b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The text] was necessary; for it might have been assumed [that the interpretation is] according to Raba. For Raba pointed out a contradiction: It is written, the corner,<a id="k4b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [which implies that the fringes must be of the same] kind of [material as that of the] corner,<a id="k4b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; but then it is also written, wool and linen.<a id="k4b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; How then [are these texts to be reconciled?] Wool and linen discharge [the obligation to provide fringes] both for a garment of the same, as well as of a different kind of material, while other kinds [of material]<a id="k4b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; discharge [the obligation for a garment made] of the same kind [of material] but not for one made of a different kind [of material].<a id="k4b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael,<a id="k4b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, does not hold the same view as Raba!<a id="k4b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The text]<a id="k4b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; is still necessary; for it might have been assumed that Raba's line of argument<a id="k4b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; should be followed: 'The corner' [implies that the fringes must be made of the same] kind of [material as the] corner, and that what the All Merciful meant was this: 'Make wool [fringes] for wool [garments] and linen ones for linen; only when you make wool fringes for wool garments you must dye them'; but no wool fringes may be made for linen or linen fringes for wool, hence the All Merciful has written 'wool and linen' [to indicate] that even wool fringes [may be] made for linen garments or linen fringes for woollen garments.<a id="k4b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k5a_1:" The deduction from semukim that a positive precept supersedes a negative one."
,k5a_2:" Since on the lines of his interpretation the text, 'wool and linen' is superfluous and consequently free for the deduction mentioned."
,k5a_3:" Who do not interpret 'garment' as denoting such as is of wool and flax."
,k5a_4:" The text, 'wool and linen', being required for the completion of the plain meaning of the text, there remains no superfluous expression for the deduction. V. <i>supra</i> n. 2."
,k5a_5:" Lev. XIV, 9, dealing with the purification of the leper."
,k5a_6:" It was previously stated, and shave off all his hair (Lev. XIV, 8) which obviously includes that of the head."
,k5a_7:" Lev. XIX. 27."
,k5a_8:" The prohibition to round the corners of the head."
,k5a_9:" Indicating that, despite the general prohibition, it is the leper's duty to round his head."
,k5a_10:" Though the text speaks of rounding the corners. Such a rounding then, though generally forbidden, is in the case of a leper, permitted, because Scripture explicitly stated 'shave all the hair of his head' (Lev. XIV, 9). Thus it has been proved that the positive precept of the shaving of the leper supersedes the prohibition of rounding off one's head. Similarly, in the case of the levirate marriage, it might have been assumed that the positive precept of marrying the deceased brother's widow supersedes the prohibition of marrying a wife's sister; hence the necessity for a special text (v. <i>supra</i> 3b end and p. 10, n. 7) to prove that it does not."
,k5a_11:" Lit., 'what as to the negative (command)'."
,k5a_12:" Lit., 'equal in all'; women being exempt. (V. Kid. 35b). The prohibition of the marriage of a wife's sister, however, is applicable to the man and to the woman, the brother-in-law as well as the sister-in-law."
,k5a_13:" Which also occurs in the regulations for the purification of the leper. (V. Lev. XIV, 9)."
,k5a_14:" Seeing that it was previously mentioned (Lev. XIV, 8) that the leper must 'shave off all his hair', which obviously includes that of his beard."
,k5a_15:" Lev. XXI, 5."
,k5a_16:" The prohibition of shaving the corners of one's head having been addressed to the priests. V. Lev. XXI, 1ff."
,k5a_17:" Indicating that in the case of a leprous priest the precept of shaving supersedes the prohibition of 'shaving'."
,k5a_18:" That such a prohibition is superseded by a positive precept having been deduced <i>supra</i> from 'his head'."
,k5a_19:" Thus it has been proved that a positive precept supersedes any prohibition even if the latter is generally applicable. Marriage between a levir and his deceased brother's widow who is his wife's sister might, consequently, have been assumed to be permitted had not an explicit text pointed to its prohibition."
,k5a_20:" The text, 'his beard'."
,k5a_21:" How, then, can the same text which is required for the purpose mentioned also be used for a general deduction."
,k5a_22:" Lit., '(manner) of that'."
,k5a_23:" Lev. XIV, 9."
,k5a_24:" Cf. <i>supra</i>, p. 16, n. 7."
,k5a_25:" Num. VI, 5 dealing with the laws of the nazirite."
,k5a_26:" So Rashal. Cur. edd. read, 'leper and nazirite'."
,k5a_27:" Thus it is proved that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition. Cf. <i>supra</i>, note 7."
,k5a_28:" The deduction from the nazirite."
,k5a_29:" Heb. [H] 'request', i.e., the nazirite may request a qualified person to disallow his vow and thus avoid the prohibition of shaving."
,k5a_30:" Lit., 'if you will not say so'."
,k5a_31:" Lit., 'that which is established for us'."
,k5a_32:" Lit., 'let it be deduced'."
,k5a_33:" The shaving of a nazirite's head is forbidden (a) by the precept that he must grow his hair long and (b) by the prohibition of allowing a razor to come upon his head."
,k5a_34:" Whence, then, is it proved that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition? >"
}

txt:
<p>
	This<a id="k5a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is satisfactory according to the view of the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael;<a id="k5a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; as to the Rabbis,<a id="k5a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; however, how do they arrive at the deduction?<a id="k5a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They derive it from his head;<a id="k5a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for it was taught: [Scripture stated], 'His head';<a id="k5a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; what need was there for it?<a id="k5a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Whereas it has been stated, Ye shall not round the corners of your head,<a id="k5a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; one might infer that [this law<a id="k5a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; applies to] a leper also, hence it was explicitly stated, his head;<a id="k5a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and this Tanna is of the opinion that rounding all the head is also regarded as 'rounding'.<a id="k5a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; This [conclusion, however,] may be refuted: The reason why the prohibition of<a id="k5a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 'rounding' [may be superseded is] because it is not applicable to everybody!<a id="k5a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [the inference] is derived from his beard;<a id="k5a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; as it was taught: 'His beard';<a id="k5a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; what need was there for stating it?<a id="k5a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Whereas it was said, Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard,<a id="k5a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; one might infer that this prohibition applies also to a leprous priest,<a id="k5a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it was explicitly stated, 'his beard'.<a id="k5a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; And since there is no object in applying it to a prohibition which is not incumbent upon everybody,<a id="k5a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; let it be applied to a prohibition which is incumbent upon all.<a id="k5a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But this<a id="k5a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; is still required [for its own context]! For since it might have been assumed that as priests are different from [other people]. Scripture having imposed upon them additional commandments, and so even a prohibition which does not apply to everybody is not superseded in their case; [therefore] it was necessary to teach us that it does supersede.<a id="k5a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In truth the inference comes from 'his head' [in the manner deduced by] the following<a id="k5a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Tanna. For It was taught: His head:<a id="k5a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; what need was there for mentioning it?<a id="k5a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Whereas Scripture had stated, There shall no razor come upon his head,<a id="k5a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; one might infer that the same prohibition is applicable to a leprous nazirite<a id="k5a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; also, hence it was explicitly stated, 'his head'.<a id="k5a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; This,<a id="k5a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; however, may be refuted: The reason why a [leprous] nazirite [may shave his head] is because he is also in a position to obtain absolution.<a id="k5a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; For, were not this the reason,<a id="k5a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; what then of the accepted rule,<a id="k5a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; that no positive precept may supersede a negative and positive precept combined; why not deduce the contrary from the law<a id="k5a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; of the [leprous] nazirite?<a id="k5a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently, [it must be conceded that] the reason why no deduction may be made [from the law of the nazirite is] because it may be refuted [on the grounds] that in his case absolution is possible; so here also the refutation may be advanced, 'Since in his case absolution is possible'!<a id="k5a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The deduction, in fact, is made
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k5b_1:" 'Mingled stuff' in the case of zizith. (V. Deut. XXII, 11, 12 and <i>supra</i> p. 15, n. 3)."
,k5b_2:" Lit., 'if so', i.e., if according to the Rabbis the expression, 'wool and linen', is required for its own context and that text, therefore, is not available for deduction."
,k5b_3:" The expression used in Num. XV, 38 in the section dealing with the precept of the fringes."
,k5b_4:" That a positive precept supersedes a prohibition. Cf. <i>supra</i>, p. 10, n. 13."
,k5b_5:" The expression of 'twisted cords', [H], Deut. XXII, 12."
,k5b_6:" In the fringes."
,k5b_7:" The twisted cord cannot be made of less than two threads."
,k5b_8:" The plural, i.e., twice two."
,k5b_9:" To harmonize this text (Deut. XXII, 12) which implies twisted cords, with that of Num. XV, 38, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue, which implies only twisted threads."
,k5b_10:" The four threads are inserted into the corner of the garment and, having been folded to form a fringe of eight threads, they are joined (by winding one of the threads round the others) into one twisted cord which extends over a section of length and is then separated again into eight separate threads."
,k5b_11:" Men. 39b. Now, since the expression, 'twisted cords', is required for the determination of the number of the threads, how could the Rabbis deduce from it the law of 'mingled stuff' in the fringes?"
,k5b_12:" That the law of 'mingled stuff' in the fringes was not to be deduced from the text cited."
,k5b_13:" Deut. XXII, 11."
,k5b_14:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 18, n. 10."
,k5b_15:" Together, in Deut. XXII, II."
,k5b_16:" Combining a material made of wool with one made of flax."
,k5b_17:" Of 'mingled stuff' which is forbidden."
,k5b_18:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 18, n. 10."
,k5b_19:" Mingled stuff, Deut. XXII, 11."
,k5b_20:" Of wool and flax."
,k5b_21:" An etymological explanation of, or a play upon, the words 'mingled stuff' [H], in Deut. XXII, 11. [H] is assumed to be an abbreviation of [H]."
,k5b_22:" The use of the peculiar expression, [H], and not the usual [H], implies both (a) the deduction mentioned, (v. previous note) and (b) the deduction that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition (v. <i>supra</i> p. 10, n. 13)."
,k5b_23:" Cf. 3b end and p. 10, n. 7."
,k5b_24:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k5b_25:" Lev. XVIII, 18."
,k5b_26:" The marriage by the levir of the widow of his deceased childless brother, when she happens to be a forbidden relative. V. p. 8, n. 9."
,k5b_27:" Which must be performed on the eighth day of the child's birth even though that day happens to be a Sabbath when manual work is forbidden under the penalty of <i>kareth</i>."
,k5b_28:" Lit., 'what in respect of circumcision'."
,k5b_29:" The expression 'covenant' (in various grammatical forms) occurs thirteen times in Gen. XVII, the section dealing with the precept of circumcision, v. Ned. 31b."
,k5b_30:" Hence it may also supersede the Sabbath. It supplies, however, no proof that a positive precept which is not so stringent (such as the marriage with the levir) also supersedes a prohibition involving <i>kareth</i>."
,k5b_31:" The slaughtering of which (a positive precept) supersedes the Sabbath though slaughtering is manual work which is forbidden on the Sabbath under the penalty of <i>kareth</i>."
,k5b_32:" Lit., 'what in respect of the paschal lamb'."
,k5b_33:" Lit., 'what in respect of the daily offering'."
,k5b_34:" V. p. 19, n. 16."
,k5b_35:" Circumcision, the paschal lamb, or the daily offering alone."
,k5b_36:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1."
,k5b_37:" They are offered on the altar. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1."
,k5b_38:" On Mount Sinai. Lit., 'speech' i.e., of the Deity. 'revelation', and as such are deemed of greater stringency."
,k5b_39:" V. Ex. XXIV, 5 and Hag. 6a. Circumcision was ordained in the time of Abraham. V. Gen. XVII."
,k5b_40:" V. <i>supra</i> nn. 9 and 10. The law of the paschal lamb also was given in Egypt prior to the date of the Revelation. V. Ex. XII."
,k5b_41:" Beside her (Lev. XVIII, 18), to indicate that levirate marriage is forbidden when the widow of the deceased brother is the surviving brother's forbidden relative."
,k5b_42:" Had not that text (in Lev. XVIII, 18; v. previous note) been written."
,k5b_43:" That a positive precept supersedes a prohibition involving <i>kareth</i> and that consequently a levir may marry his deceased childless brother's widow even if she happens to be a forbidden relative of his."
,k5b_44:" Lev. XIX, 3."
,k5b_45:" Parents and children."
,k5b_46:" I.e., to desecrate the Sabbath by an action the penalty for which is <i>kareth</i>."
,k5b_47:" Had no such text been available."
,k5b_48:" A parent's order, (the positive precept of honouring one's parents.)"
,k5b_49:" The prohibition of work on the Sabbath, though it is one involving <i>kareth</i>. Similarly in the case of the levirate marriage. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 20, n. 14. "
}

txt:
<p>
from the first cited text:<a id="k5b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Since<a id="k5b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Scripture could have used the expression, Thou shalt make thee fringes,<a id="k5b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; what need was there for that of 'twisted cords'? Consequently it must have been intended for the purpose of allowing that text to be used for the deduction.<a id="k5b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But this<a id="k5b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is required for the determination of the number [of threads, thus]:<a id="k5b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Twisted cord' implies two threads,<a id="k5b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [and so] 'twisted cords'<a id="k5b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; implies four threads, therefore,<a id="k5b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; one twisted cord is to be made [of the four] and from the middle of it separate threads<a id="k5b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; are to hang down!<a id="k5b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so,<a id="k5b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Scripture should have stated, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff wool and linen:<a id="k5b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; what need was there to add 'together'?<a id="k5b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it must have been intended for the purpose of allowing a free text for the deduction.<a id="k5b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But this text too<a id="k5b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is required for the deduction that two stitches<a id="k5b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; form a combination<a id="k5b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and that one stitch does not! &mdash; If so, the All Merciful should have written, Thou shalt not wear wool and linen together; what need was there for inserting 'mingled stuff'? Hence it must be concluded that the purpose was to allow a free text for deduction.<a id="k5b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But is not this text<a id="k5b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; still required [for the deduction that 'mingled stuff'<a id="k5b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; is not forbidden] unless it was hackled, spun and twisted?<a id="k5b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [the fact is that] all this is deduced from the expression of 'mingled stuff'.<a id="k5b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	So far it has been shewn that a positive precept supersedes a mere prohibition;<a id="k5b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; where, however, do we find that it supersedes also a prohibition involving <i>kareth</i>,<a id="k5b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and that in consequence [the explicit expression] ''aleha'<a id="k5b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; should be required to forbid it?<a id="k5b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; And if it be replied that this<a id="k5b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; might be deduced from circumcision,<a id="k5b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be retorted]: Circumcision stands in a different category,<a id="k5b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; for concerning it thirteen covenants<a id="k5b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; were made!<a id="k5b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; From the paschal lamb?<a id="k5b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The paschal lamb also stands in a different category<a id="k5b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; since it too involves <i>kareth</i>!<a id="k5b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; From the daily offering?<a id="k5b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The daily offering also stands in a different category<a id="k5b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; since it is also a regular [offering]!<a id="k5b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [Now though] it<a id="k5b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot be derived from one<a id="k5b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; it might be derived from two. From which shall it be derived? [If the reply is]: Let it be derived from circumcision and the paschal lamb, [it may be retorted]: These also involve <i>kareth</i>.<a id="k5b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; From the paschal lamb and the daily offering? &mdash; Both are also intended for the Most High.<a id="k5b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; From circumcision and the daily offering? &mdash; Both were also in force before the giving of the law,<a id="k5b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; this being according to the view of him who holds that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the daily burnt-offering.<a id="k5b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; Nor [can the derivation be made] from all of them, since they were all in force before the giving of the law.<a id="k5b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But [this is the reason for] the need of a special text:<a id="k5b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; It might have been assumed<a id="k5b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; that this<a id="k5b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; should be derived from the precept of honouring one's father and mother; for it was taught: Since one might have assumed that the honouring of one's father and mother should supersede the Sabbath, it was explicitly stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, and ye shall keep My Sabbaths,<a id="k5b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; it is the duty of all of you<a id="k5b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; to honour Me. Now is not the case in point one where the parent said to him, 'Slaughter for me',<a id="k5b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; or 'Cook for me';<a id="k5b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; and the reason [why the parent must not be obeyed is] because the All Merciful has written, 'Ye shall keep my Sabbaths',<a id="k5b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; but had that not been so<a id="k5b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; it<a id="k5b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; would have superseded?<a id="k5b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No;
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k6a_1:" Lit., 'negative precept'."
,k6a_2:" I.e., where a father ordered his son to desecrate the Sabbath by driving an ass; a prohibition which, unlike slaughtering or cooking, does not involve the penalty of <I>kareth</I>. V. Shab. 154a."
,k6a_3:" Lit., 'and even thus', sc. even the mere prohibition of ass driving."
,k6a_4:" A mere prohibition not involving the penalty of <I>kareth</I>."
,k6a_5:" Even a mere prohibition which does not involve the penalty of <I>kareth</I>."
,k6a_6:" From other prohibitions."
,k6a_7:" Since the infringement of any one of the laws of the Sabbath is regarded as the sin of idolatry (v. 'Er. 69b), even a mere prohibition which does not involve <I>kareth</I>, cannot be superseded by a positive precept."
,k6a_8:" Lit., 'stands in the world', i.e., he compares with the prohibitions of the Sabbath others which have no connection with it."
,k6a_9:" That the prohibitions of the Sabbath being more stringent than others should not be compared with them."
,k6a_10:" His son who was a priest."
,k6a_11:" For the dead, which is forbidden to a priest. V. Lev. XXI, 1ff."
,k6a_12:" A lost animal. V. Deut. XXII, 1."
,k6a_13:" Lev. XIX, 3."
,k6a_14:" Thus it has been shewn that prohibitions generally may be compared with those of the Sabbath. The suggestion, therefore, that the parents' order <i>supra</i> concerned the performance of the act of ass driving is untenable. If, consequently, the order must have consisted of a request to perform an act involving the penalty of <I>kareth</I>, that case well supplies a satisfactory answer to the question (<i>supra</i> 5b) as to what need was there for the text, '<I>'aleha'</I>, in Lev. XVIII, 18."
,k6a_15:" Why no satisfactory reply to the question, what need is there for the text '<I>'aleha</I>', may be obtained from the precept of honouring one's parents."
,k6a_16:" A father's orders to his son to slaughter or to cook on the Sabbath."
,k6a_17:" From such a precept as the levirate marriage."
,k6a_18:" Lit., 'it is a preparation of the precept'. The precept of honouring a father cannot possibly be performed by the son unless he actually executes the act of slaughtering or of cooking, which he has been ordered by his father to do, so that the fulfilment of the positive precept (honouring one's parents) is entirely dependent on its superseding the prohibition (that, e.g., of cooking). Hence it was necessary to have an explicit text to indicate that, even in such a case, a positive precept does not supersede a prohibition. In the case of the levirate marriage, however, the infringement of the prohibition is not absolutely essential to the fulfilment of the precept, since, instead of the marriage, <i>halizah</i> may be arranged, and the question remains, what need is there of the verse '<I>'aleha</I>'."
,k6a_19:" Why the text, '<I>'aleha</I>' (Lev. XVIII, 18) was needed to indicate that wherever the deceased childless brother's widow was the living brother's forbidden relative no levirate marriage must take place."
,k6a_20:" That a positive precept supersedes a prohibition involving <I>kareth</I> and consequently that the levirate marriage may take place even in such a case (v. previous note)."
,k6a_21:" Lev. XIX, 30."
,k6a_22:" Actions which are among the principal classes of labour that are forbidden on the Sabbath under the penalty of <I>kareth</I>."
,k6a_23:" Lev. XIX, 30."
,k6a_24:" Thus it follows that a positive precept does supersede a prohibition even though the latter involves <I>kareth</I>."
,k6a_25:" Which does not involve <I>kareth</I>."
,k6a_26:" A positive precept."
,k6a_27:" Which does not involve <I>kareth</I>."
,k6a_28:" From other prohibitions."
,k6a_29:" Cf. <I>supra</I> p. 21, n. 13."
,k6a_30:" Cf. <I>supra</I> p. 21, n. 14."
,k6a_31:" Cf. <I>supra</I> p. 21, n. 15."
,k6a_32:" His son who was a priest."
,k6a_33:" Cf. <I>supra</I> p. 21, n. 17."
,k6a_34:" Cf. <I>supra</I> p. 21, n. 18."
,k6a_35:" Lev.XIX, 3."
,k6a_36:" Cf. <I>supra</I> p. 22, n. 2."
,k6a_37:" Cf. <I>supra</I> p. 22, n. 3."
,k6a_38:" Cf. <I>supra</I> p. 22, n. 4,"
,k6a_39:" Cf. <I>supra</I> p. 22, n. 5."
,k6a_40:" Cf. <I>supra</I> p. 22, n. 6."
,k6a_41:" Lit., '<I>from there</I>', from Lev. XIX, 3, and this superfluous text serves to extend the principle of a positive precept superseding a negative precept involving <I>kareth</I> to a case such as levirate marriage. Hence the need of the text '<I>'aleha</I>'."
,k6a_42:" Lit., 'for as it was taught'. "
}

txt:
<p>
this is a case<a id="k6a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; of ass driving.<a id="k6a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; And [you say that] it does not supersede<a id="k6a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; even in such a case?<a id="k6a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But then what of the generally accepted rule that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition. Should it not be inferred from this case that it does not supersede!<a id="k6a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And if it be replied that the prohibitions of the Sabbath are different<a id="k6a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; because they are more stringent,<a id="k6a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; surely the following Tanna, [it may be pointed out,] speaks of prohibitions generally<a id="k6a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; yet no one advances any objection.<a id="k6a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: Since it might have been assumed that if his father had said to him,<a id="k6a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Defile yourself',<a id="k6a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or if he said to him, 'Do not restore,'<a id="k6a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; he must obey him, it was explicitly stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and ye shall keep my Sabbaths,<a id="k6a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it is the duty of all of you to honour Me!<a id="k6a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The real reason<a id="k6a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is because this objection may be advanced: Those<a id="k6a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; are in a different category<a id="k6a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; since they are also essentials in the execution of the precept.<a id="k6a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But [the reason<a id="k6a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; is because] it might have been assumed that this<a id="k6a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; should be derived from the precept of the building of the Sanctuary. For it was taught: Since it might have been assumed that the building of the Sanctuary should supersede the Sabbath, it was explicitly stated, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary;<a id="k6a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; it is the duty of all of you to honour Me. Now is not the case in point one of [a father's order to his son to] build or to demolish,<a id="k6a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet the reason [why it does not supersede the Sabbath is] because the All Merciful has written, 'Ye shall keep My Sabbaths',<a id="k6a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but had that not been written it would have superseded?<a id="k6a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; the case in point is one of ass driving.<a id="k6a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And [you say] that it<a id="k6a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; does not supersede a prohibition even in such a case?<a id="k6a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; But what of the generally accepted rule that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition? Should we not infer from this case that it does not supersede! And if it be replied that the prohibitions of the Sabbath are different<a id="k6a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; because they are of a more stringent nature,<a id="k6a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; surely the following Tanna [it may be pointed out] speaks of prohibitions generally<a id="k6a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; yet no one advances any refutation.<a id="k6a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: Since it might have been assumed that if his father had said to him,<a id="k6a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Defile yourself',<a id="k6a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; or if he said to him, 'Do not restore,'<a id="k6a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; he must obey him, hence it was explicitly stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father etc.,<a id="k6a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; it is the duty of all of you to honour Me!<a id="k6a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The true reason<a id="k6a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; is because this objection may be advanced: Those<a id="k6a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; are in a different category<a id="k6a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; since they are also essentials in the execution of the precept.<a id="k6a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [But the law relating to] essentials in the execution of a precept could be derived from the previously cited text!<a id="k6a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That is so indeed. What need, then, was there for the text, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary?<a id="k6a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is required for the following deduction:<a id="k6a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; As it might have been imagined that a man should reverence the Sanctuary, it was explicitly stated in the Scriptures, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary;<a id="k6a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; the expression of 'keeping' was used in relation to the Sabbath and [in the same verse] that of 'reverence' in relation to the Sanctuary [in order that the following comparison may be made]: As in the case of 'keeping' used in relation to the Sabbath
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k6b_1:" On which the Sanctuary stood."
,k6b_2:" [H], Lat. funda. Others, 'a hollow girdle in which money is kept'."
,k6b_3:" [H], cf. compendiaria."
,k6b_4:" Bet. 54a. For an explanation of the inference, v. ibid. 62b."
,k6b_5:" Lit., 'it is not (known) to me'."
,k6b_6:" Lev. XIX, 30."
,k6b_7:" And since there is no superfluous verse to extend the principle in such a case as levirate marriage, the question remains, what need was there for the text ''aleha'."
,k6b_8:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 22, n. 7."
,k6b_9:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 22, n. 8."
,k6b_10:" Ex. XXXV, 3."
,k6b_11:" The prohibition of kindling a fire, surely, is included in the general prohibition of labour on Sabbath."
,k6b_12:" I.e., only a negative commandment the transgression of which does not, like the other Sabbath offences, involve the penalties of stoning or <I>kareth</I>. The former, if the offender was warned beforehand of the consequence of his offence, the latter, where no such warning had been given."
,k6b_13:" Lit., 'to divide', i.e., <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">one of the thirty-nine kinds of labour that are forbidden on the Sabbath was singly specified</font> in order to indicate that to incur the prescribed penalties <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">it is not necessary to commit all the thirty-nine transgressions</font> (as the one general, all-embracing prohibition of about might have seemed to imply). The mention of one prohibition (kindling of fire) separately breaks up, so to speak, (<I>divides</I>), all the others into single units, indicating that, as in its own case, so in that of all the others first mentioned together with it, <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">every single transgression involves the penalty of stoning, <I>kareth</I>, or a sin-offering</font>."
,k6b_14:" Lit., 'went out'."
,k6b_15:" V. p. 24, n. 12."
,k6b_16:" Who asked, <I>supra</I>, 'wherefore was it stated?'"
,k6b_17:" Ex. XXXV, 3."
,k6b_18:" That the prohibition is in force in all '<I>habitations</I>'."
,k6b_19:" I.e., throughout <I>all habitations</I>."
,k6b_20:" The phrase, '<I>throughout your habitations</I>', Ex. XXXV, 3."
,k6b_21:" Deut. XXI, 22."
,k6b_22:" The Sabbath."
,k6b_23:" Ex. XXXI, 14 which prohibits all kinds of labour on the Sabbath."
,k6b_24:" Lit., 'or it is not but'."
,k6b_25:" The prohibition of labour."
,k6b_26:" Lit., 'or it is not but'."
,k6b_27:" Ex. XXXV, 3."
,k6b_28:" Num. XXXV, 29, referring to the death penalties of murderers."
,k6b_29:" I.e., execute no death penalty of burning on the Sabbath. <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">The death penalty of 'burning' was executed by pouring molten lead through the condemned man's mouth into his body, thus burning his internal organs</font>."
,k6b_30:" Lit., 'what, (is it) not?'"
,k6b_31:" Of death or <I>kareth</I>. V. <i>supra</i> p. 25, n. 1."
,k6b_32:" Why the death penalty of burning &mdash; a kind of work &mdash; which according to R. Nathan would involve <I>kareth</I> must not be executed on the Sabbath."
,k6b_33:" Though the penalties involved include that of <I>kareth</I>. Thus it follows that a positive precept may supersede even such a prohibition. So also in the case of the levirate marriage it might have been assumed that the precept of marrying one's deceased childless brother's widow supersedes the prohibition of marrying a consanguineous relative despite the fact that such a transgression involves elsewhere the penalty of <I>kareth</I>; hence it was necessary for Scripture to add, ''aleha' (Lev. XVIII, 18), to indicate that even a levirate marriage is in such a case forbidden. (V. <i>supra</i> 3b and 5b)."
,k6b_34:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 24, n. 12."
,k6b_35:" The death penalty of burning."
,k6b_36:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 4."
,k6b_37:" Lit., 'what (difference is it) to me', Shab. 106a. The dyes were boiled in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle that was made by Moses, and any kind of labour that was there performed is included among the thirty-nine principal kinds of labour which are forbidden on the Sabbath (v. Shab. 73a) and involve the penalty of <I>kareth</I>. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 26, n. 8."
,k6b_38:" Who deduced from Scriptural texts that a judicial death sentence may not be executed on the Sabbath."
,k6b_39:" The assumption that the execution of a judicial death sentence might supersede the Sabbath."
,k6b_40:" The Sabbath."
,k6b_41:" Ex. XXXI, 14. "
}

txt:
<p>
one does not reverence the Sabbath but Him who ordered the observance of the Sabbath, so in the case of 'reverence' used in relation to the Sanctuary, one is not to reverence the Sanctuary but Him who gave the commandment concerning the Sanctuary. And what is regarded as the '<I>reverence of the Sanctuary</I>'? &mdash; A man shall not enter the Temple mount<a id="k6b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; with his stick, shoes or money bag<a id="k6b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; or with dust upon his feet, nor may he use it for making a short cut;<a id="k6b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and spitting [is there forbidden] by inference a minori ad majus.<a id="k6b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; This, however, might apply<a id="k6b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; only to the time when the Sanctuary was in existence; whence is it deduced that the same holds good of the time when the Sanctuary no longer exists? It was expressly stated in Scripture, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary;<a id="k6b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; as the 'keeping' that was used in relation to the Sabbath holds good forever, so also the 'reverence' used in relation to the Sanctuary must hold good forever.<a id="k6b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Really [the reason<a id="k6b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is because] it might have been assumed that this<a id="k6b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; should be derived from the prohibition of kindling a fire [on the Sabbath]. For a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Wherefore was it stated, Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your <I>habitations</I>?<a id="k6b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Wherefore 'was it stated'!<a id="k6b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely if one is to follow R. Jose, 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E150"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/150.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 150<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">



<font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">it was to intimate that [kindling a fire on the Sabbath is] a prohibition only;<a id="k6b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and, if one is to follow R. Nathan, it was to intimate that even a single transgression involves one in the prescribed penalties;<a id="k6b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; for it was taught: 'The prohibition of kindling a fire [on the Sabbath]</font> was mentioned separately<a id="k6b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; in order to [indicate that its transgression is] a prohibition only;<a id="k6b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; so R. Jose, while R. Nathan maintains that the intention was to intimate that even a single transgression involves the offender in the prescribed penalties'!<a id="k6b_13"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">13</font></sup></a>&nbsp; And Raba explained that the Tanna<a id="k6b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; found difficult the expression of habitations,<a id="k6b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [arguing thus]: What need was there for Scripture to state 'habitations'? [Is not this<a id="k6b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; obvious?] For consider: The observance of the Sabbath is a personal obligation, and any personal obligation is valid both in the Land [of Israel] and outside the land;<a id="k6b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; what need, then, was there for the All Merciful to write it<a id="k6b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; in connection with the Sabbath? This was explained by a disciple in the name of R. Ishmael: Whereas it was stated in the Scriptures, <I>And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death</I>,<a id="k6b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; one <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">might infer [that the death penalty may be executed] both on week-days and on the Sabbath</font> and, as regards the application of the text, <I>Everyone that profaneth it<a id="k6b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; shall surely be put to death</I>,<a id="k6b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; this might be said to refer to the several kinds of labour other than the execution of a judicial death sentence; or again it might be inferred<a id="k6b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; that it<a id="k6b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; refers even to a judicial execution of a death sentence and, as regards the application of <I>He shall surely be put to death</I><a id="k6b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [this might be said to refer] to week-days but not to 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E151"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/151.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 151<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">



the Sabbath; or again it might be thought<a id="k6b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; to apply also to the Sabbath; hence it was expressly stated, <I>Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations</I>,<a id="k6b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and further on it is stated, <I>And these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your habitations</I>;<a id="k6b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; as the expression of '<I>habitations</I>' mentioned below<a id="k6b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to the <i>Beth din</i>, so the expression '<I>habitations</I>' mentioned here<a id="k6b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; refers also to the <i>Beth din</i>, and concerning this the All Merciful said, '<I>Ye shall kindle no fire</I>'.<a id="k6b_29"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">29</font></sup></a>&nbsp; Now, are we not to assume this statement to be in agreement with the view<a id="k6b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Nathan who holds that the object was to intimate that even a single transgression involves the offender in the prescribed penalties,<a id="k6b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and the reason<a id="k6b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; is because the All Merciful has written, <I>Ye shall kindle no fire</I>,<a id="k6b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; but had that not been the case it would have superseded the [Sabbath]!<a id="k6b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; this may be according to R. Jose.<a id="k6b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Granted, however, [that it is according to the view of] R. Jose, might it not be suggested that R. Jose said that 'kindling a fire [on the Sabbath] is mentioned separately in order to indicate that it is a mere prohibition' [in the case only of] ordinary burning; the burning by the <i>Beth din</i>,<a id="k6b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [however, is surely a case of] boiling of the metal bar<a id="k6b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; concerning which R. Shesheth said that there is no difference between the boiling of a metal bar and the boiling of dyes?<a id="k6b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: This Tanna<a id="k6b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; [requires Scriptural texts] not because elsewhere he holds that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition, but because this<a id="k6b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; might have been obtained by inference a minori ad majus; and it is this that he meant to say: 'As regards the application of the text, Every one that profaneth it<a id="k6b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; shall surely be put to death,<a id="k6b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been said to apply to the several kinds of labour other than that of the execution of a judicial death sentence, but that a judicial death sentence does supersede the Sabbath, by inference a minori ad majus:
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k7a_1:" Labour prohibited on the Sabbath may be performed in connection with the service of the Temple."
,k7a_2:" Ex. XXI, 14. This is taken to mean that he may he removed from the altar even if he has to perform service thereon."
,k7a_3:" <i>Supra</i> 6b. Since the inference was made a minori ad majus how could anyone dispute it?"
,k7a_4:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k7a_5:" A priest may defile himself by the burial of a meth mizwah though he thereby becomes disqualified from performing the Temple service. V. Meg. 3b."
,k7a_6:" Burial is forbidden on the Sabbath. So also, it could be argued, the execution of a death sentence, though it supersedes the Temple service, need not necessarily supersede the Sabbath."
,k7a_7:" Saying again, 'Or it might rather etc.', <i>supra</i> 6b."
,k7a_8:" Num. VI, 7; v. Meg. 3b."
,k7a_9:" Ex. XXXV, 3."
,k7a_10:" For the continuation, v. <i>supra</i> 6b."
,k7a_11:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 27, n. 8. How, in view of this assumption, could any other conclusion be arrived at?"
,k7a_12:" The Sabbath."
,k7a_13:" Ex. XXXI, 14."
,k7a_14:" That the man worthy of death be put to death (v. Deut. XXI, 22)."
,k7a_15:" By saying again, 'Or it might rather', <i>supra</i> 6b."
,k7a_16:" Cf. BaH, a.l."
,k7a_17:" A transgression of the prohibition involves the serious penalty of flogging, while the non-performance of the precept is no punishable offence."
,k7a_18:" As a positive precept supersedes an ordinary prohibition so it should also supersede one which involves <i>kareth</i>."
,k7a_19:" V. <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k7a_20:" Now that it is concluded that the need of the Scriptural text prohibiting the execution of a death sentence on Sabbath is because otherwise the permissibility thereof might have been argued a minori, and not on the ground of the principle that a positive command supersedes a prohibition, there is no proof available for the assumption that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition which involves <i>kareth</i>, and thus the original question again arises: What need was there for the specific text of Lev. XVIII, 18, ''aleha' (<i>supra</i> p. 8), to indicate the obvious? (i.e., that the positive precept of the levirate marriage does not supersede the prohibition of marrying a consanguineous relative)."
,k7a_21:" V. previous note."
,k7a_22:" The prohibition of incest, Lev. XVIII, 29."
,k7a_23:" The marriage of the widow of a deceased childless brother."
,k7a_24:" Lev. VII, 20."
,k7a_25:" Lev. XXII, 3, where the penalty of <i>kareth</i> is pronounced for eating consecrated things during one's uncleanness."
,k7a_26:" For the eating of which during one's uncleanness the penalty of <i>kareth</i> is incurred."
,k7a_27:" Ker. 2b. If these were eaten by one in a state of uncleanness no obligation is incurred."
,k7a_28:" Reading with BaH [H]. Cur. edd. retain [H] with no sign of abbreviation."
,k7a_29:" To be married to the levir if her husband died childless."
,k7a_30:" Cf. previous note. A text was consequently needed to intimate that the law was not so,"
,k7a_31:" The case of consecrated objects."
,k7a_32:" Lev. XXII, 3."
,k7a_33:" Levirate marriage and forbidden relatives."
,k7a_34:" How, then, could the two be compared?"
,k7a_35:" Now, as the case of a brother's wife has not been restored to the general proposition, what need was there for the specific text of Lev. XVIII, 18?"
,k7a_36:" This is the continuation of the quotation."
,k7a_37:" Lev. XIV, 13, dealing with the leper's guilt-offering."
,k7a_38:" Since the place of killing was indicated at the beginning of the verse while the other regulations concerning this sacrifice are found in the laws of the guilt-offering in Lev. VII, 1ff."
,k7a_39:" From the laws relating to other guilt-offerings."
,k7a_40:" V. Lev. XIV, 14. "
}

txt:
<p>
If the Temple service which is of high importance and supersedes the Sabbath<a id="k7a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is itself superseded by [a death sentence for] murder, as it is said, Thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die,<a id="k7a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; how much more reasonable is it that the Sabbath which is superseded by the Temple service should be superseded by [a death sentence for] murder'. How, then, could it be said, 'Or it might rather [etc.]'?<a id="k7a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He means this: The burial of a meth mizwah<a id="k7a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; might prove [the contrary], since it supersedes the Temple service<a id="k7a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and does not nevertheless supersede the Sabbath.<a id="k7a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Then<a id="k7a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he argued: It might be inferred a minori ad majus that the burial of a meth mizwah should supersede the Sabbath, [thus]: If the Temple service which super sedes the Sabbath is superseded by the burial of a meth mizwah, by deduction from Or for his sister,<a id="k7a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; how much more should the Sabbath which is superseded by the Temple service be superseded by the burial of a meth mizwah; hence it was explicitly stated, Ye shall kindle no fire.<a id="k7a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [etc].<a id="k7a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	According to our previous assumption, however, that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition, what is meant by, 'Or it might rather [etc.]'?<a id="k7a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is this that was meant: 'As regards the application of the text, Every one that profaneth it<a id="k7a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; shall surely be put to death,<a id="k7a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been said to apply to the several kinds of labour other than the execution of a judicial death sentence, but that a judicial death sentence does supersede the Sabbath, for a positive precept<a id="k7a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; supersedes the prohibition. Then<a id="k7a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; he argued: It might be suggested that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition in the case of a mere prohibition only; has it, however, been heard to supersede a prohibition which involves <i>kareth</i>? Then he concluded: 'Even where<a id="k7a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; a positive precept supersedes a prohibition, is not the prohibition of a more serious nature than the precept?<a id="k7a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; And yet the positive precept comes and supersedes the prohibited; on what grounds, then, should a distinction be made between a minor and a major prohibition?<a id="k7a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it was explicitly stated, Ye shall kindle no fire<a id="k7a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [etc.].'<a id="k7a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But<a id="k7a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [this is the reason why a specific text] was needed:<a id="k7a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; It might have been assumed that this [case of a] brother's wife should be regarded as a subject which was included in a general proposition<a id="k7a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and was subsequently singled out in order to predicate another law,<a id="k7a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; the predication of which is not intended to apply to itself alone but to the whole of the general proposition. For it was taught: 'A subject which was included in a general proposition and was subsequently singled out, etc. How [is this to be understood]? But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings [that pertain unto the Lord], having his uncleanness upon him;<a id="k7a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; were not peace-offerings included among the other holy things?<a id="k7a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Why, then, were they subsequently singled out? In order that [the others] may be compared to them, and in order to tell you that as peace-offerings are distinguished by being consecrated objects of the altar so must also all other things<a id="k7a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; be consecrated objects of the altar, the objects consecrated for Temple repair only being excluded.'<a id="k7a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly here it might have been argued:<a id="k7a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Since a brother's wife was included among all the other forbidden relatives, why was she singled out? In order that [the others] may be compared to her, and in order to tell you that as a brother's wife is permitted<a id="k7a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; so also are all the other forbidden relatives permitted.<a id="k7a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Are these, however, similar? There,<a id="k7a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; both the general proposition<a id="k7a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and the particular specification<a id="k7a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; relate to a prohibition, but here<a id="k7a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; the general proposition relates to a prohibition while the particular specification relates to something which is permitted!<a id="k7a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; This, surely, is rather to be compared to an object that was included in a general proposition and was subsequently singled out in order to be made the subject of a fresh statement, which you cannot restore to the restrictions of the general proposition unless Scripture specifically restores it; for it was taught: Anything which was included in a general proposition and was subsequently excluded in order to be made the subject of a fresh statement, cannot be restored to the restrictions of the general proposition unless Scripture has explicitly restored it.<a id="k7a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; How<a id="k7a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [may this principle be illustrated]? And he shall kill the he-lamb in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the burnt-offering in the place of the Sanctuary; for as the sin-offering is the priest's so is the guilt-offering.<a id="k7a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Now since there was no need to state, 'As the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering.'<a id="k7a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; why did Scripture explicitly state. As the sin-offering so the guilt-offering? Because seeing that the guilt-offering of the leper was singled out<a id="k7a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; in order to impart a new law concerning the thumb of the right hand and the great toe of the right foot,<a id="k7a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed that it required no application of blood to, and no burning of the prescribed portions of the sacrifice upon the altar;
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k7b_1:" Of a leper."
,k7b_2:" Zeb. 49a."
,k7b_3:" The leper's guilt-offering and brought it into line with other guilt-offerings."
,k7b_4:" Lit., 'to what it went out, it went out; and to what it did not go out, it did not go out'."
,k7b_5:" The case of the levirate marriage."
,k7b_6:" Lit., 'that was permitted is permitted'."
,k7b_7:" The question consequently arises again: What need was there for ''aleha' in Lev. XVIII, 18. (Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 30, n. s)."
,k7b_8:" The reason why a superfluous text (v. previous note) was needed."
,k7b_9:" For this reading v. BaH."
,k7b_10:" Hence it was necessary to have the superfluous text, ''aleha' (v. <i>supra</i> n. 4) to shew that the law was not so."
,k7b_11:" Brother's wife and wife's sister."
,k7b_12:" Lit., 'there', a brother's wife."
,k7b_13:" Lit., 'here', a wife's sister."
,k7b_14:" The prohibitions to marry (a) a brother's wife and (b) a wife's sister. How then could the one be deduced from the other?"
,k7b_15:" A brother's wife who is also one's wife's sister and whose husband died childless."
,k7b_16:" By the positive precept of the levirate marriage."
,k7b_17:" That of marrying a brother's wife."
,k7b_18:" The prohibition of marrying one's wife's sister. Hence etc. V. <i>supra</i> note 7."
,k7b_19:" On which he completes the days of his purification and brings the prescribed sacrifices, presenting himself (whither as a leper he was till that day forbidden to enter) on the Temple mount at the entrance to the Nikanor gate of the Sanctuary, from where he extends his thumb and great toe into the Sanctuary (whither he is not yet allowed to enter) for the priest to apply to them some of the sacrificial blood, v. <i>Nazir</i>, Sonc. ed. p. 165ff."
,k7b_20:" When the paschal lamb is sacrificed to be eaten in the evening."
,k7b_21:" Such a discharge ordinarily disqualifies a man from entering the Temple mount."
,k7b_22:" [H] one who has had his ritual bath and is awaiting nightfall for the completion of his purification."
,k7b_23:" Before nightfall."
,k7b_24:" The leper in the circumstances mentioned."
,k7b_25:" That of the paschal lamb."
,k7b_26:" That a leper like certain other unclean persons must be sent out from the Levitical camp in which the Temple mount is included."
,k7b_27:" If he were not allowed to enter the Temple mount his purification from leprosy could not have been completed (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 31, n. 16) and he would in consequence have been prevented from participating in the paschal lamb. By allowing him to enter he is enabled to complete his purification, while nightfall would also terminate the uncleanness due to the discharge, and thus he is in a position to participate in the evening in the paschal lamb which during the day is prepared for him by a deputy."
,k7b_28:" In allowing the leper in the conditions mentioned to enter the Temple court."
,k7b_29:" II Chron. XX, 5, referring to a day when Israel completed a period of purification."
,k7b_30:" This is the reading also in Zeb. 32b. Cur. edd. enclose in parentheses 'R. Johanan'."
,k7b_31:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k7b_32:" Which proves that the prohibition for a tebul yom to enter the Levitical camp was not of Pentateuchal origin, having been first enacted in the days of Jehoshaphat."
,k7b_33:" Why was a leper in the circumstances mentioned permitted to extend his hands into the Sanctuary whither an unclean person, according to 'Ulla, may not project even part of his body?"
,k7b_34:" To project his hands into the Sanctuary."
,k7b_35:" Despite the prohibition for an unclean person, though the days of his purification have been duly observed, to enter the Sanctuary even partially, prior to the offering of the prescribed sacrifices."
,k7b_36:" Thus it is proved that since something was permitted in one respect the permission remains in force even when another prohibition may be involved in another respect. The same argument might have also applied to a wife's sister or widow of a deceased brother. Hence the need of the text, ''aleha'."
,k7b_37:" A brother's wife who is also one's wife's sister. >"
}

txt:
<p>
hence it was explicitly stated, 'As the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering': As the sin-offering<a id="k7b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; requires application of the blood to, and burning of the prescribed portions upon the altar, so does the guilt-offering also require application of the blood to, and burning of the prescribed portions upon the altar.<a id="k7b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Had Scripture not restored it,<a id="k7b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; however, it would have been assumed that it was singled out only in respect of what was explicitly specified but not in any other respect;<a id="k7b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; so also here,<a id="k7b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; I would assume, only a brother's wife who was explicitly mentioned [can be said] to be permitted<a id="k7b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but not any of the other forbidden relatives!<a id="k7b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But<a id="k7b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been assumed that the law of a wife's sister<a id="k7b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; should be deduced from what has been found in the case of a brother's wife; as a levir may marry his brother's wife so he may also marry his wife's sister.<a id="k7b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Are, however, the two cases<a id="k7b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; similar? In the one case<a id="k7b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; there is only one prohibition; in the other<a id="k7b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; there are two prohibitions!<a id="k7b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It might have been assumed that since she<a id="k7b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; was permitted<a id="k7b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [in respect of one prohibition]<a id="k7b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; she was also permitted [in the case of the other].<a id="k7b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And whence is it derived that we assume that 'since something was permitted [in one respect] it was also permitted [in the other]'? &mdash; From what was taught: In the case of a leper whose eighth day [of purification]<a id="k7b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; fell on the Passover eve,<a id="k7b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and who, having observed a discharge of semen on that day,<a id="k7b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; had taken a ritual bath, the Sages said: Although no other tebul yom<a id="k7b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; may enter [the Temple mount],<a id="k7b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; this one<a id="k7b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; may enter, for it is better that the positive precept,<a id="k7b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; the non-observance of which involves <i>kareth</i>, shall supersede a positive precept<a id="k7b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the infringement of which involves no <i>kareth</i>.<a id="k7b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; And in connection with this R. Johanan said: According to the Torah, not even [the infringement of] a positive precept is involved,<a id="k7b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said, And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah&nbsp;&hellip; before the new court.<a id="k7b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by the new court? Rabbi<a id="k7b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; replied: That they enacted therein new laws, ordaining that a tebul yom<a id="k7b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; must not enter the camp of the Levites.<a id="k7b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; And 'Ulla said: 'What is the reason?'<a id="k7b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Since he was given permission<a id="k7b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of his leprosy,<a id="k7b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; permission was also given to him in respect of his discharge of the semen.<a id="k7b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; But is this case<a id="k7b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; similar to that of 'Ulla?
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k8a_1:" His wife thus becoming a forbidden relative to his brother as 'brother's wife'."
,k8a_2:" Thus adding to the one prohibition (v. previous note) the other of 'wife's sister'."
,k8a_3:" By the precept of the levirate marriage, owing to the childlessness of the deceased."
,k8a_4:" Since it was added subsequently."
,k8a_5:" And could not consequently be removed by the removal of a prohibition which took effect subsequent to it."
,k8a_6:" Between the death of her husband and the marriage of her sister by his surviving brother. This case would be analogous to that of the leper who was eligible to bring his sacrifices on the eighth day of his purification during the interval between the beginning of the day and the hour on that day he contracted a new uncleanness by his discharge."
,k8a_7:" The night is reckoned as the beginning of the day following it."
,k8a_8:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 31, n. 16."
,k8a_9:" The eighth day of his purification."
,k8a_10:" Owing to the discharge of the semen which occurred in the night. As a sacrifice must be brought in the day time only, there was not a single moment during which he was eligible to bring the sacrifices as being clean in all respects. The prohibition consequently remains in force. So also in the case of a wife's sister as regards the levirate marriage. The question, therefore, arises again, what need was there for the superfluous text of Lev. XVIII, 18. V. <i>supra</i> p. 30, n. 2."
,k8a_11:" So that there was an interval during which he was permitted to marry the widow. V. p. 33. n. 11."
,k8a_12:" Why the superfluous ''aleha' in Lev. XVIII, 18 was required."
,k8a_13:" The law that forbidden relatives may be married in the case of a levirate marriage."
,k8a_14:" Lev. XVIII, 29."
,k8a_15:" Having been grouped together in this text."
,k8a_16:" In the case of a levirate marriage."
,k8a_17:" Lev. XVIII, 18; to intimate that they are not permitted."
,k8a_18:" Dibtha, below the Tigris, S.W. of Babylon."
,k8a_19:" That were enumerated in our Mishnah."
,k8a_20:" And levirate marriage with all of them would thus be permitted."
,k8a_21:" With whom the levirate marriage is forbidden by the text ''aleha' (v. <i>supra</i>)."
,k8a_22:" Lit., 'here', (a) in that of a wife's sister and (b) all the other forbidden relatives (other than a brother's wife)."
,k8a_23:" Lit., 'and here two prohibitions', (a) forbidden relatives and (b) brother's wife."
,k8a_24:" Lit., 'but here,' a brother's wife who is not a consanguineous relative."
,k8a_25:" That of a brother's wife."
,k8a_26:" So BaH."
,k8a_27:" I.e., the forbidden relative, <i>supra</i> 3b."
,k8a_28:" Whose case had to be proved, it was necessary to begin with this introduction."
,k8a_29:" I.e., the forbidden relatives."
,k8a_30:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 3."
,k8a_31:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k8a_32:" By the use of 'her' and 'unto her' which implies 'but no other'."
,k8a_33:" Which shews that a Scriptural text is required, even in the case of forbidden relatives themselves, to prove that levirate marriage is prohibited."
,k8a_34:" Lit., 'he took.'"
,k8a_35:" Of the levirate marriage."
,k8a_36:" As, for instance, in the case of a rival of a forbidden relative who married a stranger, v. <i>infra</i> 13a."
,k8a_37:" To be married by the man to whom the relative herself is forbidden."
,k8a_38:" Raba's statement that the prohibition to contract levirate marriage with a forbidden relative is so obvious that no Scriptural text is required to prove it."
,k8a_39:" Which shews that the exemption of the forbidden relatives themselves from the levirate marriage (i.e., the prohibition ever to marry them) was taken in our Mishnah for granted."
,k8a_40:" From the case of her rival."
,k8a_41:" To prove its prohibition even in the case of the levirate marriage."
,k8a_42:" <i>Kareth</i> being the penalty in both cases. >"
}

txt:
<p>
[The comparison] might well be justified where the deceased brother married [first]<a id="k8a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and the surviving brother married [his brother's wife's sister] afterwards,<a id="k8a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; for, in this case, since the prohibition of brother's wife was removed,<a id="k8a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; that of wife's sister<a id="k8a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; is also removed; but where the surviving brother had married [first] and the deceased brother had married subsequently, the prohibition of wife's sister was Surely in force first!<a id="k8a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, even where the deceased had married [first], [the comparison] would be justified in the case where the deceased had married and died, and the surviving brother had married afterwards so that [the widow] was eligible in the interval;<a id="k8a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; where, however, the deceased had married, and before he died his wife's sister was married by his surviving brother, [his widow] was never for a moment eligible for his brother! Does not 'Ulla admit that if the leper observed semen on the night preceding the eighth day<a id="k8a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; of his purification he must not project his hand into the Sanctuary on account of his thumb<a id="k8a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; because at the time he was eligible to bring the sacrifice [of the cleansed leper]<a id="k8a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; he was not free from uncleanness?<a id="k8a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But [this is really the explanation]: If ''aleha' was at all needed, [it was for such a case as] where the deceased brother had married [first] and died, and the surviving brother married [the widow's sister] subsequently.<a id="k8a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If you prefer I can say [that the reason<a id="k8a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is because] it<a id="k8a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; might have been deduced by means of R. Jonah's analogy. For R. Jonah &mdash; others say, R. Huna son of R. Joshua &mdash; said: 'Scripture stated: For whosoever shall do any of these abominations shall be cut off,<a id="k8a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; all forbidden relatives were compared to a brother's wife';<a id="k8a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [so in this case also it might have been said], as a brother's wife is permitted<a id="k8a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; so also are all other forbidden relatives permitted; hence the All Merciful has written, ''aleha'.<a id="k8a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Aha of Difti<a id="k8a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to Rabina: Consider! All forbidden relatives<a id="k8a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; might be compared to a brother's wife<a id="k8a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and might equally be compared to a wife's sister,<a id="k8a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; what reason do you see for comparing them to a wife's sister?<a id="k8a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Compare them rather to a brother's wife!<a id="k8a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you wish I might say: When a comparison may be made for increasing as well as for decreasing restrictions, that for increasing restrictions must be preferred. If you prefer, however, I might say: In the former cases<a id="k8a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; there are two prohibitions in the one as well as in the other,<a id="k8a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and a double prohibition may justly be inferred from a double prohibition; in the latter case, however,<a id="k8a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; only one prohibition is involved,<a id="k8a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and a double prohibition may not be inferred from a single one.
</p><p>
	Raba said: [That] a forbidden relative herself<a id="k8a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [may not contract the levirate marriage] requires no Scriptural text to prove it, since no positive precept can supersede a prohibition which involves <i>kareth</i>; if a Scriptural text was at all needed it was for the purpose of forbidding a rival.
</p><p>
	And in the case of a forbidden relative is no Scriptural text required [to prohibit her levirate marriage]? Surely it was taught, 'Thus we are in a position to know the law concerning herself'!<a id="k8a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; On account of her rival.<a id="k8a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Was it not taught, however, 'Now we know the law concerning themselves'?<a id="k8a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; On account of their rivals.<a id="k8a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Rabbi said: [Instead of] and take, [Scripture stated], and take her,<a id="k8a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [and instead of] and perform the duty of a husband's brother [Scripture stated], and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her,<a id="k8a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; in order to prohibit<a id="k8a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [the levirate marriage of] forbidden relatives and their rivals!<a id="k8a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Read, 'To forbid [the levirate marriage of] the rivals of the forbidden relatives'. But two texts, surely, were mentioned;<a id="k8a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; was not one for the forbidden relative and the other for her rival? &mdash; No; both were for the rival, but one indicates prohibition<a id="k8a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; of a rival where the precept<a id="k8a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable, and the other indicates permission to marry the rival where the precept<a id="k8a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; is not applicable.<a id="k8a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; [Because instead of] 'And perform the duty of a husband's brother' [Scripture stated] And perform the duty of a husband's brother UNTO HER, [which indicates that] only where levirate marriage is applicable is a rival forbidden<a id="k8a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; but where levirate marriage is not applicable<a id="k8a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; a rival is permitted.<a id="k8a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: [This<a id="k8a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; may] also be inferred from our Mishnah where it was stated, FIFTEEN [CATEGORIES OF] WOMEN EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS, but it was not stated, 'are exempt<a id="k8a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; and exempt [their rivals]'. This proves it.
</p><p>
	In what respect does the case of a forbidden relative differ<a id="k8a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; that it should require no text?<a id="k8a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; Obviously because no positive precept may supersede a prohibition which involves <i>kareth</i>. But then the case of a rival also should require no text,<a id="k8a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; since no positive precept may supersede a prohibition which involves <i>kareth</i>!<a id="k8a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Aha b. Bebai Mar to Rabina, Thus it has been stated in the name of Raba: In the case of a rival also no Scriptural text<a id="k8a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; was needed; if a text was needed at all
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k8b_1:" Of the levirate marriage."
,k8b_2:" I.e., how is the permissibility deduced?"
,k8b_3:" Lev. XVIII, 18."
,k8b_4:" Lit., 'in the place of [H] with reference to the verse 'Her husband's brother shall go in unto her' (v. <i>supra</i> p. 8, n. 9) i.e., where the command of levirate marriage would otherwise apply."
,k8b_5:" The rival."
,k8b_6:" To be married, cf. <i>supra</i> p. 35, n. 12."
,k8b_7:" On the lines of the argument just advanced."
,k8b_8:" I.e., the wife's sister."
,k8b_9:" To be married."
,k8b_10:" Of the levirate marriage."
,k8b_11:" Lev. XVIII, 18."
,k8b_12:" One's wife."
,k8b_13:" Her sister must not be married. (Other forbidden relatives, as has been shewn <i>supra</i>, are deduced from one's wife's sister)."
,k8b_14:" Lit., 'that'."
,k8b_15:" I.e., that the prohibition of a wife's sister which on the present assumption is limited to cases where the precept of levirate marriage is applicable, applies only during the lifetime of one's wife."
,k8b_16:" The wife."
,k8b_17:" But it can still be maintained that where no levirate marriage is applicable, there is no prohibition of marrying the wife's sister."
,k8b_18:" Lev. XVIII, 18."
,k8b_19:" I.e., that both the wife's sister and her rival are forbidden to be married. (This, as will be shewn <i>infra</i>, is deduced from the expression li-zeror.)"
,k8b_20:" Lev. XVIII, 18, emphasis on her (sing.)."
,k8b_21:" Of the levirate marriage."
,k8b_22:" To be married."
,k8b_23:" The forbidden relative herself."
,k8b_24:" Since even without this additional phrase the two contradictory texts would have been naturally reconciled by applying the former (prohibition of both) to a case where the precept of the levirate marriage is inapplicable, and the latter (permission of the rival) to a case where it is applicable. The addition of the phrase must consequently have been intended to impart a new law, viz. that a rival is forbidden, like the forbidden relative herself, where the precept of the levirate marriage is applicable."
,k8b_25:" Lev. XVIII, 18."
,k8b_26:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 8, n. 9."
,k8b_27:" I.e., where the law of the levirate marriage does not apply."
,k8b_28:" Where levirate marriage does apply."
,k8b_29:" The concluding part of the verse [H] meaning where he has to go 'unto her', the sister of his wife who is the widow of his brother, he may do so even in her (his wife's) life-time."
,k8b_30:" V. Lev. XVIII, 18, implying, as explained <i>supra</i>, the prohibition of one only."
,k8b_31:" Of the levirate marriage."
,k8b_32:" So that there are two, not only one."
,k8b_33:" And there is none."
,k8b_34:" Heb. li-zeror (Lev. XVIII, 18), <i>supra</i> 3b. How then could it be said to be derived from a different text?"
,k8b_35:" V. <i>infra</i> 28b."
,k8b_36:" V. Emden a.l. Cur. edd. read 'here'."
,k8b_37:" In Deut. XXV, 5, the text cited by Rabbi. Clearly, it was not mentioned at all; how then could Rabbi derive from the text a law concerning a subject of which no mention was made?"
,k8b_38:" That the text refers to the forbidden relative only and not to a rival."
,k8b_39:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k8b_40:" Lit., 'takings', i.e., when the deceased childless brother is survived by two widows, and the levir has to decide which of them to marry."
,k8b_41:" The levir."
,k8b_42:" I.e., when neither of the two is a forbidden relative."
,k8b_43:" The emphasis on 'her' in And take her implies that there is a choice between two, and the phrase 'and take her' is taken to imply that the levir is in a position to choose whichever he pleases, since either of them must be capable of having the phrase 'and take her applied to her."
,k8b_44:" If one cannot be married by him on account of her being his forbidden relative."
,k8b_45:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k8b_46:" Who made the deduction from li-zeror."
,k8b_47:" The levir."
,k8b_48:" After he married her; and she requires no <i>halizah</i>."
,k8b_49:" Though the precept of the levirate marriage has been fulfilled and she might have been assumed to be forbidden to him as a brother's wife. The text is interpreted as follows: And he takes her to him to wife, as soon as he has taken her, she is regarded henceforth in all respects as his wife, i.e., as if she had never been forbidden to him as a brother's wife."
,k8b_50:" Emphasis on 'unto her' (v. Tosaf)."
,k8b_51:" Whence does he derive the law deduced by R. Jose b. Hanina?"
,k8b_52:" Who are guilty of an erroneous ruling."
,k8b_53:" To bring the sacrifice prescribed in Lev. IV, 13ff. "
}

txt:
<p>
it was for the purpose of permitting a rival where the precept<a id="k8b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is not applicable. What is the reason?<a id="k8b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Scripture stated, ''aleha',<a id="k8b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; to indicate that only in the case of 'unto her'<a id="k8b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; is she<a id="k8b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; forbidden,<a id="k8b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; where the other, however, may not, she is permitted.
</p><p>
	Said Rami b. Hama to Raba: Might it not be suggested<a id="k8b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; that the forbidden relative<a id="k8b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; herself is permitted<a id="k8b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; where the precept<a id="k8b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is not applicable? &mdash; Is not [such an argument contrary to the principle of inference] a minori ad majus? Being forbidden where the precept<a id="k8b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable, would she be permitted where the precept is not applicable? &mdash; ['The case of a] rival', the first replied, 'could prove it, since she is forbidden<a id="k8b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; where the precept<a id="k8b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable, and is permitted<a id="k8b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; where the precept<a id="k8b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is not applicable'. 'It is for your sake,' the other replied, 'that Scripture states, In her life-time,<a id="k8b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; so long as she<a id="k8b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; lives'.<a id="k8b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But is not the expression,<a id="k8b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; In her life-time,<a id="k8b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; required for the exclusion [of the prohibition of marriage] after her<a id="k8b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; death?<a id="k8b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is deduced from the text, And a woman to her sister.<a id="k8b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; If [the deduction were only] from the text. 'And a woman to her sister',<a id="k8b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; it might have been said that if she<a id="k8b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; was divorced the sister would be permitted, hence it was expressly stated, 'In her life-time.'<a id="k8b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; So long as she<a id="k8b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is alive, even though she has been divorced, [her sister must] not [be married]!<a id="k8b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said R. Huna b. Tahlifa in the name of Raba, two Scriptural texts are available; it is written, Thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her<a id="k8b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [implying two],<a id="k8b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is also written, To uncover her nakedness,<a id="k8b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies that only one is forbidden; how then [are the two texts to be reconciled]? Where the precept<a id="k8b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable both are forbidden;<a id="k8b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; where the precept<a id="k8b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; is not applicable she<a id="k8b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; is forbidden but her rival is permitted. Might not the deduction be reversed: Where the precept<a id="k8b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable she<a id="k8b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; is forbidden but her rival is permitted, but where the precept is not applicable both are forbidden!<a id="k8b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so, ''aleha' should not have been stated.<a id="k8b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: Whence is it derived that the expression ''aleha'<a id="k8b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; indicates prohibition? Is it not possible that it implies permission, and that it is this that the All Merciful meant to imply: Thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her,<a id="k8b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; neither herself nor her rival where 'unto her'<a id="k8b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; is not applicable,<a id="k8b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; but where 'unto her'<a id="k8b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable<a id="k8b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; both are permitted!<a id="k8b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so, how could the 'uncovering of the nakedness' of one<a id="k8b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; be possible? If in the case where the precept<a id="k8b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable, both are permitted;<a id="k8b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and if where the precept is not applicable both are forbidden!<a id="k8b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Reverting to] the [above] text, Rabbi said: Instead of And take, Scripture stated, 'And take her' and instead of 'And perform the duty of a husband's brother', Scripture stated, 'And perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her', in order to prohibit [the levirate marriage of] forbidden relatives and their rivals. Are, then, rivals mentioned here at all? And, furthermore, the law of rivals has been derived from the expression To be her rival!<a id="k8b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The expression To be her rival is employed by Rabbi for R. Simeon's deduction.<a id="k8b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Where,<a id="k8b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; however, is the rival mentioned?<a id="k8b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What he meant is this: If so,<a id="k8b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Scripture should have stated, And take; why then did it state, 'And he shall take her'?<a id="k8b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; To indicate that wherever there are two to be taken,<a id="k8b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k8b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; having the choice of marrying whichever he prefers<a id="k8b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; both are permitted,<a id="k8b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; but if not,<a id="k8b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; both are forbidden; And perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her,<a id="k8b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; indicates that where levirate marriage is applicable there is the rival forbidden, where, however, levirate marriage is not applicable the rival is permitted.
</p><p>
	As to the Rabbis,<a id="k8b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; to what do they apply the verse 'And he shall take her'? &mdash; They require it for the deduction of R. Jose b. Hanina. For R. Jose b. Hanina said: 'And he shall take her'<a id="k8b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; teaches that he<a id="k8b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; may divorce her with a letter of divorce<a id="k8b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; and that he may remarry her;<a id="k8b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; And he shall perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, even against her will.<a id="k8b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; And Rabbi?<a id="k8b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The law of R. Jose b. Hanina is deduced from To a wife,<a id="k8b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; and that the marriage may take place against her will is deduced from Her husband's brother shall go in unto her.<a id="k8b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What does Rabbi do with [the expression], ''aleha'? &mdash; He requires it [for another deduction], as we learnt: The <i>Beth din</i><a id="k8b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; are under no obligation<a id="k8b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; unless [they ruled] concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is <i>kareth</i>, if the transgression was wilful, and a sin-offering if the transgression was unwitting; and so it is with the anointed High priest.
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k9a_1:" Hor. 8a."
,k9a_2:" So in Hor. 9a. Cur. ed. 'congregation'."
,k9a_3:" Lev. IV, 14."
,k9a_4:" Concerning an erroneous ruling of the <i>Beth din</i>."
,k9a_5:" [H], Lev. <i>loc. cit</i>. ('wherein')."
,k9a_6:" Concerning marrying two sisters."
,k9a_7:" Ibid. XVIII, 18, E.V., 'Beside the other'."
,k9a_8:" Concerning an erroneous ruling of the <i>Beth din</i>."
,k9a_9:" Thus it has been shewn that Rabbi requires the text Beside the other for another deduction."
,k9a_10:" Lev. IV, 3."
,k9a_11:" Heb. [H] 'commandments'."
,k9a_12:" Lev. IV, 22 and IV, 13."
,k9a_13:" That the transgression must be one which involves <i>kareth</i> if done wilfully, and a sin-offering if done unwittingly."
,k9a_14:" Num. XV, 24, dealing with idolatry."
,k9a_15:" Lev. IV, 13, referring to an erroneous ruling."
,k9a_16:" V. note 12."
,k9a_17:" Num. XV, 27."
,k9a_18:" 'And', in we'im [H], and if)."
,k9a_19:" The congregation."
,k9a_20:" Individual, ruler and High Priest."
,k9a_21:" The congregation, concerning whom deduction has previously been made from the law relating to an erroneous ruling."
,k9a_22:" Who, unlike Rabbi, require the expression 'aleha (beside her) for deduction in connection with the laws of incest and rival wives, <i>supra</i> 3b."
,k9a_23:" That obligation is incurred only where the prohibition involves <i>kareth</i> where it was transgressed wilfully and a sin-offering when transgressed unwittingly."
,k9a_24:" Num. XV, 29, 30."
,k9a_25:" The text, according to Rabbinical exposition, refers to idolatry and in relation to it the expression Law (Torah) is used."
,k9a_26:" E.g., offering of a sacrifice."
,k9a_27:" V. Num. XV, 30. Where wilful transgression involves <i>kareth</i>, unwitting transgression is atoned for by a sin-offering."
,k9a_28:" By deduction from soul (nefesh, Num. XV, 27) which includes all ranks of individuals."
,k9a_29:" Num. XV, 27, referring, as has just been pointed out, to individuals of all ranks."
,k9a_30:" Congregation."
,k9a_31:" Individuals."
,k9a_32:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 40, n. 13 and p. 40, n. 14."
,k9a_33:" Num. XV, 29."
,k9a_34:" Lit., 'requires it for as it was taught'."
,k9a_35:" Lit., 'many', i.e., the inhabitants of a city condemned for idolatry (Deut. XIII, 13ff)."
,k9a_36:" A suburb of Nehardea."
,k9a_37:" Why the sin-offerings of a group and of individuals are the same in the case of idolatry (v. previous note)."
,k9a_38:" I.e., a majority of all the tribes of Israel."
,k9a_39:" What distinction, then, would there be between the sin-offerings of a 'condemned city' and those of the 'congregation'? (V. previous note). If a distinction is to be made between the sacrifices of a 'condemned city' and those of individuals, how much more should such a distinction be made between the former and those of the 'congregation'!"
,k9a_40:" Cf. n. 7, <i>supra</i>."
,k9a_41:" Now, since no distinction in the sacrifice could possibly be made, what need was there for the text of Num. XV, 29?"
,k9a_42:" V. previous note."
,k9a_43:" The men of a 'condemned city'."
,k9a_44:" A bullock for a sin-offering and a he-goat for a burnt-offering."
,k9a_45:" For the men of a 'condemned city' to bring a special sin-offering."
,k9a_46:" If the sin was committed unwittingly since an offering peculiar to themselves is an impossibility."
,k9a_47:" That the sacrifices are the same (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 42, n. 5) as deduced from Num. XV, 27. For further notes v. Hor., Sonc. ed. pp. 53ff."
,k9a_48:" In our Mishnah, <i>supra</i> 2a."
,k9a_49:" I.e., that the Mishnah should have included as a sixteenth forbidden relative, a man's mother who was not the lawful wife of his father, and who, having been subsequently married by his paternal brother who died childless, is now subject to the levirate marriage or <i>halizah</i> of her own son, the brother of her second husband."
,k9a_50:" Whether she may be married to his paternal brother, <i>supra</i> 4a."
,k9a_51:" [H] ruxht a prohibition not included in the Biblical laws of incest, but ordained by the Rabbis. [H], a prohibition due to sanctity in the case, e.g., of a widow whose levir is a High Priest. (For this and an alternative explanation v. <i>infra</i> 20a)."
,k9a_52:" <i>Infra</i> <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k9a_53:" In our very chapter, <i>infra</i> 13a."
,k9a_54:" Which shews that even laws which are in dispute are recorded in the chapter."
,k9a_55:" Lit., 'is not a teaching'; the view of Beth Hillel is accepted as law, and can consequently be included in our chapter."
,k9a_56:" Lit., 'in his world', i.e., who was born after the death of his childless brother. "
}

txt:
<p>
Nor [are they liable] in respect of idolatry unless [they ruled] concerning a matter the punishment for which is <i>kareth</i>, if it was committed wilfully and a sin-offering if committed unwittingly;<a id="k9a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and we also learnt: [For the unwitting transgression of any] commandment in the Torah the penalty for which, if committed wilfully, is <i>kareth</i> and, if committed unwittingly a sin-offering, the private individual brings a sin-offering of a lamb or a she-goat; the ruler brings a goat; and the anointed High Priest and the <i>Beth din</i> bring a bullock. In the case of idolatry the individual and the ruler and the anointed High Priest bring a she-goat while the <i>Beth din</i><a id="k9a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; bring a bullock and a goat, the bullock for a burnt-offering and the goat for a sin-offering. Whence is this deduced? From the following. For our Rabbis taught: When the sin wherein they have sinned is known:<a id="k9a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi said, here<a id="k9a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; we read 'aleha<a id="k9a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and further on<a id="k9a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; we also read 'aleha;<a id="k9a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; as further on<a id="k9a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the prohibition involves the penalty of <i>kareth</i> if the transgression was wilful and that of a sin-offering if it was unwitting, so here<a id="k9a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; also, [the ruling must be concerning] a prohibition which involves the penalty of <i>kareth</i> if the transgression was wilful and that of a sin-offering if it was unwitting.<a id="k9a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Proof has thus been adduced for the case of the congregation; whence for that of the anointed High Priest? &mdash; It is written in relation to the High Priest, So as to bring guilt upon the people;<a id="k9a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; this shews that the anointed High Priest is like the congregation. And for an individual and a ruler? &mdash; The inference is made by a comparison of Things<a id="k9a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; with Things.<a id="k9a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Nor [are they liable] in respect of idolatry unless [their ruling] concerned a matter the punishment for which is <i>kareth</i> if it was committed wilfully, and a sin-offering if committed unwittingly'. As regards the congregation in the matter of idolatry, deduction<a id="k9a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is made by comparison between From the eyes<a id="k9a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and From the eyes.<a id="k9a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [The law<a id="k9a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; of] a private individual, a ruler and an anointed High Priest [is deduced] from, And if one soul<a id="k9a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies that there is no distinction between a private individual, a ruler and an anointed High Priest, while the <i>waw</i><a id="k9a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; connects them with the previous subject,<a id="k9a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and consequently the latter<a id="k9a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; may be deduced from the former.<a id="k9a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Whence, however, do the Rabbis<a id="k9a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; arrive at this inference?<a id="k9a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They deduce it from the Biblical interpretation which R. Joshua b. Levi taught to his son: Ye shall have one law for him that doeth aught in error. But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand etc.,<a id="k9a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; all the Torah is compared to the prohibition of idolatry;<a id="k9a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; as in regard to idolatry [obligation is incurred only where] the offence involves the punishment of <i>kareth</i><a id="k9a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; when it was committed wilfully and a sin-offering<a id="k9a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; when committed unwittingly, so also in the case of any other transgression [it must be such] as involves <i>kareth</i> when committed wilfully and a sin-offering when committed unwittingly.
</p><p>
	Proof has thus been found for the case of a private individual, a ruler and an anointed High Priest<a id="k9a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; both in regard to idolatry and the rest of the commandments; whence, however, [is it proved that the same law applies also to] the congregation in the case of idolatry? &mdash; Scripture said, And if one soul,<a id="k9a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and the former<a id="k9a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; may be deduced from the latter.<a id="k9a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence, however, [is it deduced that the same law applies to] the congregation in the case of the other commandments? &mdash; Deduction is made by comparison between 'From the eyes' and 'From the eyes'.<a id="k9a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And what does Rabbi do with the text of One law?<a id="k9a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He applies it to the following.<a id="k9a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Whereas we find that Scripture made distinction between individuals and a group,<a id="k9a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; individuals being punished by stoning and their money, therefore, being spared, while a group are punished by the sword and their money is consequently destroyed, one might also assume that a distinction should be made in respect of their sacrifices; hence it was explicitly stated, Ye shall have one law.<a id="k9a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hilkiah of Hagronia<a id="k9a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; demurred: Is the reason<a id="k9a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; because the All Merciful has written, Ye shall have one law,<a id="k9a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; so that had it not so been written it might have been thought that a distinction should be made [in respect of their sacrifices]? What, however, could they bring! Should they bring a bullock? The congregation,<a id="k9a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, brings a bullock for the transgression of any one of all the other commandments!<a id="k9a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [Should they bring] a lamb? An individual, surely, brings a lamb if he transgressed any of the other commandments!<a id="k9a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; A he-goat? A ruler brings one in the case of transgression of any of the other commandments!<a id="k9a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; A bullock for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering? Such, surely, are brought by the congregation in the case of idolatry!<a id="k9a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; Should they, then, bring a she-goat? This, surely, is also the sin-offering of a private individual!<a id="k9a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The text]<a id="k9a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; was required, because it might have been suggested that whereas the congregation, in the case of an erroneous ruling, brings a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering, these<a id="k9a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; should also bring the same sacrifices, but] in the reverse order;<a id="k9a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; or [it might have been assumed to be] necessary<a id="k9a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; but that there was no remedy;<a id="k9a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it was necessary to teach us.<a id="k9a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Levi to Rabbi: What ground is there for stating<a id="k9a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; FIFTEEN? Sixteen should have been stated! &mdash; The other replied: It seems to me that this man has no brains in his head. 'Do you mean', he continued, 'a man's mother who had been outraged by his father?<a id="k9a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; The case of a man's mother who has been outraged by his father is a matter in dispute between R. Judah and the Rabbis,<a id="k9a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; and the author of our Mishnah does not deal with any controversial matter'. But does he not? Surely, the prohibition due to a Rabbinical ordinance and the prohibition due to the levir's sanctity,<a id="k9a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; concerning which R. Akiba and the Rabbis are in dispute,<a id="k9a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; are mentioned! &mdash; We mean, in our chapter. But, surely it was taught,<a id="k9a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Beth Shammai permit rivals to the other brothers and Beth Hillel prohibit them'!<a id="k9a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The view of Beth Shammai where it is in contradiction to that of Beth Hillel is of no consequence.<a id="k9a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Is there not the case of the wife of a man's brother who was not his contemporary.<a id="k9a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k9b_1:" <i>Infra</i> 18b."
,k9b_2:" Of a third brother. (V. <i>infra</i> n. 4)."
,k9b_3:" Between the second brother and the widow of the first brother who died without issue (V. following note)."
,k9b_4:" In such a case, R. Simeon agrees that the third brother must not marry the widow, because at the time when he was born the widow was forbidden to him as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'. R. Simeon's disagreement with the Rabbis is limited to the case where the first brother, A, died childless and his widow was married to the second brother, B, prior to the birth of the third brother, C. If subsequently B died also childless, R. Simeon, contrary to the opinion of the Rabbis, allows the levirate marriage between the widow and C, because when C was born the widow was already the wife of B, and C's levirate marriage now is not due to A whose widow was a married woman when he was born, but to B whose contemporary he is."
,k9b_5:" I.e., where C (v. note 4) was born before the levirate marriage between A's widow and B took place."
,k9b_6:" The fifteen forbidden categories enumerated in our Mishnah, <i>supra</i> 2af."
,k9b_7:" For full explanation of this statement V. <i>infra</i> 26a and 28b."
,k9b_8:" Rab's statement."
,k9b_9:" Forbidden categories."
,k9b_10:" The full application of Rab's statement."
,k9b_11:" Who would be forbidden to all the brothers."
,k9b_12:" And since the case of a daughter could not be included, the other five cases also, bearing on a daughter, were excluded."
,k9b_13:" Rab's statement."
,k9b_14:" V. <i>infra</i> 28b for explanation. "
}

txt:
<p>
concerning which R. Simeon and the Rabbis are in dispute,<a id="k9b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and which is nevertheless mentioned? &mdash; R. Simeon does not dispute the case where the birth<a id="k9b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; was first, and the levirate marriage<a id="k9b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; later.<a id="k9b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Did not R. Oshaia, however, say<a id="k9b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; that R. Simeon disputed the first case also?<a id="k9b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Surely. R. Oshaia's view was refuted.
</p><p>
	Did not, however, Rab Judah state in the name of Rab, and R. Hiyya also taught: In the case of all these<a id="k9b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; it may happen that she who is forbidden to one brother may be permitted to the other<a id="k9b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; while she who is forbidden to the other brother may be permitted to the one, and that her sister who is her sister-in-law may be subject either to <i>halizah</i> or to the levirate marriage.<a id="k9b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; And Rab Judah interpreted [it<a id="k9b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; as referring to those]<a id="k9b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; from one's MOTHER-IN-LAW onwards but not to the first six categories. What is the reason? Because in the case of a daughter this<a id="k9b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is possible only [with one born] from a woman who had been outraged but not [with one born] from a legal marriage,<a id="k9b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [and the author of our Mishnah] deals only with cases of legal matrimony and not with those of outraged women.<a id="k9b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And Abaye interpreted it<a id="k9b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [as referring] also to a daughter from a woman who had been out raged, because, since [the application of Rab's statement] is quite possible in her case, it matters not whether she was born from a woman who was legally married or from one that had been outraged; but not to the wife of a brother who was not his contemporary. What is the reason? Because [the application of Rab's statement in this case] is possible only according to the view of R. Simeon and not according to that of the Rabbis, [the author of our Mishnah] does not deal with any matter which is in dispute. And R. Safra interprets it<a id="k9b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; as referring also to the wife of a brother who was not his contemporary, and [in his opinion] it<a id="k9b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is possible in the case of six brothers in accordance with the view of R. Simeon.<a id="k9b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k10a_1:" Now, since in the case of 'the wife of a brother who was not his contemporary' the application of Rab's statement is only possible according to the view of R. Simeon but not according to that of the Rabbis, and since the statement is based on our Mishnah, it is obvious that our Mishnah deals also with a case which is in dispute."
,k10a_2:" Cf. BaH. Cur. edd. insert, 'but'."
,k10a_3:" Of Rab and R. Hiyya. Our Mishnah consequently deals only with that case in which R. Simeon and the Rabbis are in agreement. (V. <i>supra</i> 9b top)."
,k10a_4:" Of Rab and R. Hiyya, <i>supra</i> 9b."
,k10a_5:" Whom he addressed <i>supra</i> 9a."
,k10a_6:" And after one of them had given birth to a child, C, and the other to one, D, the first was married by A and the second by B, two of Jacob's sons from another wife."
,k10a_7:" For should A and B die childless their wives who are sisters as well as sisters-in-law come under the law of the levirate marriage in relation to C and D the brothers of A and B."
,k10a_8:" Both being forbidden to C as well as to D. The mother of C is forbidden to C as mother and to D as mother's sister, and the mother of D is similarly forbidden to D and C."
,k10a_9:" Cf. n. 8."
,k10a_10:" Since the women are strangers and the restrictions mentioned in note 10 do not apply."
,k10a_11:" The women being sisters-in-law only but not sisters. Thus it has been shewn that the statement could not be applied in its entirety to the case of an outraged woman. Hence it was excluded from the enumeration in our Mishnah."
,k10a_12:" Of Rab and Hiyya."
,k10a_13:" Lit., 'and what'."
,k10a_14:" Rabbi."
,k10a_15:" Levi, <i>supra</i> 9a."
,k10a_16:" Hence it is impossible for a mother, whether legally married or outraged, ever to come into levirate relationship with her son. (Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 45, n. 8.)"
,k10a_17:" Than those relating to the fifteen enumerated in our Mishnah."
,k10a_18:" No paternal brother of the person concerned may ever marry them."
,k10a_19:" To marry the brother of their deceased husband who had been married to their rival (one of the six relatives) illegally (Maimonides). If the marriage was with a stranger the permissibility of marriage is obvious since the laws of rivals apply only to a brother's widow."
,k10a_20:" <i>Infra</i> 13a."
,k10a_21:" Who was specifically mentioned."
,k10a_22:" So that it is impossible for one ever to be subject to levirate marriage with his brother's wife whose legitimate or illegitimate son he is."
,k10a_23:" Since R. Judah holds such an opinion and the Mishnah represents his view."
,k10a_24:" Lit., 'he did not teach it'."
,k10a_25:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 46, n. 13."
,k10a_26:" The woman his father had outraged and who is also the mother of his brother."
,k10a_27:" <i>Infra</i> 78a. In such a case it is surely possible for a mother to come into the levirate relationship with her son."
,k10a_28:" Lit., 'when if he does not teach', i.e., he is not concerned with a levirate relationship that may arise out of a possible and unlikely breach of the law."
,k10a_29:" Levitate relationship with a mother. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 46, n. 13."
,k10a_30:" I.e., even if the deceased brothers did not transgress the law."
,k10a_31:" The father of the deceased."
,k10a_32:" Her husband, Jacob's son."
,k10a_33:" Lit., 'and she fell before her son', who is the paternal brother of her deceased husband, Reuben."
,k10a_34:" As his mother."
,k10a_35:" Why then was not this case included in our Mishnah? "
,k10a_36:" Despite Rabbi's abusive reply, <i>supra</i> 9a."
,k10a_37:" [H] lit., 'examined it', i.e., revised our Mishnah and added the case under discussion. [Levi drew up a collection of teachings like those of R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia, v. B.B., Sonc. ed. p. 216]."
,k10a_38:" From <i>halizah</i> and the levirate marriage."
,k10a_39:" Lit., 'how so?'."
,k10a_40:" Unlawfully."
,k10a_41:" Which is a marriage forbidden under the penalty of <i>kareth</i> and is, therefore, illegal and invalid."
,k10a_42:" The marriage having been invalid, the woman is not regarded as his brother's wife. "
}

txt:
<p>
And your mnemonic is, 'Died, born, and performed the levirate marriage; died, born, and performed the levirate marriage'!<a id="k10a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbi<a id="k10a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; does not accept these rules.<a id="k10a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Adda Karhina stated before R. Kahana in the name of Raba: Rabbi, in fact, does accept these rules,<a id="k10a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but it was this that he meant to say to [Levi]:<a id="k10a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [The application of the statement<a id="k10a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to] a woman outraged by one's father is possible only in one [of its parts]; it is impossible, however, to apply it in [both its parts], for if Jacob outraged his two sisters,<a id="k10a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; it is possible [to apply that part of the statement relating to] 'her sister who is her sister-in-law',<a id="k10a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but not that of 'she who is forbidden to one brother may be permitted to the other';<a id="k10a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and if be outraged two strangers,<a id="k10a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; it is possible [to apply the statement], 'she who is forbidden to one brother may be permitted to the other'<a id="k10a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but not that of 'her sister who is her sister-in-law'.<a id="k10a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: Rabbi, in fact, does not accept these rules<a id="k10a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and [our Mishnah] does deal with matters in dispute, and as to the meaning<a id="k10a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; of 'It seems to me that this man has no brains in his head' which he<a id="k10a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; addressed to him,<a id="k10a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; what he meant was this: 'Why did you not carefully consider our Mishnah? For our Mishnah represents the view of R. Judah who forbids the marriage of a woman that was outraged by one's father,<a id="k10a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; as it was taught: Six forbidden relatives come under greater restrictions,<a id="k10a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; since they are to be married to strangers only,<a id="k10a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and their rivals are permitted.<a id="k10a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [These are:] his mother, his father's wife and his father's sister [etc.].<a id="k10a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, what is meant by "his mother"? If it be assumed to mean one who was legally married to his father, such a woman surely is "his father's wife".<a id="k10a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Must it not consequently mean one who was outraged by his father? And yet it was stated, "since they are to be married to strangers only", implying "to strangers only but not to the brothers". Now, who has been heard to hold such an opinion? Surely it was R. Judah who forbids marriage with a woman who was outraged by one's father.<a id="k10a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence<a id="k10a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; it was not included in our Mishnah.'<a id="k10a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Rabina to R. Ashi: [Such a levirate relationship]<a id="k10a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; is possible even according to R. Judah if and when one had married<a id="k10a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; illegally!<a id="k10a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The author of the Mishnah is not concerned with an 'if'.<a id="k10a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: This<a id="k10a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; is also possible without the 'if',<a id="k10a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; where Jacob<a id="k10a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; outraged his daughter-in-law, begat from her a son, and then Reuben<a id="k10a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; died without issue, and she thus came into levirate relationship with her son;<a id="k10a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and since she is forbidden to him,<a id="k10a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; her rival also is likewise forbidden!<a id="k10a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: [The author of our Mishnah] deals only with lawful brotherhood but not with brotherhood which is due to a forbidden act.
</p><p>
	Levi nevertheless<a id="k10a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; inserted it<a id="k10a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; in his Mishnah. For Levi taught: One's mother sometimes exempts her rival<a id="k10a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and sometimes she does not exempt her. If his mother, for instance,<a id="k10a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; was lawfully married to his father, and then she was married<a id="k10a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; to his paternal brother<a id="k10a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; who subsequently died, such a mother does not exempt her rival.<a id="k10a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k10b_1:" Since her marriage with the deceased brother was not unlawful, her rival (any other wife of her husband) is subject to the same laws as any other rival in the case of the fifteen relatives of our Mishnah."
,k10b_2:" Cf. p. 47, n. 4, <i>supra</i>."
,k10b_3:" By R. Judah who, as has been shewn <i>supra</i>, is the author of our Mishnah. Though he prohibits the marriage of a woman that was outraged by one's father, he nevertheless, according to Levi's recital, included the case in our Mishnah."
,k10b_4:" Lit., 'teach'."
,k10b_5:" Whom he is in consequence forbidden to marry."
,k10b_6:" Since the marriage in such a case is forbidden under a negative precept the transgression of which does not involve the penalty of <i>kareth</i>, the betrothal is legally valid."
,k10b_7:" To the brothers of the levir who gave the <i>halizah</i>: this prohibition, according to Resh Lakish <i>infra</i> involving the penalty of <i>kareth</i>."
,k10b_8:" To the brothers. Why then was not this case also added to the fifteen? "
,k10b_9:" V. our Mishnah."
,k10b_10:" Her rival (as well as herself), being forbidden to all the other brothers (as brother's wife or as the <i>haluzah</i> of one of the brothers), can never have any of the wives of the brothers as her rival. In the case of the forbidden relatives in our Mishnah, they are forbidden to one of the brothers only, hence they or their rivals are not otherwise precluded from marrying one of the other brothers."
,k10b_11:" R. Johanan."
,k10b_12:" Lit., 'and he should say'."
,k10b_13:" Resh Lakish."
,k10b_14:" If they married the <i>haluzah</i>, their deceased brother's widow, with whom <i>halizah</i> had been performed by one of them. According to R. Johanan, <i>infra</i>, contrary to the view of Resh Lakish, no penalty of <i>kareth</i> is involved in such a marriage, whether the transgressor be the brother who performed the <i>halizah</i> or any of the other brothers."
,k10b_15:" Unlike those subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i> who are exempt from <i>halizah</i> and from the levirate marriage."
,k10b_16:" I.e., though the marriage with them is forbidden by a negative precept, they remain nevertheless under the obligations of the levirate relationship and must, therefore, undergo the ceremonial of <i>halizah</i>. Why, then, did not R. Johanan give Resh Lakish this reply which would well account for the omission from our Mishnah of the case he mentioned?"
,k10b_17:" R. Johanan."
,k10b_18:" Resh Lakish."
,k10b_19:" R. Johanan."
,k10b_20:" V. p. 48, n. 13."
,k10b_21:" V. p. 48, n. 14."
,k10b_22:" Cf. previous note."
,k10b_23:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 48, n. 9."
,k10b_24:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> I.e., for having intercourse with her. Consequently the betrothal is valid."
,k10b_25:" Consequently should any of the other brothers betroth the <i>haluzah</i>, the betrothal is invalid."
,k10b_26:" Of a <i>haluzah</i> (v. previous note). A rival is exempt from <i>halizah</i> and the levirate marriage by the action of the <i>haluzah</i>."
,k10b_27:" The levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i>."
,k10b_28:" V. <i>infra</i> 53a."
,k10b_29:" <i>Infra</i> 40b and l.c."
,k10b_30:" Deut. XXV, 9."
,k10b_31:" The imperfect [H] may be rendered as a present as well as a future."
,k10b_32:" I.e., under a negative precept only which involves no <i>kareth</i>."
,k10b_33:" I.e., under the prohibition to marry a brother's wife, which involves the penalty of <i>kareth</i>."
,k10b_34:" The <i>haluzah</i>."
,k10b_35:" What reason does he advance for his opinions?"
,k10b_36:" Lit., 'is there (such) a thing'?"
,k10b_37:" Lit., 'if he prefers, this one participates in the <i>halizah</i> and if he prefers etc.'"
,k10b_38:" Lit., 'and if he prefers he performs the <i>halizah</i> with that one and if he prefers etc'."
,k10b_39:" In case of a betrothal."
,k10b_40:" Though the others are not."
,k10b_41:" The brother who participated in the <i>halizah</i>."
,k10b_42:" The widow who performed the <i>halizah</i> ceremonial."
,k10b_43:" Hence all the brothers as well as all the rivals are in this respect in exactly the same position. As the brother and the widow who between them carried out the <i>halizah</i> ceremonial are in a case of subsequent marriage exempt from <i>kareth</i> and are subject only to the penalties of a negative precept, so also are all the others on whose behalf they acted."
,k10b_44:" Without issue."
,k10b_45:" In subsequently marrying the <i>haluzah</i>."
,k10b_46:" Since the negative precept which bars them from the levirate marriage does not supersede <i>halizah</i>."
,k10b_47:" Marriage with them would involve the penalty of <i>kareth</i>, and whenever such a penalty is involved the parties are not subject to the laws of <i>halizah</i>!"
,k10b_48:" Other than the one who participated in the <i>halizah</i>."
,k10b_49:" Lit., 'stood'."
,k10b_50:" I.e., the betrothal is invalid, she receives no <i>kethubah</i>, and no divorce is needed. This obviously proves that the penalty for such an ensuing marriage is <i>kareth</i>, as Resh Lakish maintains; for had it been, as R. Johanan asserts, that of a negative precept only, the betrothal should have been valid."
,k10b_51:" Keth. 29b, Kid. 64a, 68a, Sot. 18b, <i>infra</i> 52b, 69a."
,k10b_52:" So BaH, a.l. Cur. edd., 'he'."
,k10b_53:" Since it is the general opinion that such a betrothal is valid. >"
}

txt:
<p>
If his mother, however, was a woman that had been outraged by his father and was then married to his paternal brother who subsequently died, such a mother does exempt her rival.<a id="k10b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And though the Sages taught in our Mishnah FIFTEEN we must add a case like this as a sixteenth.
</p><p>
	Resh Lakish said to R. Johanan: According to Levi who maintains that an 'if'<a id="k10b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is also included,<a id="k10b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; let our Mishnah also include<a id="k10b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the case of a levir who gave <i>halizah</i> to his sister-in-law<a id="k10b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and later betrothed<a id="k10b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; her and died without issue, for since [the widow of such a one] is forbidden,<a id="k10b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; her rival also is forbidden!<a id="k10b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: Because in this case the law of the rival of the rival<a id="k10b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot be applied.<a id="k10b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But could he<a id="k10b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; not have answered<a id="k10b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; him<a id="k10b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [that the brothers] are only subject to the penalties of a negative precept,<a id="k10b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and that those who are subject to the penalties of a negative precept are<a id="k10b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; under the obligations of <i>halizah</i> and the levirate marriage?<a id="k10b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He<a id="k10b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; answered him<a id="k10b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with the view he<a id="k10b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; holds. 'According to my view,' he<a id="k10b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; argued, [the brothers] are only subject to the penalties of a negative precept,<a id="k10b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and those who are subject to the penalties of a negative precept are<a id="k10b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; under the obligations of <i>halizah</i> and the levirate marriage,<a id="k10b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; but even according to your view that they are subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i> [the case could not have been included in our Mishnah] because the law of the rival's rival cannot be applied'.<a id="k10b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been stated: Where [a levir] had performed the ceremonial of <i>halizah</i> with his sister-in-law, and then betrothed her, Resh Lakish holds that he is not subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i> for the <i>haluzah</i>,<a id="k10b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but the other brothers are subject to <i>kareth</i> for the <i>haluzah</i>.<a id="k10b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; In the case of the rival,<a id="k10b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; both he<a id="k10b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other brothers are subject to <i>kareth</i> for a rival.<a id="k10b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan, however, holds that neither he<a id="k10b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; nor the other brothers are subject to <i>kareth</i> either for the <i>haluzah</i> or for her rival.<a id="k10b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason of Resh Lakish? &mdash; Scripture stated, That doth not build,<a id="k10b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; since he has not built he must never again build.<a id="k10b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; He himself is thus placed under the prohibition of building no more,<a id="k10b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; but his brothers remain in the same position in which they were before.<a id="k10b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, the prohibition to build no more applies only to herself,<a id="k10b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; her rival, however, remains under the same prohibition as before.<a id="k10b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Johanan?<a id="k10b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Is it inconceivable<a id="k10b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; that at first <i>halizah</i> should be allowed to be performed by any one of the brothers<a id="k10b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and with either of the widows of the deceased brother<a id="k10b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and that now one or other of these persons should<a id="k10b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; be involved in <i>kareth</i>!<a id="k10b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; But [in point of fact] he<a id="k10b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; merely acts as agent for the brothers while she<a id="k10b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; acts as agent for her rival.<a id="k10b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan pointed out to Resh Lakish the following objection: 'If a levir who submitted to <i>halizah</i> from his sister-in-law, later betrothed her and died,<a id="k10b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [the widow] requires <i>halizah</i> from the surviving brothers'. Now, according to me who maintains that [the surviving brothers]<a id="k10b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; are subject to the penalties of a negative precept only, one can well understand why she requires <i>halizah</i> from the other brothers.<a id="k10b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; According to you, however, why should she require <i>halizah</i>?<a id="k10b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Explain, then, on the lines of your reasoning, the final clause, 'If one of the brothers<a id="k10b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; actually<a id="k10b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; betrothed her, she has no claim upon him'!<a id="k10b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shesheth replied: The final clause represents the opinion of R. Akiba who holds that a betrothal with those who are subject thereby to the penalties of a negative precept is of no validity.<a id="k10b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; Should it not then have been stated, 'according to the view of R. Akiba she<a id="k10b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; has no claim upon him'!<a id="k10b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k11a_1:" That any brother, other than the one who submitted to the <i>halizah</i>, who married the widow after she had performed the <i>halizah</i> is subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i> (v. <i>supra</i> 10b)."
,k11a_2:" The first clause of the statement cited in the discussion between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish, according to which <i>halizah</i> is required."
,k11a_3:" Who maintains that a brother born after the levirate marriage of his elder brother is not subject, in relation to the deceased brother, to the restriction of a 'brother who was not his contemporary'. The first clause then, which requires <i>halizah</i>, may consequently refer to brothers born after both the <i>halizah</i> and the betrothal had taken place. The widow of the levir not being forbidden to them on account of her first deceased husband, is subject to <i>halizah</i> on account of the second. (The final clause which clearly agrees with the view of Resh Lakish requires of course no explanation)."
,k11a_4:" Who maintains that the brother who performed the <i>halizah</i> as well as all the other brothers are forbidden to marry the widow subsequent to the <i>halizah</i>, not under the penalty of <i>kareth</i> but under that of a negative precept. Hence the ruling in the first clause that <i>halizah</i> is required."
,k11a_5:" The final clause. (Cf. n. 2 <i>supra</i>)."
,k11a_6:" Who hold that even a brother born after the levirate marriage (v. n. 3 <i>supra</i>) is subject to the restrictions of 'a brother who was not his contemporary'. The final clause may accordingly refer to such brothers to whom the widow is forbidden for this reason (not on account of the <i>halizah</i> that had been performed) and the marriage or betrothal with whom is consequently invalid. (The first clause obviously is in agreement with R. Johanan)."
,k11a_7:" In the case where the levir who betrothed her also died without issue."
,k11a_8:" After the <i>halizah</i> and the betrothal. Having been born after the <i>halizah</i> they have never been subject to the levirate relationship on account of the first deceased brother and the <i>halizah</i> of the levir had, therefore, imposed no restrictions upon them in relation to the widow."
,k11a_9:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 3. Hence it is the duty of one of these brothers to submit to <i>halizah</i> which is incumbent upon them as brothers of the levir who also died without issue."
,k11a_10:" Prior to the performance of the <i>halizah</i>."
,k11a_11:" Since according to Resh Lakish the performance of the <i>halizah</i> by one of the brothers had caused the prohibition of the widow upon all other contemporary brothers under the penalty of <i>kareth</i>, such a betrothal is invalid."
,k11a_12:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 51, n. 4."
,k11a_13:" After the performance of the <i>halizah</i>."
,k11a_14:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 51, n. 6."
,k11a_15:" The widow of his deceased childless brother."
,k11a_16:" For the other brother."
,k11a_17:" The precept is to perform one levirate marriage but not more than one, a transgression to which no penalty is attached."
,k11a_18:" In whose view (<i>supra</i> 10b) the levir who marries, or participates in <i>halizah</i> with the widow, does not act as the agent of the other brothers. Hence, despite the fact that in the levir's own case the prohibition to marry the rival is regarded as having the force of a positive precept, in that of the other brothers the original prohibition to marry a brother's wife remains in force and marriage with her involves, therefore, the penalty of <i>kareth</i>."
,k11a_19:" Who regards the levir as the agent of the brothers (<i>supra</i> 10b). Hence they are subject to the same prohibition. As in the levir's own case so in that of the other brothers the levirate obligations supersede the prohibition of marrying a brother's wife, and with it the original penalty of <i>kareth</i>."
,k11a_20:" [H], a married woman suspected of adultery, who is subject to the ordeal prescribed in Num. V, 12ff. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k11a_21:" To the levir; in the case where there are witnesses that the sotah had committed the crime and her husband subsequently died childless. The rival and certainly the sotah herself are in such a case exempt from both the levirate marriage and the <i>halizah</i>."
,k11a_22:" So BaH. Cur. edd. omit."
,k11a_23:" She being defiled. Num. V, 13."
,k11a_24:" Defile ye not yourselves. Lev. XVIII, 24. As the rival in the latter case is forbidden, so is she in the former."
,k11a_25:" The following refers to a case where a woman married a second husband on the basis of a report by one witness that her first husband had died in a foreign country. If later it was discovered that her first husband was alive, she must be divorced by both. If both died childless prior to the divorce she requires <i>halizah</i> from a brother of each but may not, according to the Rabbis, marry either of them."
,k11a_26:" Disagreeing with the Rabbis in one point."
,k11a_27:" Her second marriage having been entered into through an innocent error, no penalty is incurred by her as far as her relationship with the levir from the first marriage is concerned. Hence, in the opinion of R. Simeon, either marriage or <i>halizah</i> is permitted, v. <i>infra</i> 87a."
,k11a_28:" From this it follows that the rival of a married woman who had intercourse with another husband is permitted to the levir both according to R. Simeon and according to the Rabbis (the latter having only disputed the case of the married woman herself). Why, then, did Rab state that the rival of a sotah is forbidden?"
,k11a_29:" A woman that was faithless to her husband. (Num. V, 12ff)."
,k11a_30:" The woman who married a second husband under an honest misapprehension. Biblically she is permitted to live again with her husband since her second marriage was entered into on the basis of a report by a witness, on the strength of which she was by Biblical law fully permitted to contract the marriage."
,k11a_31:" He must surely have known that the one was Biblical and the other only Rabbinical! [H] rt. [H] or [H] (cf. [G]) 'to speak', 'enquire', 'argue'."
,k11a_32:" Lit., 'all that the Rabbis provided, like that of the Torah they provided'."
,k11a_33:" A woman suspected by her husband who warned her not to seclude herself with a certain man."
,k11a_34:" I.e., to her husband."
,k11a_35:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>; in the case where the husband is a priest. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; This is rather a difficulty.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi holds the same opinion as Resh Lakish<a id="k11a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and explains it<a id="k11a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with the ruling of R. Simeon.<a id="k11a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina holds the same opinion as R. Johanan<a id="k11a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and explains it<a id="k11a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with the ruling of the Rabbis.<a id="k11a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'R. Ashi holds the same opinion as Resh Lakish and explains it in accordance with the ruling of R. Simeon', thus: If [a levir] who submitted to <i>halizah</i> from his sister-in-law had subsequently betrothed her, she<a id="k11a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; requires <i>halizah</i> from the brothers. Who are these brothers? Those born [subsequently].<a id="k11a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; According to whose view? According to that of R. Simeon.<a id="k11a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; If one of the previously born<a id="k11a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; brothers, however, betrothed her, she has no claim upon him.<a id="k11a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; According to whose view? According to that of Resh Lakish.<a id="k11a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Rabina holds the same opinion as R. Johanan and explains it in accordance with the ruling of the Rabbis', thus: If [a levir] who submitted to <i>halizah</i> from his sister-in-law had subsequently betrothed her, she requires <i>halizah</i> from the brothers. Who are these brothers? Those born [prior to the <i>halizah</i>]. According to whom? According to R. Johanan.<a id="k11a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; If one of the subsequently<a id="k11a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; born brothers, however, betrothed her, she has no claim upon him. According to whose view? According to that of the Rabbis.<a id="k11a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been stated: In the case where [the Ievir] had intercourse with his sister-in-law<a id="k11a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and one of the other brothers had intercourse with her rival, there is a difference of opinion between R. Aha and Rabina. One said: [It involves<a id="k11a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; a transgression subject] to <i>kareth</i> and the other said: [The transgression] of a positive precept.<a id="k11a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; He who said, '[A transgression subject] to kareth' follows Resh Lakish;<a id="k11a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and he who said, '[The transgression] of a positive precept' follows R. Johanan.<a id="k11a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: The rival of a sotah<a id="k11a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; is for bidden.<a id="k11a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason?<a id="k11a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because uncleanness is ascribed to her<a id="k11a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; as to the cases of incest.<a id="k11a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda raised an objection:<a id="k11a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon<a id="k11a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; said, the intercourse<a id="k11a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; or <i>halizah</i> of the brother of the first husband exempts her rival!<a id="k11a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab can answer you, 'I speak of a sotah that is Biblically forbidden,<a id="k11a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and you talk of a sotah that is only Rabbinically forbidden'.<a id="k11a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But as to him who raised this objection, what did he imagine?<a id="k11a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He thought that Rabbinical provisions were given the same force as Biblical laws.<a id="k11a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi raised an objection: If she<a id="k11a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; entered with the man into a private place and remained with him for a period sufficient for the consummation of defilement, she is forbidden to her house,<a id="k11a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; she may not eat of <i>terumah</i>,<a id="k11a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and if he died she must undergo the ceremony of <i>halizah</i>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k11b_1:" If the sotah herself must go through the ceremony of <i>halizah</i>, much more so her rival; how then could Rab state that the rival of a sotah (and much more so the sotah herself, v. <i>supra</i> p. 53, n. 1) is exempt from <i>halizah</i>?"
,k11b_2:" Num. V, 13."
,k11b_3:" With a second husband who subsequently died or divorced her."
,k11b_4:" Where no marriage with the second man took place, and he died."
,k11b_5:" Deut. XXIV, 4, referring, in the opinion of R. Eleazar, to a divorced woman who had married a second husband."
,k11b_6:" Married or betrothed."
,k11b_7:" This is deduced by the Sages from And goeth and becometh another man's wife (Deut. XXIV, 2) which, they maintain, implies betrothal as well as marriage."
,k11b_8:" Lit., 'but what do I establish'."
,k11b_9:" That the husband must not take her back. This clearly shews that the expression of 'uncleanness' was also used concerning a doubtful sotah."
,k11b_10:" Lit., 'he took a nice (or superior) expression'."
,k11b_11:" Num. V, 13; what need, then, was there for the implication of the text of Deut. XXIV, 4?"
,k11b_12:" Of remarrying a sotah."
,k11b_13:" Lit., 'to cause to stand concerning it in a negative (prohibition)'; the negative can only be derived from Deut. XXIV, 4: May not take her again to be his wife."
,k11b_14:" Who applies the entire text to the remarriage of a divorced wife, whence does he derive the law concerning the sotah?"
,k11b_15:" Lit., 'it is written concerning it'."
,k11b_16:" Deut. XXIV, 2, And she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh ([H]) another man's wife."
,k11b_17:" Ibid., Or if the latter husband ([H]) die, implying that the divorced woman's connection with the second man must be that of 'husband and wife', i.e., lawful matrimony. In the case of the sotah the intercourse was unlawful and cannot come, therefore, under the prohibition of Deut. XXIV, 4."
,k11b_18:" Is the rival subject to the levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i>?"
,k11b_19:" Deut. XXIV, 4, dealing with a woman remarried after divorce. The text She is an abomination. [H], might be taken to imply that the designation, and consequently the restrictions, refer to the woman only ([H] = she) and not to her rival."
,k11b_20:" I.e., the exclusion of [H] may refer not to her rival but to her children who, unlike their mother who is regarded as an 'abomination', may marry into priestly families."
,k11b_21:" Describing the woman (or the act of remarrying the first husband after divorce and second marriage) as 'uncleanness'."
,k11b_22:" I.e., its bearing on the woman remarried (v. previous note), with whose case the text in its ordinary meaning is concerned, and consequently on her rival also."
,k11b_23:" The expression of uncleanness."
,k11b_24:" Lit., 'that it was uprooted it was uprooted', i.e., since it was removed from its context and applied to the sotah, it can never be re-applied to its original case. Hence a rival would not come under the same restrictions as the sotah herself."
,k11b_25:" To whom, consequently, the restrictions would not apply."
,k11b_26:" And consequently subject to the same restrictions as the woman herself."
,k11b_27:" Two widows of a brother who died without issue."
,k11b_28:" The levir."
,k11b_29:" <i>Infra</i> 44a, and thereby liberates also the other widow, her rival."
,k11b_30:" I.e., even to priests."
,k11b_31:" In case she was once, e.g., a divorced woman and is thus forbidden to marry a priest."
,k11b_32:" He being an ordinary Israelite."
,k11b_33:" Lit., 'and what is it'."
,k11b_34:" The deceased brother."
,k11b_35:" In which case the woman who was remarried is forbidden to the levir as she was forbidden to his deceased brother who had married her unlawfully, while her rival, having been lawfully married, is permitted to the levir."
,k11b_36:" Which clearly shews that the rival of a woman remarried by her former husband is subject to the levirate marriage."
,k11b_37:" Lit., 'because of'."
,k11b_38:" In the Mishnah cited where it is stated that <i>halizah</i> is to be performed with the forbidden one."
,k11b_39:" A man should not destroy anything which may be of use to others though it is of no use to him. In the case under discussion, the levir submits to <i>halizah</i> from the forbidden one and thus liberates the permitted one to marry even a priest to whom she would have been forbidden had the <i>halizah</i> been performed by her."
,k11b_40:" To a second husband who divorced her or died."
,k11b_41:" <i>Halizah</i> surely is performed by one of the widows only!"
,k11b_42:" Which supplies an answer to the enquiry addressed by Rab Judah to R. Shesheth."
,k11b_43:" 'He and her rival' was interpreted as 'Either etc.'"
,k11b_44:" In respect of the levirate marriage."
,k11b_45:" The remarried woman."
,k11b_46:" Her first husband."
,k11b_47:" Before she married her second husband."
,k11b_48:" The levir."
,k11b_49:" As brother's wife."
,k11b_50:" From the levirate marriage."
,k11b_51:" V. previous paragraph."
,k11b_52:" The levitate marriage. >"
}

txt:
<p>
though she may not marry the levir!<a id="k11b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab can answer you. 'I speak of a definite sotah, and you speak of a doubtful one'. But why should a definite sotah be different? Obviously because in relation to her the expression of 'uncleanness' is used;<a id="k11b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is not, however, the expression of 'uncleanness' also used in relation to a doubtful sotah! For it was taught: R. Jose b. Kipper said in the name of R. Eleazar, The remarriage by a husband of his divorced wife is forbidden after marriage<a id="k11b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and permitted after betrothal,<a id="k11b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; because it is stated in the Scriptures. After that she is defiled.<a id="k11b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; The Sages, however, say, the one as well as the other<a id="k11b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is forbidden,<a id="k11b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and the expression<a id="k11b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'After that she is defiled' implies the inclusion of a sotah who secluded herself with a man!<a id="k11b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The underlying meaning of 'secluded herself' is 'sexual intercourse'. Why then did he say 'secluded herself'? &mdash; In order to employ a euphemism.<a id="k11b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But in relation to sexual intercourse, [surely,] uncleanness was actually mentioned in the Scriptures. She being defiled secretly!<a id="k11b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; To subject the offence<a id="k11b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; to a negative precept.<a id="k11b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Jose b. Kipper?<a id="k11b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He does not hold the view that a negative precept is applicable to a sotah, even in the case where she had actually committed adultery. What is the reason? &mdash; [Because in reference to the remarriage of a divorced wife] Scripture uses the expression of<a id="k11b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; becoming<a id="k11b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; as well as that of matrimony.<a id="k11b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah inquired of R. Shesheth: What is the law in regard to the rival of a woman whom her former husband remarried after her second marriage and died?<a id="k11b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; According to the view of R. Jose b. Kipper the question does not arise. For R. Jose b. Kipper having stated that 'uncleanness' is mentioned in the case of him who remarried his divorced wife, it follows that her rival is subject to the very same restrictions. And if [objection be raised] from the Scriptural text, She is an abomination,<a id="k11b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be replied that the implication is] that she is an abomination and not her children,<a id="k11b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; her rival, however, being an abomination. The question, however, arises on the view of the Rabbis: Does the Scriptural text,<a id="k11b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; despite the fact that the Rabbis had applied the expression 'uncleanness' to the sotah, also bear its ordinary meaning,<a id="k11b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; or since it<a id="k11b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; was once torn away [from its ordinary meaning] it must in all respects so remain?<a id="k11b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Others say: According to the Rabbis no question arises, for since the text has once been torn away [from its ordinary meaning] it must in all respects so remain. The question, however, arises according to the view of R. Jose b. Kipper: What is the law? [Is it assumed that] although R. Jose b. Kipper stated that the expression of 'uncleanness' refers to the remarriage of a divorced wife, the All Merciful has written 'She is an abomination' to indicate that 'she' is an abomination but not her rival,<a id="k11b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; or is the implication, perhaps, that 'she' is an abomination, but her children are not; a rival, however, being an abomination?<a id="k11b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: You have learnt it, 'If one of them<a id="k11b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; was a permitted wife and the other a forbidden one; if he<a id="k11b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; submit to <i>halizah</i> he must submit to that of the forbidden one;<a id="k11b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and if he marries he marries the permitted one.'<a id="k11b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Now what is meant by 'permitted' and 'forbidden'? If it be suggested that 'permitted' means permitted for all the world,<a id="k11b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'forbidden' means forbidden for all the world,<a id="k11b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; what practical difference, in view of the fact that she is In either case suitable for him,<a id="k11b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; could this make to him? Consequently 'permitted' must mean permitted to him, and 'forbidden', forbidden to him; and this may happen where<a id="k11b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k11b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; remarried his divorced wife;<a id="k11b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet it was taught, 'and if he marries he marries the permitted one'!<a id="k11b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; 'permitted' may still mean permitted to all the world<a id="k11b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'forbidden', forbidden for all the world;<a id="k11b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and as to your question, 'what practical difference, in view of the fact that she is in either case suitable for him, could this make', one must take into account the moral lesson<a id="k11b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Joseph. For R. Joseph stated: Here<a id="k11b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi taught that a man shall not pour the water out of his cistern so long as others may require it.<a id="k11b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: 'Where a man remarried his divorced wife after she had been married,<a id="k11b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; she and her rival are to perform the <i>halizah</i>.' Is it possible to say 'she and her rival'?<a id="k11b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it must mean, 'Either she or her rival.'<a id="k11b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Did you not, however, have recourse to an interpretation?<a id="k11b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [You might as well] interpret thus: She is to perform <i>halizah</i>, while her rival may either perform <i>halizah</i> or be married by the levir.
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abba said: R. Johanan inquired as to what is the law<a id="k11b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; in regard to a rival of a divorced woman whom her former husband remarried after her second marriage. Said R. Ammi to him: Enquire rather regarding herself!<a id="k11b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Concerning herself I have no question since her case may be inferred a minori ad majus: If she is forbidden to him<a id="k11b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; to whom she was originally<a id="k11b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; permitted, how much more so to the man<a id="k11b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; to whom she was originally<a id="k11b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; forbidden!<a id="k11b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; The question, however, remains concerning her rival: Is the inference a minori ad majus strong enough to exclude a rival<a id="k11b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. Isaac taught as follows: R. Hiyya b. Abba said, R. Johanan enquired as to what is the law<a id="k11b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; in regard to a divorced woman whom her husband remarried after her second marriage. Said R. Ammi to him: Enquire rather regarding her rival! &mdash; Concerning her rival I have no question, for an inference a minori ad majus<a id="k11b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; is not strong enough to exclude a rival;<a id="k11b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; the question, how ever, remains regarding herself. Is the inference a minori ad majus strong enough [to be acted upon] where a precept<a id="k11b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; is involved or not?
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k12a_1:" This reply applies to both versions of the inquiry."
,k12a_2:" Which shews that for the rival levirate marriage is permitted while for the remarried woman herself it is forbidden. For further notes v. <i>supra</i> p. 56."
,k12a_3:" For notes v. <i>supra</i> p. 56f."
,k12a_4:" Which supplies answers to the enquiries raised by R. Johanan in both versions."
,k12a_5:" A minor who declared her refusal to marry the levir. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>mi'un</i>."
,k12a_6:" Of the levir."
,k12a_7:" The minor who refused to marry the levir."
,k12a_8:" To marry the other brothers."
,k12a_9:" <i>Infra</i> 107b."
,k12a_10:" To the levir whom the minor had refused. The refusal removes the precept of the levirate marriage and in respect of the rival the prohibition of marrying a brother's wife comes again into force."
,k12a_11:" V. p. 58, n. 6."
,k12a_12:" From her rival."
,k12a_13:" Her refusal having been confined to one of the brothers only."
,k12a_14:" Not even against one of them. Why then is she forbidden to the levir?"
,k12a_15:" Who comes in the category of forbidden relatives whose rivals also are forbidden. On the possibility of <i>mi'un</i> during a father's lifetime, v. <i>supra</i> p. 2, n. 6."
,k12a_16:" If the one were permitted the other also might erroneously be married."
,k12a_17:" So BaH. Cur. edd. omit."
,k12a_18:" Which was already mentioned."
,k12a_19:" And yet, as our Mishnah shews, her rival is permitted in all cases enumerated, i.e., even in that of one's daughter."
,k12a_20:" Actual divorce and one by <i>mi'un</i>."
,k12a_21:" From that of the levir."
,k12a_22:" A minor who was married to a stranger."
,k12a_23:" Her declaration of refusal having completely annulled the original betrothal, she is no more his daughter-in-law."
,k12a_24:" Her former marriage having once subjected her to levirate relationship, she must be regarded as the levir's father's daughter-in-law. V. <i>infra</i> 13a."
,k12a_25:" Lit., 'falling'."
,k12a_26:" The levir's father's."
,k12a_27:" In the case of the rival of one's daughter who made the declaration of refusal."
,k12a_28:" The daughter."
,k12a_29:" I.e., if one of the widows of the brother who died without issue is such the other also is forbidden."
,k12a_30:" Deut. XXV, 6."
,k12a_31:" Hence she herself is forbidden as a brother's wife, and her rival as the rival of a forbidden relative."
,k12a_32:" The widow of the deceased."
,k12a_33:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k12a_34:" The widows of the two dead brothers."
,k12a_35:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k12a_36:" May marry the levir."
,k12a_37:" I.e., where the second brother had actually married her and has thus severed all her connections with the first. In such a case as in that of the usual levirate she would stand in relation to the third brother as the widow of one brother only."
,k12a_38:" The formula of betrothal or ma'amar addressed to her by the second brother has only partially attached her to him and has not completely severed her connection with her husband, the first brother. She thus remains tied to the two, and consequently entirely forbidden the levirate marriage."
,k12a_39:" Of the levirate marriage."
,k12a_40:" Lit., 'falling'. Her levirate relationship with the third brother being due to her partial connection with each of the two dead brothers."
,k12a_41:" The widow not being one of the relatives forbidden by the Torah. The prohibition of the levirate marriage in her case is only Rabbinical, the Biblical text cited being a mere <i>asmakta</i>."
,k12a_42:" How, then, could R. Assi state that a rival of one incapable of procreation is forbidden?"
,k12a_43:" Which seems to imply that only this case is forbidden but not the other."
,k12a_44:" A woman incapable of procreation."
,k12a_45:" The prohibition being derived from Deut. XXV, 6 <i>supra</i>."
,k12a_46:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 1."
,k12a_47:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 2."
,k12a_48:" Lit., 'here', in R. Assi's statement."
,k12a_49:" The husband now deceased."
,k12a_50:" At the time their marriage took place. Having known her defect he was not in any way misled, and the marriage, therefore, is valid. Her rival is consequently the rival of a legally married wife who is incapable of procreation and is forbidden by the deduction from Deut. XXV, 6."
,k12a_51:" Our Mishnah."
,k12a_52:" The husband now deceased."
,k12a_53:" At the time he married her. Since her defect was unknown to him the marriage which had taken place under a misapprehension is invalid. The woman, therefore, is not his lawful wife, and her rival cannot be regarded as a legal rival. Hence the statement in our Mishnah that such a rival is permitted."
,k12a_54:" Implying discovery after the event, i.e., after the marriage. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; The other replied,<a id="k12a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; You have learned it: If one of them was a permitted wife and the other a forbidden one; if she submits to <I>halizah</I> he must submit to that of the forbidden one; and if he marries, he marries the permitted one. Now, what is meant by 'permitted' and 'forbidden'? If it be suggested that 'permitted' means permitted to all the world and 'forbidden' means forbidden to all the world, what practical difference, in view of the fact that she is in either case suitable for him, could this make to him? Consequently 'permitted' must mean permitted to him, and 'forbidden', forbidden to him; and this may happen where he remarries his divorced wife; and yet it was taught. 'If he marries he marries the permitted one'!<a id="k12a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; 'permitted' may still mean permitted to all the world, and 'forbidden', forbidden to all the world; and as to your question. 'What practical difference, in view of the fact that she is in either case suitable for him, could this make'? One must take into account the moral lesson of R. Joseph. For R. Joseph said: Here, Rabbi taught that a man shall not pour the water out of his cistern so long as others may require it.<a id="k12a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: 'Where a man remarried his divorced wife after she had been married, she and her rival are to perform <I>halizah</I>.' Is it possible to say 'she and her rival'? Consequently it must mean, 'either she or her rival.'<a id="k12a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Did you not, however, have recourse to an interpretation? [You might as well] interpret thus: She is to perform <I>halizah</I>, while her rival may either perform <I>halizah</I> or be married by the levir.
</p><p>
	R. Levi b. Memel said in the name of Mar 'Ukba in the name of Samuel: The rival of a <I>mema'eneth</I><a id="k12a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is forbidden. To whom [is she forbidden]? If it be suggested, to the brothers,<a id="k12a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be retort ed], now that she herself<a id="k12a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted,<a id="k12a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; for Samuel said, 'If she refused one brother she is permitted to marry the other',<a id="k12a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is there any question that her rival is permitted!<a id="k12a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence [it means] to himself.<a id="k12a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Wherein, however, does the <I>mema'eneth</I><a id="k12a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; differ<a id="k12a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; that she is in consequence permitted to the other brothers? Obviously, in that she had taken no action in relation to them;<a id="k12a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but her rival also had taken no action in relation to them!<a id="k12a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is an enactment made to prevent marriage with the rival of one's daughter<a id="k12a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; who was a <I>mema'eneth</I>.<a id="k12a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Is, however, the rival of one's daughter who is a <I>mema'eneth</I> forbidden? Surely we learned, IF, HOWEVER, ANY AMONG THESE DIED, OR MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL, OR WERE DIVORCED<a id="k12a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [etc.] THEIR RIVALS ARE PERMITTED. Now, against whom was the declaration of refusal made? If it be suggested that she refused the husband, then this case is identical with that of a divorced woman.<a id="k12a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently it must refer to refusal of the levir!<a id="k12a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; it may, in fact, refer to the refusal of a husband, but there are two kinds of divorce.<a id="k12a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Wherein, however, does the refusal of a husband differ?<a id="k12a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Obviously in that she thereby annuls the original marriage; but when she refused the levir she has also annulled the original marriage! &mdash; [It differs] in respect of what Rami b. Ezekiel had learnt. For Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: If she<a id="k12a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; declared her refusal against the husband she is permitted to marry his father;<a id="k12a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; if against the levir, she is forbidden to his father.<a id="k12a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; From this it clearly follows that from the moment she becomes subject to the levirate marriage<a id="k12a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; she is looked upon as his<a id="k12a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; daughter-in-law; similarly here also<a id="k12a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; she is looked upon as the rival of his daughter from the moment she<a id="k12a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; becomes subject to the levirate marriage.
</p><p>
	Said R. Assi: The rival of a woman incapable of procreation is forbidden;<a id="k12a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said in the Scriptures, And it shall be that the firstborn that she beareth,<a id="k12a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; which excludes a woman incapable of procreation, since she does not bear.<a id="k12a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shesheth raised an objection: In the case where three brothers were married to three women who were strangers to one another, and one of them having died, the second brother addressed to her<a id="k12a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; a ma'amar<a id="k12a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and died, behold these<a id="k12a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; must perform the <I>halizah</I> but may not marry the levir; for it is said, And one of them die [etc.] her husband's brother shall go in unto her,<a id="k12a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; only she<a id="k12a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; who is tied to one levir<a id="k12a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; but not she who is tied to two levirs;<a id="k12a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and concerning this it was taught: R. Joseph said, 'This is the rival of a paternal brother's wife whose prohibition<a id="k12a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; is due to her double subjection to the levirate marriage,<a id="k12a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; a case the like of which we do not find through out the Torah'.<a id="k12a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, what does the expression 'This is' exclude? Does it not exclude the rival of a woman incapable of procreation, who is permitted!<a id="k12a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; it excludes the rival of a woman incapable of procreation who is forbidden. What, then, is meant by the expression, 'This is'?<a id="k12a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is that in this case, where the subjection to the levirate marriage has caused the prohibition, her rival requires <I>halizah</I>; in the case, however, of a woman incapable of procreation even <I>halizah</I> is not required. What is the reason? &mdash; The prohibition of the one<a id="k12a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; is Pentateuchal;<a id="k12a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; that of the other only Rabbinical.<a id="k12a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt; IF, HOWEVER, ANY AMONG THESE DIED, OR MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL, OR WERE DIVORCED, OR WERE FOUND INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION, THEIR RIVALS ARE PERMITTED!<a id="k12a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is no difficulty; the one<a id="k12a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; is a case where he<a id="k12a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; knew her defect<a id="k12a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other<a id="k12a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; is a case where<a id="k12a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; he did not know of it.<a id="k12a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; The inference from our Mishnah also proves this; for it was stated WERE FOUND<a id="k12a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; and not 'were'. This proves it.
</p><p>
	Raba said:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k12b_1:" The deceased brother, at the time when he married."
,k12b_2:" And nevertheless consented to the marriage, which is consequently valid, and the woman is his lawful wife."
,k12b_3:" The rival of a forbidden relative is forbidden only where the latter would have been subject to the precept of the levirate marriage if she had been no relative. In the case of a wife incapable of procreation, however, since she is not subject to the levirate marriage even where she is no relative at all, her rival even where she (the wife) is a forbidden relative, is regarded as the rival of one in relation to whom the precept of levirate marriage is not applicable at all. Cf. [H] quoted by Rashi."
,k12b_4:" V. p. 61, n. 14."
,k12b_5:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k12b_6:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>mi'un</i>. In this case it refers to one who refused the levir (V. Rashi a.l.)."
,k12b_7:" After she had been married by a second husband who divorced her or died."
,k12b_8:" [So Rashi. R. <i>Tam</i>: Should use, v. Tosaf s.v. [H]"
,k12b_9:" [H], hackled wool or flax."
,k12b_10:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">To prevent conception.</font>"
,k12b_11:" May use the absorbent."
,k12b_12:" Lit., 'perhaps'."
,k12b_13:" [H] lit., 'a flat fish', i.e., a flat, fish-shaped abortion due to superfetation."
,k12b_14:" Owing to her second conception."
,k12b_15:" Who is capable of conception but exposed thereby to the danger of death."
,k12b_16:" When no conception is possible."
,k12b_17:" When pregnancy involves no fatal consequences."
,k12b_18:" To save her from danger."
,k12b_19:" Ps. CXVI, 6; those who are unable to protect themselves."
,k12b_20:" Lit., 'there is'."
,k12b_21:" Lit., 'we found'."
,k12b_22:" In the case, for instance, where the minor gave birth to a child in her twelfth year and that child was betrothed before the year was over. The minor who thus becomes a mother-in-law is entitled to make a declaration of refusal before, and until she enters her thirteenth year."
,k12b_23:" I.e., while conception is a matter of doubt, death is a certainty whenever conception happened to take place."
,k12b_24:" A minor."
,k12b_25:" The age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve and one day."
,k12b_26:" Rabbah does not state, 'since they already grew up' but 'gave birth', which proves that even a minor (not yet grown up) is capable of bearing living children."
,k12b_27:" From here it appears that a minor can bear children while from our Mishnah it follows that she cannot."
,k12b_28:" As soon, therefore, as she gave birth to a child the minor is assumed to have passed out of the age of minority into that of puberty. Hence it is impossible for a mother, whatever her age, ever to make a declaration of refusal to which a minor only is entitled."
,k12b_29:" I.e., <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">the pubic hair.</font>"
,k12b_30:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">The growth of two hairs which the Rabbis regard as a definite mark of puberty not being considered by R. Judah as conclusive proof</font>. Keth. 36a, B.B. 156a, Nid. 52a."
,k12b_31:" That they provide definite proof of puberty irrespective of the state of the hair. "
}

txt:
<p>
The law is that the rival of a woman incapable of procreation is permitted, even though he<a id="k12b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; knew her 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E152"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/152.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 152<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">



defect,<a id="k12b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and even the rival of one's own daughter who was incapable of procreation [is permitted].<a id="k12b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But what about the expression WERE FOUND<a id="k12b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; in our Mishnah? &mdash; Read, 'were'.
</p><p>
	When Rabin came<a id="k12b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; he stated in the name of R. Johanan: The rival of a <I>mema'eneth</I>,<a id="k12b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the rival of a woman incapable of procreation, as well as the rival of a divorced woman who had been remarried to her former husband,<a id="k12b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; are all permitted.
</p><p>
	R. Bebai recited before R. Nahman: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Three [categories of] women may<a id="k12b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; use an absorbent<a id="k12b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; in their marital intercourse:<a id="k12b_10"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">10</font></sup></a>&nbsp; A minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. The minor,<a id="k12b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; because [otherwise] she might<a id="k12b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; become pregnant</font>, and as a result<a id="k12b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; might die. A pregnant woman,<a id="k12b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; because [otherwise]. she might<a id="k12b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; cause her foetus to degenerate into a <I>sandal</I>.<a id="k12b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; A nursing woman,<a id="k12b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; because [otherwise] she might<a id="k12b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; have to wean her child prematurely<a id="k12b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and this would result in his death. <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">And what is the age of such a minor?<a id="k12b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under,<a id="k12b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; or over this age<a id="k12b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.</font> This is the opinion of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in the usual manner</font>, and mercy will be vouchsafed from heaven,<a id="k12b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said in the Scriptures<i> The Lord preserveth the simple</i>.<a id="k12b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Since it has been stated, 'because she might become pregnant and as a result might die' it may be implied that it is possible for<a id="k12b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; a minor to be pregnant and not die. But, if so, one could imagine a case where<a id="k12b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; a mother-in-law should be in a position to make a declaration of refusal,<a id="k12b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas we learned, ONE CANNOT SAY OF A MAN'S MOTHER-IN-LAW, THE MOTHER OF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW AND THE MOTHER OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW THAT THEY WERE FOUND INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION OR THAT THEY MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL! &mdash; Read, 'because she might become pregnant and die';<a id="k12b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; for Rabbah b. Liwai said: She<a id="k12b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is subject to an age limitation. Prior to that period<a id="k12b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; she does not conceive at all; during that period<a id="k12b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; she dies and her embryo dies; after that period<a id="k12b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; both she and her embryo survive. But is it really so? Surely, Rabbah b. Samuel recited: One cannot say of a man's mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law and the mother of his father-in-law that they were found incapable of procreation or that they made a declaration of refusal, since they have already given birth to children!<a id="k12b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [the reading], in fact, is, 'because she might become pregnant and as a result might die'. But, [then, the previously mentioned] difficulty remains!<a id="k12b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Safra replied: Children are like marks of puberty.<a id="k12b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Others Say: Children are 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E153"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/153.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 153<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">



more conclusive proof than the marks of puberty. What practical difference is there between the two statements? &mdash; [It is this: That] even he who follows <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">R. Judah who stated, '[a girl may exercise the right of refusal] until the black<a id="k12b_29"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">29</font></sup></a>&nbsp; predominates'</font><a id="k12b_30"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">30</font></sup></a>&nbsp; admits in the case of children.<a id="k12b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k13a_1:" Should an apparent minor, whatever her age, ever give birth to a child it must be taken for granted that the marks of puberty had already appeared, and the age of minority had passed."
,k13a_2:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Why should the existence of the marks be left to conjecture when an examination would definitely determine the facts?</font>"
,k13a_3:" And the examination would prove nothing."
,k13a_4:" This is a question in dispute in Nid. 46a."
,k13a_5:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Which may have caused the falling off of the hair.</font>"
,k13a_6:" Lit., 'these words'. That a rival's rival is also exempt."
,k13a_7:" Lev. XVIII, 18, to be a rival. V. <i>supra</i> 3b."
,k13a_8:" For explanation, v. p. 12, n. 8."
,k13a_9:" The exemption of a rival's rival."
,k13a_10:" The brother now deceased."
,k13a_11:" The rival."
,k13a_12:" His first wife, the forbidden relative. In such a case, is the rival, <I>though the two were rivals prior to the divorce</I>, permitted to the levir wherever the forbidden relative was dead or divorced at the time their husband died and the question of the levirate marriage arose?"
,k13a_13:" Lit., 'her',"
,k13a_14:" <i>Infra</i> 30a."
,k13a_15:" Why the rival in this case is permitted."
,k13a_16:" Of one of the sisters."
,k13a_17:" Of the widow."
,k13a_18:" How, then, could this be reconciled with our Mishnah from which it has been inferred that 'even if he married first and then divorced' the rival is permitted?"
,k13a_19:" [H] rt. [H] Heb. [H] 'break', 'divide'."
,k13a_20:" Of our Mishnah."
,k13a_21:" Of the husband."
,k13a_22:" And if at that time the women were no longer rivals it matters little whether marriage or divorce (cf. <i>supra</i> nn. 5 and 4) took place first."
,k13a_23:" The Tanna of the Mishnah cited from 30a <i>infra</i>."
,k13a_24:" Consequently, if the marriage of the second took place after the divorce of the first, levirate marriage is permitted since the two have never been real rivals. If, however, the marriage preceded the divorce, even if only by a fraction of time, the two have become rivals, and the rival of a forbidden relative is forbidden for ever, even after the rivalry had ceased."
,k13a_25:" The statements and arrangement of our Mishnah and that cited from 30a <i>infra</i>"
,k13a_26:" [H], one of the systems adopted in arranging legal statements. Our Mishnah permits 'this', the case of the rival whose marriage preceded the divorce of the forbidden relative, and consequently 'there is no need to state that', the case (<i>infra</i> 30a) of a rival whose marriage followed the divorce of the forbidden relative. (Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 12)."
,k13a_27:" The forbidden relative who is still a minor."
,k13a_28:" And thus annul the original marriage."
,k13a_29:" Since as a result of the annulment of the marriage the other would no more be the rival of a forbidden relative."
,k13a_30:" As such a declaration is not allowed."
,k13a_31:" A minor."
,k13a_32:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Since the actual marriage had not yet taken place."
,k13a_33:" She has only to perform the <i>halizah</i>; but there is no need for a divorce which would have been required had she been of age (v. <i>infra</i> 50b)."
,k13a_34:" I.e., she has no power to annul the original marriage in order to be exempt thereby from <i>halizah</i> also. Similarly here (v. note 4) the declaration of the minor has no force to annul the original marriage and thus (v. <i>supra</i> note 3) to enable her rival to marry the levir."
,k13a_35:" The inference from our Mishnah provides no support for R. Oshaia."
,k13a_36:" The prohibition of a minor's declaration in this case is not Biblical, but a Rabbinical enactment made in order to prevent laxity in the law of rivals of forbidden relatives (cf. <i>infra</i> n. 17)."
,k13a_37:" The refusal having completely annulled the marriage, the minor and her former father-in-law are now mere strangers."
,k13a_38:" I.e., after the death of her husband, when she became subject to the levirate marriage of his brother."
,k13a_39:" Her former father-in-law who is also the father of the levir whom she refused."
,k13a_40:" Lit., 'falling'."
,k13a_41:" The levir's father's."
,k13a_42:" The case of a rival of one's daughter."
,k13a_43:" Had the original marriage been allowed to be annulled by the daughter's present declaration, and had her rival in consequence been permitted to marry the minor's father, any rival of one's daughter might similarly be allowed and thus an important restriction against incest would be broken down. (V. <i>supra</i> n. 10 and cf. text and notes, <i>supra</i> 12a)."
,k13a_44:" The fifteen enumerated in the previous Mishnah, <i>supra</i> 2af."
,k13a_45:" But never to one's paternal brothers."
,k13a_46:" Though they themselves ate forbidden. Their husbands having been strangers, the law prohibiting the marriage of rivals, which is only applicable in connection with the levirate marriage, does not apply. Should one's brother unlawfully marry one of these six relatives his marriage would be regarded as null and void and the law relating to the rivals would still be inapplicable. (Cf. Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah a.l.)."
,k13a_47:" Who is also forbidden to his paternal brother as 'his father's wife'."
,k13a_48:" Who obviously stands in the same relationship to his paternal brother."
,k13a_49:" In respect of the levirate marriage. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Zebid, however, stated: No children are possible prior to the appearance of the marks of puberty.<a id="k13a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Then let an examination be held!<a id="k13a_2"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">2 </font></sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is the possibility that they might have fallen off</font>.<a id="k13a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; This reply is perfectly satisfactory according to him who holds that such a possibility is taken into consideration;<a id="k13a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; what, however, can be said according to him who holds that no such contingency need be considered? &mdash; Even according to him who holds that no such contingency need be considered, <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">the possibility must be taken into consideration in this case on account of the pains of birth</font>.<a id="k13a_5"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">5 </font></sup></a>
</p><p>
	HOW IS THE EXEMPTION OF THEIR RIVALS [BY THE WOMEN MENTIONED] TO BE UNDERSTOOD? Etc. Whence is this law<a id="k13a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; deduced? &mdash; Rab Judah replied: [From] Scripture which stated, li-zeror,<a id="k13a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [implying that] the Torah included many rivals.<a id="k13a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi replied. 'It<a id="k13a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is arrived at by reasoning: Why is a rival forbidden? Surely because she takes the place of the forbidden relative; the rival's rival also takes the place of the forbidden relative'.
</p><p>
	HOW [IS ONE TO UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT THAT] IF THEY HAD DIED etc. Even if he<a id="k13a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; married<a id="k13a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; first and then divorced?<a id="k13a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; This, then, would be contradictory [to the following Mishnah]: '[The case of] three brothers two of whom were married to two sisters and the third was married to a stranger, and one of the husbands of the sisters divorced his wife while the one who married the stranger died, and he who had divorced his wife then married the widow<a id="k13a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and died, is one concerning which it has been said, that if they died or were divorced, their rivals are permitted'.<a id="k13a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason, then,<a id="k13a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is because the divorce<a id="k13a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; took place first and the marriage<a id="k13a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; was subsequent to it, but had the marriage<a id="k13a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; taken place first and the divorce<a id="k13a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; after it, [the rival would] not [have been permitted]!<a id="k13a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Jeremiah replied: Break it up:<a id="k13a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; He who taught the one did not teach the other. The one Tanna<a id="k13a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that it is the death<a id="k13a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; which subjects the widow to the levirate marriage<a id="k13a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other<a id="k13a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; holds the opinion that it is the original marriage that subjects her to the levirate marriage.<a id="k13a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: [Both statements] may, in fact, represent the views of [one Tanna,] it<a id="k13a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; being a case of 'this; and there is no need to state that'.<a id="k13a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	WHOSOEVER IS ENTITLED TO MAKE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL [etc.]. Then let her<a id="k13a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; declare her refusal now<a id="k13a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and thus enable [her rival] to be married to the levir!<a id="k13a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; May it then<a id="k13a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; be suggested that this supports R. Oshaiah? For R. Oshaiah said: She<a id="k13a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; may annul [the levir's] ma'amar<a id="k13a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; by her declaration of refusal,<a id="k13a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; but may not sever by such a declaration the levirate bond!<a id="k13a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No;<a id="k13a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; the case of the rival of a forbidden relative is different;<a id="k13a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; for Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: If a minor made a declaration of refusal against her husband she is permitted to marry his father.<a id="k13a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, she made her declaration of refusal against the levir<a id="k13a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; she is forbidden to marry his father.<a id="k13a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; From this it clearly follows that from the moment she becomes subject to the levirate marriage<a id="k13a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; she is looked upon as his<a id="k13a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; daughter-in-law; similarly here also<a id="k13a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; she is looked upon as the rival of his daughter from the moment she becomes subject to the levirate marriage.<a id="k13a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IN THE CASE OF THE FOLLOWING] SIX RELATIVES, MARRIAGE WITH WHOM IS MORE RESTRICTED THAN WITH THESE,<a id="k13a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THAT THEY MAY ONLY BE MARRIED TO STRANGERS,<a id="k13a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; MARRIAGE WITH THEIR RIVALS IS PERMITTED:<a id="k13a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS MOTHER.<a id="k13a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS FATHER'S WIFE,<a id="k13a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS FATHER'S SISTER,<a id="k13a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS PATERNAL SISTER.<a id="k13a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS FATHER'S BROTHER'S WIFE<a id="k13a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HIS PATERNAL BROTHER'S WIFE.<a id="k13a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BETH SHAMMAI PERMIT THE RIVALS<a id="k13a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; TO THE SURVIVING BROTHERS, AND BETH HILLEL PROHIBIT THEM.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k13b_1:" The rivals."
,k13b_2:" With the brothers."
,k13b_3:" In the opinion of Beth Shammai the <i>halizah</i> is legal and any woman who performed legal <i>halizah</i> is, like one divorced, forbidden to marry a priest."
,k13b_4:" In their opinion the <i>halizah</i> was unnecessary and may, therefore, be treated as if it had never taken place."
,k13b_5:" When their husbands die."
,k13b_6:" Because having married persons to whom they are forbidden they are regarded as harlots who are ineligible ever to marry a priest."
,k13b_7:" Lit., 'do clean things, these upon these'."
,k13b_8:" For permitting the rivals to marry the other brothers."
,k13b_9:" [H] is rendered, 'the one who is the outside one', the word being regarded as an adjective fem. with the relative. E.V., 'abroad'."
,k13b_10:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k13b_11:" I.e., the one who is not otherwise related to the levir."
,k13b_12:" Related to the levir."
,k13b_13:" But only unto her husband's brother (Deut. XXV, 5), which shews that a rival is permitted to the other brothers."
,k13b_14:" Who prohibit the rival to the brothers, how do they explain this text?"
,k13b_15:" Before <i>halizah</i> had been performed."
,k13b_16:" Lit., 'she shall not be', [H] (rt. [H])."
,k13b_17:" Cf. E.V. for [H], <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k13b_18:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k13b_19:" Lit., 'a stranger shall have no <i>being</i> ([H] of the root [H]) in her'."
,k13b_20:" [H], lit., 'to the outside'."
,k13b_21:" [H], v. <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k13b_22:" [H]."
,k13b_23:" To indicate direction."
,k13b_24:" The <i>he</i> being the<i> he local</i>."
,k13b_25:" Lit., 'he recited' or 'taught'."
,k13b_26:" 'To [H] appears as [H] (Ex. XV, 27) instead of [H]."
,k13b_27:" 'To [H] appears as [H] (II Sam. XVII, 24) instead of [H]."
,k13b_28:" 'To [H], Gen. XII, 10."
,k13b_29:" 'To [H] (Num. XXXIII, 47)."
,k13b_30:" 'To [H] (Jerusalem) [H] (Ezek. VIII, 3)."
,k13b_31:" 'To [H] (wilderness or place-name) [H] (I Chron. V, 9)."
,k13b_32:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k13b_33:" To the deceased brother. Such a widow also is subject to the levirate marriage as if she had been actually married. <i>'Huzah'</i> implies (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 68, n. 3) 'outside', i.e., one who is not within the marriage bond."
,k13b_34:" The addition of the <i>'he'</i> in [H] where [H] would have conveyed the same meaning implies the inclusion of the betrothed. (V. n. 6.)"
,k13b_35:" V. p. 68, n. 2, <i>supra</i>."
,k13b_36:" That, e.g., of marrying a brother's wife."
,k13b_37:" That of marrying a forbidden relative (e.g., a daughter). Since the latter prohibition takes no effect in such a case, the forbidden relative whom the levirate bond does not consequently affect may be regarded as non-existent, so far as her levirate obligations are concerned. Her rivals, therefore, come under the category of complete strangers and are consequently permitted to the brothers."
,k13b_38:" A sister of his brother's wife."
,k13b_39:" Which arose later."
,k13b_40:" As legally the widow is only 'his brother's wife' but not 'his wife's sister', her rivals may justly be regarded as strangers who are permitted."
,k13b_41:" And his wife's sister has in consequence become forbidden to him."
,k13b_42:" When the prohibition of a brother's wife arose."
,k13b_43:" And consequently had taken effect; why then are her rivals permitted? This objection is based on the assumption that Raba, in stating the prohibition of marrying a forbidden relative cannot take effect owing to the prohibition of 'brother's wife', was referring only to such prohibitions as are due to a marriage contract, e.g., a wife's sister."
,k13b_44:" Lit., 'in the place'."
,k13b_45:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 69, n. 10."
,k13b_46:" What need then was there for stating it."
,k13b_47:" Of forbidden relatives."
,k13b_48:" And being subject to <i>halizah</i>, even though on account of a Rabbinical ordinance only, it might have been assumed that they are ineligible for marriage with a priest. (Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 67, n. 9.)"
,k13b_49:" Indicating that the rivals in such a case are not even Rabbinically subject to the <i>halizah</i>."
,k13b_50:" For the reason given <i>supra</i>. V. previous note."
,k13b_51:" [H] <i>Halizah</i> and marriage usually being the only alternatives."
,k13b_52:" [H] 'scroll', always signifies in Rabbinical literature the Scroll of Esther, unless the context explicitly or implicitly points to any other scroll."
,k13b_53:" According to whether the readers live in a village, a town, or a town that had been walled in the days of Joshua, and according to the day of the week on which the feast of Purim occurs."
,k13b_54:" Than the eleventh."
,k13b_55:" Than the fifteenth. Meg. 2a."
,k13b_56:" [H] (Deut. XIV, 1), rendered by E.V. Ye shall not cut yourselves, is here taken as a form of the root [H], 'to bind', implying the formation of separate groups, sects, factions."
,k13b_57:" Why, then, was the Scroll allowed to be read on different days by different classes of people?"
,k13b_58:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 13 for the rendering of E.V."
,k13b_59:" Which would have implied the prohibition of cutting or bruising the body. (V. p. 70, n. 13.)"
,k13b_60:" The longer form, the <i>Hithpael</i>."
,k13b_61:" Lit., 'for this it came', to imply both 'cutting the body for the dead', and 'the formation of sects'."
,k13b_62:" The formation of sects."
,k13b_63:" Which would have been understood to refer to the undesirable formation of sects."
,k13b_64:" It has thus been shewn that the formation of sects is undesirable; why then was it allowed to form separate groups to read the Scroll of Esther on different dates?"
,k13b_65:" Or 'You should have replied' (Rashi)."
,k13b_66:" Which shews that, despite the undesirability of forming separate groups, different customs are allowed."
,k13b_67:" Esth. IX, 31, emphasis on 'appointed times', [H]."
,k13b_68:" I.e., a group who were ordained to read the Scroll on a particular date must not read it on any other date."
,k13b_69:" Manual labour on the Passover Eve is universally permitted, and its prohibition in certain places is not a matter of law but merely a question of custom."
,k13b_70:" In the case of work on the Passover Eve. (Both the day and the night preceding the Passover are designated [H] Passover Eve)."
,k13b_71:" Preceding the first Passover night."
,k13b_72:" Which shews, since some would be acting in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai while others would follow Beth Hillel, that even in the case of a prohibition the formation of sects is allowed."
,k13b_73:" Lit., 'there', where some people do no work though permitted."
,k13b_74:" The question of sects does not arise in such a case."
,k13b_75:" A dispute which creates faction, some following the ruling of the one authority and others that of the other. "
}

txt:
<p>
IF THEY<a id="k13b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; PERFORM THE <I>HALIZAH</I>,<a id="k13b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE TO MARRY A PRIEST,<a id="k13b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; AND BETH HILLEL DECLARE THEM TO BE ELIGIBLE.<a id="k13b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THEY WERE MARRIED TO THE LEVIRS, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THEM ELIGIBLE [TO MARRY A PRIEST],<a id="k13b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; AND BETH HILLEL DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE.<a id="k13b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; THOUGH THESE FORBADE WHAT THE OTHERS PERMITTED, AND THESE REGARDED AS INELIGIBLE WHAT THE OTHERS DECLARED ELIGIBLE, BETH SHAMMAI, NEVERTHELESS, DID NOT REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN FROM [THE FAMILIES OF] BETH HILLEL, NOR DID BETH HILLEL [REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN] FROM [THE FAMILIES OF] BETH SHAMMAI. [SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF] ALL [QUESTIONS OF RITUAL] CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, WHICH THESE DECLARED CLEAN WHERE THE OTHERS DECLARED UNCLEAN, NEITHER OF THEM ABSTAINED FROM USING THE UTENSILS OF THE OTHERS FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD THAT WAS RITUALLY CLEAN.<a id="k13b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Simeon b. Pazzi said: What is Beth Shammai's reason?<a id="k13b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because it is written, The outside<a id="k13b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; wife of the dead shall not be married unto one not of his kin;<a id="k13b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'outside'<a id="k13b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; implies that there is also an internal,<a id="k13b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and the All Merciful said, She shall not marry [unto one not of his kin].<a id="k13b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; And Beth Hillel?<a id="k13b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They require the text for the exposition which Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: Whence is it deduced that betrothal [by a stranger] is of no validity in the case of a sister-in-law?<a id="k13b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; For it is said in the Scriptures, The wife of the dead shall not be married<a id="k13b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; outside<a id="k13b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; unto one not of his kin;<a id="k13b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; there shall be no validity in any marriage of a stranger with her.<a id="k13b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; And Beth Shammai? &mdash; Is it written 'la-huz'?<a id="k13b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely 'huzah'<a id="k13b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; was written. And Beth Hillel? &mdash; Since the expression used was huzah<a id="k13b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; it is just the same as if la-huz had been written; as it was taught: R. Nehemiah said, 'In the case of every word which requires a 'lamed' at the beginning<a id="k13b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Scripture has placed a 'he'<a id="k13b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; at the end; and at the School of R. Ishmael the following examples were given:<a id="k13b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>Elim, Elimah;<a id="k13b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Mahanayim, Mahanayimah;<a id="k13b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Mizrayim, Mizraimah;<a id="k13b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Dibelathaimah;<a id="k13b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Yerushalaimah;<a id="k13b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; midbarah</i>.<a id="k13b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Whence do Beth Shammai derive the deduction made by Rab Judah in the name of Rab? &mdash; It is derived from Unto one not of his kin.<a id="k13b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let Beth Hillel also derive it from 'Unto one not of his kin'! &mdash; This is so indeed. What need, then, was there for 'huzah'? &mdash; To include one who was only betrothed.<a id="k13b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; And the others? &mdash; They derive it from the use of ha-huzah where huzah could have been used.<a id="k13b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; And the others? &mdash; A deduction from huzah ha-huzah does not appeal to them.
</p><p>
	Raba said: Beth Shammai's reason<a id="k13b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; is that one prohibition<a id="k13b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot take effect on another prohibition.<a id="k13b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; This explanation is satisfactory in the case where the deceased had married first and the surviving brother married<a id="k13b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; afterwards, since the prohibition of marrying a wife's sister<a id="k13b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; could not come and take effect on the prohibition of marrying a brother's wife;<a id="k13b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; where, however, the surviving brother had married first<a id="k13b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; and the deceased married later,<a id="k13b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; the prohibition of 'wife's sister' was, surely, first!<a id="k13b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since the prohibition of a 'brother's wife' cannot take effect on the prohibition of 'wife's sister', [any of the other widows] is the rival of a forbidden relative to whom<a id="k13b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; the precept of the levirate marriage is inapplicable, and is consequently permitted.<a id="k13b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THEY HAD PERFORMED THE <I>HALIZAH</I>, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE etc. Is not this obvious?<a id="k13b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [It had to be stated] in order to exclude [the instruction] of R. Johanan b. Nuri who said: Come and let us issue an ordinance that the rivals<a id="k13b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; perform the <i>halizah</i> but do not marry the levir.<a id="k13b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it was taught that Beth Hillel declare them eligible.<a id="k13b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THEY WERE MARRIED TO THE LEVIRS etc. BETH HILLEL DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE. What need again was there for this? &mdash; Because it was taught, IF THEY PERFORM THE <I>HALIZAH</I><a id="k13b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; it was also taught, IF THEY WERE MARRIED TO THE LEVIRS.<a id="k13b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learned elsewhere: The Scroll of Esther<a id="k13b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth or the fifteenth [of Adar].<a id="k13b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; but not earlier<a id="k13b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; or later.<a id="k13b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: Apply here the text of Lo tithgodedu,<a id="k13b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; you shall not form separate sects!<a id="k13b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; (Is not Lo tithgodedu required for its own context, the All Merciful having said, 'You shall not inflict upon yourselves any bruise for the dead'?<a id="k13b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so, Scripture should have said, Lo tithgodedu,<a id="k13b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; why did it say 'Lo tithgodedu'?<a id="k13b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it must be inferred that its object was this.<a id="k13b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; Might it not then be suggested that the entire text refers to this only?<a id="k13b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so, Scripture should have said, Lo thagodu;<a id="k13b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; why did it say 'Lo tithgodedu'? Hence the two deductions.)<a id="k13b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The former answered: Have you not yet learned,<a id="k13b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Wherever it is customary to do manual labour on the Passover Eve until midday it may be done; wherever it is customary not to do any work it may not be done'?<a id="k13b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; The first said to him: I am speaking to you of a prohibition, for R. Shaman b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: 'Scripture having said, To confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times,<a id="k13b_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; the Sages have ordained for them different times,<a id="k13b_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; and you speak to me of a custom!<a id="k13b_69"><sup>69</sup></a>&nbsp; But is there no prohibition there?<a id="k13b_70"><sup>70</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely we learned, 'Beth Shammai prohibit work during the night<a id="k13b_71"><sup>71</sup></a>&nbsp; and Beth Hillel permit it'!<a id="k13b_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other said to him: In that case,<a id="k13b_73"><sup>73</sup></a>&nbsp; anyone seeing [a man abstaining from work] would suppose him to be out of work.<a id="k13b_74"><sup>74</sup></a>&nbsp; But do not BETH SHAMMAI PERMIT THE RIVALS TO THE OTHER BROTHERS AND BETH HILLEL FORBID THEM!<a id="k13b_75"><sup>75</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k14a_1:" R. Johanan and R. Lakish."
,k14a_2:" I.e., to what period does the dispute just mentioned refer?"
,k14a_3:" [H] (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>Bath Kol</i>), which decided that the law in practice was always to be in accordance with the rulings of Beth Hillel (v. 'Er. 13a)."
,k14a_4:" Lit., 'according to him who said'."
,k14a_5:" Beth Shammai."
,k14a_6:" Lit., 'and he who said'."
,k14a_7:" In qualifications and attainments."
,k14a_8:" And decided the issue in favour of Beth Hillel."
,k14a_9:" B.M. 59b, Ber. 52a, 'Er. 7a, Pes. 114a."
,k14a_10:" Even after the heavenly voice."
,k14a_11:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 70, n. 13."
,k14a_12:" The knife required for the performance of circumcision. The circumcision of a child, his health permitting, must take place on the eighth day of his birth (v. Gen. XVII, 12) even though it happened to fall on a Sabbath when manual labour is prohibited. And since the precept itself supersedes the Sabbath, all its requisites such as the wood and coals (for the preparation of warm water) and the knife may also be performed on the Sabbath."
,k14a_13:" Though it is forbidden to eat meat, or any dishes made of meat, together with milk or any preparation of milk. R. Jose exempts the flesh of fowl from the general prohibition of the consumption of meat and milk. Shab. 130a, Hul. 116a."
,k14a_14:" Lit., 'yes'; only there was the preparation of the requisites of circumcision permitted on the Sabbath."
,k14a_15:" Such as the cutting of wood, the production of coals and the forging of the knife."
,k14a_16:" Now, in view of the undesirability of creating different sects, why were all these varied practices allowed?"
,k14a_17:" It should have been obvious to him that different localities may differ in their custom. (Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 53, n. 11.)"
,k14a_18:" Lit., 'moved'."
,k14a_19:" On the Sabbath. A candle, though it was burning when Sabbath set in may, according to R. Joshua who follows R. Simeon in permitting mukzeh (v. next note), be moved on the Sabbath after the flame has gone out."
,k14a_20:" R. Johanan, following R. Judah, forbids the carrying or moving of a candle that had been burning when the Sabbath set in though it had subsequently gone out. As it was burning at the commencement of the Sabbath it was at that time fit for no other use and is regarded, therefore, as mukzeh, i.e., 'something set aside', that is not to be used for any other purpose. Anything that was mukzeh when the Sabbath began remains so until it ends."
,k14a_21:" Is not the practice of carrying a candle in one place and not carrying it in another as undesirable as the formation of opposing sects?"
,k14a_22:" Lit., 'we say thus'."
,k14a_23:" Lit., 'how did he do here thus' (bis)."
,k14a_24:" V. <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k14a_25:" Who well knew that his master was of the same opinion as R. Joshua b. Levi. The [H] was in many cases both an attendant on the master and also one of his learned disciples."
,k14a_26:" And might move such a candle on the Sabbath even in R. Johanan's place."
,k14a_27:" Beth Shammai."
,k14a_28:" Since, in practice, both schools followed the same principles."
,k14a_29:" The descendants from the marriages with strangers contracted by the rivals who, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel, performed no <i>halizah</i>."
,k14a_30:" Even Beth Shammai who require the rivals to perform the <i>halizah</i> regard such marriages as the infringement of a prohibition only ('The wife of the dead shall not be married abroad', Deut. XXV, 5), which does not involve <i>kareth</i>. The children of such marriages are consequently not deemed to be bastards."
,k14a_31:" Descendants from marriages between rivals and brothers-in-law. Such marriages, which are permitted by Beth Shammai, are regarded by Beth Hillel as forbidden under the prohibition of marrying one's brother's wife, which involves the penalty of <i>kareth</i>."
,k14a_32:" How, then, did they intermarry with families containing such members?"
,k14a_33:" A bastard being the descendant only of such marriages as are subject to one of the capital punishments that are carried out under the jurisdiction of a court."
,k14a_34:" Beth Hillel."
,k14a_35:" That Beth Shammai duly informed Beth Hillel of any families contracting marriages which according to the ruling of the latter were forbidden. "
}

txt:
<p>


    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E154"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/154.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 154<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">



 &mdash; Do you imagine that Beth Shammai acted <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">in accordance with their views</font>? Beth Shammai did not act <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">(in accordance with their views.)</font>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan, however, said: They <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">certainly acted [in accordance with their views]</font>. Herein they<a id="k14a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; differ on the same point as do Rab and Samuel. For Rab maintains that Beth Shammai <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">did not act in accordance with their views</font>, while Samuel maintains that they certainly <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">did act [in accordance with their views]</font>. When?<a id="k14a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If it be suggested, <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">prior to the decision of the heavenly voice</font>,<a id="k14a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; then what reason has he who maintains that they <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">did not act [in accordance with their own view]? If, however, after the decision of the heavenly voice</font>, what reason has he who maintains that they <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">did act [in accordance with their views]</font>? &mdash; If you wish I could say, <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">prior to the decision of the heavenly voice; and if you prefer I could say, after the heavenly voice. 'If you wish I could say, prior to the heavenly voice'</font>, when, for instance, Beth Hillel were in the majority: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">One maintains<a id="k14a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; that they<a id="k14a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; did not act [according to their view]</font> for the obvious reason that Beth Hillel were in the majority; while the <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">other maintains<a id="k14a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; that they did act [according to their view</font>, because] a majority is to be followed only where both sides are equally matched;<a id="k14a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; in this case, however, Beth Shammai were keener of intellect. <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">'And if you prefer I could say, after the heavenly voice'; one maintains that they<a id="k14a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; did not act [according to their view]</font> for the obvious reason that the heavenly voice had already gone forth;<a id="k14a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">while the other who maintains that they did act [according to their view]</font> is [of the same opinion as] R. Joshua who declared that <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">no regard need be paid to a heavenly voice</font>.<a id="k14a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now as to the other who 'maintains that they did act [according to their views]'<a id="k14a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; should not the warning, 'Lo tithgodedu, you shall not form separate sects'<a id="k14a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; be applied? &mdash; Abaye replied: The warning against opposing sects is only applicable to such a case as that of two courts of law in the same town, one of whom rules in accordance with the views of Beth Shammai while the other rules in accordance with the views of Beth Hillel. In the case, however, of two courts of law in two different towns [the difference in practice] does not matter. Said Raba to him: Surely the case of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel is like that of two courts of law in the same town! The fact, however, is, said Raba, that the warning against opposing sects is only applicable to such a case as that of one court of law in the same town, half of which rule in accordance with the views of Beth Shammai while the other half rule in accordance with the views of Beth Hillel. In the case, however, of two courts of law in the same town [the difference in practice] does not matter.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: In the place of R. Eliezer, wood was cut on the Sabbath wherewith to produce charcoal on which to forge the iron.<a id="k14a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; In the place of R. Jose the Galilean the flesh of fowl was eaten with milk.<a id="k14a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; In the place of R. Eliezer only<a id="k14a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but not in the place of R. Akiba; for we learnt: R. Akiba laid it down as a general rule that any labour which may be performed on the Sabbath Eve<a id="k14a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; does not supersede the Sabbath!<a id="k14a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What an objection is this! The case, surely, is different [when the varied practices are respectively confined to] different localities. What then did he who raised this question imagine?<a id="k14a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It might have been assumed that owing to the great restrictions of the Sabbath [different localities are regarded] as one place, hence it was necessary to teach us [that the law was not so].
</p><p>
	Come and hear: R. Abbahu, whenever he happened to be in the place of R. Joshua b. Levi, carried<a id="k14a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; a candle,<a id="k14a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but when he happened to be in the place of R. Johanan<a id="k14a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; he did not carry a candle!<a id="k14a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What question is this! Has it not been said that the case is different [when the varied practices are respectively confined to] varied localities? &mdash; This is the question:<a id="k14a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; How could R. Abbahu act in one place in one way and in another place in another way?<a id="k14a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Abbahu is of the same opinion as R. Joshua b. Levi,<a id="k14a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but when he happened to be in R. Johanan's place he did not move a candle out of respect for R. Johanan. But his attendant,<a id="k14a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; surely was also there!<a id="k14a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He gave his attendant the necessary instructions.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: THOUGH THESE FORBADE WHAT THE OTHERS PERMITTED&nbsp;&hellip; BETH SHAMMAI, NEVERTHELESS, DID NOT REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN FROM THE FAMILIES OF BETH HILLEL, NOR DID BETH HILLEL [REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN] FROM THE FAMILIES OF BETH SHAMMAI. Now, if it be said that they<a id="k14a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; did not act [in accordance with their own view] one can well understand why THEY DID NOT REFRAIN [from intermarrying with one another].<a id="k14a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, it be said that they<a id="k14a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; did act [in accordance with their own view], why did they not refrain? That Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the families of Beth Hillel may well be justified because such<a id="k14a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; are the children of persons guilty only of the infringement of a negative precept;<a id="k14a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but why did not Beth Hillel refrain from [marrying women from the families of] Beth Shammai? Such,<a id="k14a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, being children of persons who are guilty of an offence involving <i>kareth</i>, are bastards!<a id="k14a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; And if it be suggested that Beth Hillel are of the opinion that the descendant of those who are guilty of an offence involving <i>kareth</i> is not a bastard,<a id="k14a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, [it may be retorted], R. Eleazar said: Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of rivals, they concede that a bastard is only he who is descended from a marriage which is forbidden as incest and punishable with <i>kareth</i>! Does not this then conclusively prove that they<a id="k14a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; did not act [in accordance with their own view]? &mdash; No; they<a id="k14a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; acted, indeed, [in accordance with their own view], but they<a id="k14a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; informed them<a id="k14a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the existence of any such cases] and they<a id="k14a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; kept away.
</p><p>
	This<a id="k14a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; may also be proved by logical inference; for in the final clause it was stated. [SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF] ALL [THE QUESTIONS OF RITUAL] CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, WHICH THESE DECLARED CLEAN WHERE THE OTHERS DECLARED UNCLEAN, NEITHER OF THEM ABSTAINED FROM USING THE UTENSILS OF THE OTHERS FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD THAT WAS RITUALLY CLEAN.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k14b_1:" By Beth Shammai."
,k14b_2:" Beth Hillel, who were the more rigorous in matters of ritual cleanness."
,k14b_3:" From using the utensils of Beth Shammai. The fact that any vessel was not clean according to Beth Hillel would have been, they knew, duly communicated to them."
,k14b_4:" The inference from the final clause of our Mishnah relating to ritual cleanness and uncleanness."
,k14b_5:" That the required information was supplied."
,k14b_6:" The first clause dealing with the marriages of rivals."
,k14b_7:" Who married one of the brothers."
,k14b_8:" And no special report on such a case is needed."
,k14b_9:" Where a rival married a stranger without previously performing the <i>halizah</i> (v. our Mishnah)."
,k14b_10:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 75, n. 4."
,k14b_11:" And the question of legitimacy does not at all arise in the dispute."
,k14b_12:" In respect of a rival who married one of the brothers."
,k14b_13:" <i>Infra</i> 49a."
,k14b_14:" In our Mishnah."
,k14b_15:" Who married their brothers; <i>infra</i> 26a."
,k14b_16:" Git. 79b."
,k14b_17:" I.e., where the validity of her marriage is in doubt. V. <i>infra</i> 107a."
,k14b_18:" Lit., 'and about him who divorced his wife'."
,k14b_19:" Git. 81a."
,k14b_20:" The last four deal with the question of what constitutes legal betrothal. Kid. 2a and 11a."
,k14b_21:" Zech. VIII, 19."
,k14b_22:" Tosef. Yeb. I."
,k14b_23:" Beth Shammai."
,k14b_24:" Whom Beth Shammai abstained from marrying before she performed the <i>halizah</i>."
,k14b_25:" So long, therefore, as no report had been received the unknown case was assumed to belong to the pure families."
,k14b_26:" Why then should there be a repetition of the same thing?"
,k14b_27:" Relating to the marriages of rivals."
,k14b_28:" Who permit the rivals to marry the brothers."
,k14b_29:" Having been born from a forbidden marriage (that of a brother's wife) which involves <i>kareth</i>."
,k14b_30:" Permitting rivals to marry strangers without previous <i>halizah</i>."
,k14b_31:" Though not actually a bastard, he would, were he a kohen, be disqualified from the priesthood. "
}

txt:
<p>
Now, if it be agreed that the required information was supplied<a id="k14b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; one well understands why they<a id="k14b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; did not abstain.<a id="k14b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, it be assumed that no such information was supplied, one can still understand why Beth Shammai did not abstain from using the utensils of Beth Hillel, since that which was regarded by Beth Hillel as ritually unclean was deemed by Beth Shammai to be ritually clean; but why did not Beth Hillel abstain from using the utensils of Beth Shammai when that which was deemed clean by Beth Shammai was regarded as unclean by Beth Hillel? Must it not, then, be concluded that they supplied them with the required information! Our point is thus proved.
</p><p>
	In what respect is the one<a id="k14b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; more conclusive proof<a id="k14b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; than the other?<a id="k14b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It might have been thought that the case of a rival<a id="k14b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; receives due publicity,<a id="k14b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it was necessary [for the inference from the final clause] to be cited.
</p><p>
	[Reverting to] the previous text, 'R. Eleazar said: Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the question of rivals they concede that a bastard is only he who is descended from a marriage forbidden as incest and punishable by kareth'. Who concedes? If it be said, Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel;<a id="k14b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; this, surely, is obvious, since the children of those who are guilty of the infringement of a negative precept<a id="k14b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; are deemed legitimate.<a id="k14b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Must it not consequently be the case that Beth Hillel conceded to Beth Shammai;<a id="k14b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but this very case is subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i>! &mdash; The fact is that Beth Shammai conceded to Beth Hillel; and the purpose was to exclude the opinion of R. Akiba, who maintains that a descendant from persons guilty of the infringement of a negative precept is deemed a bastard.<a id="k14b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it was taught<a id="k14b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; that a descendant from persons guilty of the infringement of a negative precept is not deemed a bastard.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of rivals, sisters,<a id="k14b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; an old bill of divorce,<a id="k14b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; a doubtfully married woman,<a id="k14b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; a woman whom her husband had divorced<a id="k14b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and who stayed with him over the night in an inn,<a id="k14b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; money, valuables, a <i>perutah</i> and the value of a <i>perutah</i>,<a id="k14b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Beth Shammai did not, nevertheless, abstain from marrying women of the families of Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying those of Beth Shammai. This is to teach you that they shewed love and friendship towards one another, thus putting into practice the Scriptural text, Love ye truth and peace.<a id="k14b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon said: They abstained [from marrying] in cases of certainty but did not abstain in doubtful cases.<a id="k14b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if you agree that they<a id="k14b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; acted [in accordance with their own views] one can well understand why they abstained. If, however, you assume that they did not so act, why did they abstain? &mdash; And how do you understand this? Even if it be granted that they did act (in accordance with their own views], one can only understand why Beth Hillel abstained from intermarrying with Beth Shammai, because the latter, in the opinion of Beth Hillel, were guilty of offences involving <i>kareth</i> and their descendants were consequently bastards; as to Beth Shammai, however, why did they abstain from intermarrying with Beth Hillel, when they were [even in the opinion of Beth Shammai] only guilty of the infringement of a negative precept and [their descendants] were consequently legitimate? &mdash; As R. Nahman said elsewhere that the statement was required only for the case of the rival herself, so here also the Statement is required for the case of the rival herself.<a id="k14b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Why is a doubtful case different from a case of a certainty? Obviously because it is forbidden. Is not a doubtful case also forbidden? &mdash; Do not read, 'from a doubtful case', but 'from a case unknown', since when they received the information they kept away.<a id="k14b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And what does he teach us thereby? That they shewed love and friendship to one another? But this is exactly the same as the first clause!<a id="k14b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He teaches us this: That the entire Mishnah represents the views of R. Simeon.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: R. Johanan b. Nuri said: 'How is this law<a id="k14b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; to be promulgated in Israel? Were we to act in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai,<a id="k14b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; the child would, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel, be a bastard.<a id="k14b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; And were we to act in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel,<a id="k14b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; the child, according to the ruling of Beth Shammai, would be tainted;<a id="k14b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; come, then, and let us issue an ordinance that the rivals
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k15a_1:" So that any stranger might be permitted to marry them, even according to Beth Shammai."
,k15a_2:" And thus prevent their children from being branded bastards according to Beth Hillel. (V. <i>supra</i> note 6)."
,k15a_3:" Tosef. Yeb, I; the rivals who, relying on Beth Shammai, married brothers-in-law, prior to the ordinance, whose children would, were the ordinance of R. Johanan b. Nuri to be accepted, become bastard."
,k15a_4:" Beth Shammai."
,k15a_5:" Since some may have married brothers-in-law. V. <i>supra</i> n. 1."
,k15a_6:" No such marriage could possibly have taken place."
,k15a_7:" R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's precaution."
,k15a_8:" Who may have married a stranger without previous <i>halizah</i>, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel. It has no reference at all to the children, who would not be regarded bastards even according to Beth Shammai."
,k15a_9:" Strangers, previously performing the <i>halizah</i>."
,k15a_10:" Prov. III, 17. The ways of the law must lead to no unpleasantness for the innocent."
,k15a_11:" A disciple of Beth Shammai."
,k15a_12:" Who was married to a brother of his."
,k15a_13:" As levir."
,k15a_14:" Which shews that Beth Shammai acted in accordance with their ruling that the rival of a forbidden relative is permitted to the brothers."
,k15a_15:" Which is, of course, permitted according to Beth Hillel. The Heb. [H] 'I will marry her' (verb. neut. Kal) may be easily mistaken for [H] will cause her to marry another' (verb. act. Hif.)."
,k15a_16:" Which implies a desire to shew something novel. Marrying a stranger, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel, is the usual practice."
,k15a_17:" The expression 'would'."
,k15a_18:" Lit., 'to bring out', 'to exclude (the view)'."
,k15a_19:" Who desired to institute for rivals <i>halizah</i> to enable them to marry strangers, though prohibiting their marriage with the brothers"
,k15a_20:" Thus acting in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai. (V. p. 79, n. 12.)"
,k15a_21:" A descendant of the house of Hillel."
,k15a_22:" Obviously not. How, then, could it he assumed that he acted in accordance with a ruling of Beth Shammai?"
,k15a_23:" And the rival of such a woman is permitted to the brothers. V. Mishnah <i>supra</i> 2b."
,k15a_24:" The 'Others' and the first Tanna."
,k15a_25:" The husband, R. Gamaliel's brother."
,k15a_26:" R. Gamaliel's daughter's."
,k15a_27:" At the time of their marriage."
,k15a_28:" V. <i>supra</i> 12a. According to the first Tanna, the rival of R. Gamaliel's daughter was permitted only because her husband was unaware of her defect, and their marriage consequently took place under a misconception. Such a marriage being invalid, R. Gamaliel's daughter was not a legal wife, and her rival consequently was a mere stranger to her father. According to the 'Others', who use the expression 'was incapable' and not 'was discovered to be incapable', the rival was permitted to R. Gamaliel irrespective of whether his daughter's defect had or had not been known, to her husband."
,k15a_29:" V. <i>supra</i> 13a. Such as was the case with R. Gamaliel's daughter. The first Tanna is of the opinion that the rival was permitted to R. Gamaliel because at the time his brother died she was no more his daughter's rival. The 'Others', however, maintain that so long as the two were rivals for any length of time (in this case, between the time of the marriage with the rival and the divorce of R. Gamaliel's daughter) they remain legally as rivals for all time, and the only reason why R. Gamaliel was allowed to marry the rival of his daughter was because his daughter had the defect of being incapable of procreation, and the rival of such a woman is permitted to the brothers. V. <i>supra</i> 2b."
,k15a_30:" That the woman, e.g., suffers from no illness or that she is not afflicted with any infirmity."
,k15a_31:" Such a stipulation was made by the husband in the case of R. Gamaliel's daughter. The first Tanna is of the opinion that the stipulation is valid, and since an infirmity was subsequently discovered, the marriage is null and void and the rival as a mere stranger is consequently permitted. The 'Others', however, regard a stipulation in connection with marital intercourse as invalid. R. Gamaliel's marriage with the rival was consequently permitted only because his daughter was incapable of procreation."
,k15a_32:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k15a_33:" The eleventh month in the Hebrew calendar, the first day of which is regarded by Beth Shammai as the New Year for trees. The period of the gathering was about the end of the second year of the septennial cycle and the beginning of the third."
,k15a_34:" The 'second tithe' which is due in the second year of the septennial cycle, and the 'tithe for the poor' which is due in the third year of the cycle."
,k15a_35:" The 'tithe for the poor'."
,k15a_36:" According to whom, the first of Shebat being regarded as the beginning of the New Year for trees, the third year of the cycle had already begun, and the tithe due is, therefore, that of the poor."
,k15a_37:" The 'second tithe'."
,k15a_38:" Who, maintaining that the new year for trees does not begin until the fifteenth of Shebat, regard the first day of the month as still belonging to the concluding year, i.e., the second of the cycle in which the 'second tithe' is due. 'Er. 7a, R.H. 14a."
,k15a_39:" Beth Shammai."
,k15a_40:" Was the new year. Cf. <i>supra</i> nn. 5-7."
,k15a_41:" During the Festival of Tabernacles when it is obligatory upon all males to dwell in booths (Lev. XXIII, 42), the roof of which must consist of branches or leaves or any similar material which grows from the ground (v. Suk. 2aff)."
,k15a_42:" Shammai."
,k15a_43:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 10."
,k15a_44:" Who was a male and, in the opinion of Beth Shammai, a male child, though still dependent on his mother, is like any male adult subject to the obligation of dwelling in a booth during the festival. Suk. 28a."
,k15a_45:" Since according to Beth Hillel the child, being dependent upon his mother, is exempt from the obligation."
,k15a_46:" The action, therefore, did not in any way demonstrate a disregard for the ruling of Beth Hillel."
,k15a_47:" [H] 'a gathering together', applied to a bath or pool containing forty <i>se'ah</i> of water, which is the prescribed minimum for a ritual bath."
,k15a_48:" The trough, though containing less than the required minimum, was rendered ritually fit through fusion with the larger pool by means of the connecting hole."
,k15a_49:" Mik. IV, 5."
,k15a_50:" Which renders the smaller one, containing less than the prescribed minimum, ritually fit."
,k15a_51:" Lit., 'like the tube of a leather bottle in its thickness and hollow space'."
,k15a_52:" Hag. 21b, Mik. VI, 7; lit., 'as two fingers returning to their place'."
,k15a_53:" Beth Shammai."
,k15a_54:" Since the original tube, according to Beth Hillel, was quite sufficient, and they had nevertheless ordered its extension. "
}

txt:
<p>
perform the <i>halizah</i><a id="k15a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but do not marry any of the brothers'.<a id="k15a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; They had hardly time to conclude the matter before confusion set in. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel to them, 'What now could we do with previous rivals'!<a id="k15a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if you assume that they<a id="k15a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; acted [in accordance with their own rulings] one can understand why he said, 'What shall we do'.<a id="k15a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, you assume that they did not so act, what is the meaning of 'What shall we do'?<a id="k15a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: This<a id="k15a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; was required only in the case of the rival herself;<a id="k15a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and this is the meaning of the objection 'what shall we do': 'How shall we, according to Beth Shammai, proceed with those rivals [who married<a id="k15a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with the rulings] of Beth Hillel? Should they be asked to perform the <i>halizah</i>, they would become despised by their husbands; and should you say, "Let them be despised", [it could be retorted]. Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace'.<a id="k15a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: R. Tarfon<a id="k15a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; said: Would that the rival of [my] daughter<a id="k15a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; were to fall to my lot<a id="k15a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; so that I could marry her!<a id="k15a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Read, 'that I could make her marry [another]'.<a id="k15a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But he said, 'Would'!<a id="k15a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It<a id="k15a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; implies objection to the ordinance<a id="k15a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Johanan b.Nuri.<a id="k15a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: It happened that R. Gamaliel's daughter was married to his brother Abba who died without issue, and that R. Gamaliel married her rival!<a id="k15a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But how do you understand this? Was R. Gamaliel<a id="k15a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; one of the disciples of Beth Shammai!<a id="k15a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; But [this is the explanation]: R. Gamaliel's daughter was different because she was incapable of procreation.<a id="k15a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Since, however, it was stated in the final clause, 'Others say that R. Gamaliel's daughter was incapable of procreation' it may be inferred that the first Tanna is of the opinion that she was not incapable of procreation! &mdash; The difference between them<a id="k15a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is the question whether he<a id="k15a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; knew her<a id="k15a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; defect<a id="k15a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; or not.<a id="k15a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you wish I might say that the difference between them<a id="k15a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is the case where he<a id="k15a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; married [the rival] first and subsequently divorced [his wife].<a id="k15a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you wish I might say that the difference between them<a id="k15a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is whether a stipulation<a id="k15a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case of matrimonial intercourse is valid.<a id="k15a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Mesharsheya raised an objection: It once happened that R. Akiba gathered the fruit of an ethrog<a id="k15a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; on the first of Shebat<a id="k15a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and subjected it to two tithes,<a id="k15a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; one<a id="k15a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai<a id="k15a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other<a id="k15a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel.<a id="k15a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves that they<a id="k15a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; did act [in accordance with their rulings!] &mdash; R. Akiba was uncertain of his tradition, not knowing whether Beth Hillel said the first of Shebat<a id="k15a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; or the fifteenth of Shebat.<a id="k15a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra raised an objection: It once happened that Shammai the Elder's daughter-in-law was confined with child<a id="k15a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; and he<a id="k15a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; broke an opening through the concrete of the ceiling and covered it above the bed with the proper festival roofing<a id="k15a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; for the sake of the child.<a id="k15a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not this prove that they<a id="k15a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; did act [in accordance with their rulings]?<a id="k15a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In that case, any onlooker might assume that it was done in order to increase the ventilation.<a id="k15a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra raised an objection: It once happened with Jehu's Trough in Jerusalem, which was connected by means of a hole with a ritual bathing pool,<a id="k15a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; and in which<a id="k15a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; all ritual cleansing in Jerusalem was performed, that Beth Shammai sent and had the hole widened; for Beth Shammai maintain that the greater part [of the intervening wall] must be broken through.<a id="k15a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; But we have also learned that the combination of bathing pools<a id="k15a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; may be effected by a connecting tube of the size of the mouth-piece of a leather bottle in diameter and circumference,<a id="k15a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; viz., a tube in which two fingers may conveniently be turned round.<a id="k15a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not this prove that they<a id="k15a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; did act [in accordance with their rulings]?<a id="k15a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k15b_1:" V. note 2."
,k15b_2:" [Cf. Hauran, mentioned in Ezek. XLVII, 18, south of Damascus, the Auranitis of the Graeco-Roman times.]"
,k15b_3:" Moisture renders fruit susceptible to Levitical uncleanness."
,k15b_4:" He hesitated to eat them owing to the possibility (Rashi) or the certainty (Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H] that the earthen jar in which they were kept had been touched by an 'am ha-arez and, being moist, received the uncleanness imparted to them by the jar which, by Rabbinical enactment, had become unclean by the touch of the 'am ha-arez."
,k15b_5:" Keeping olives in a broached container is clear evidence that the owner had no desire to retain the sap that exudes from the olives; and only liquids which are desired by the owner render the fruit susceptible to Levitical uncleanness."
,k15b_6:" And thus the undesired 'moisture remained on the olives. As such moisture does not render the fruit susceptible to uncleanness (v. previous note) the olives may safely be eaten even by the scrupulous."
,k15b_7:" Because in their opinion the moisture that exudes from the olives is regarded as a fruit juice which does not render food susceptible to Levitical uncleanness."
,k15b_8:" The moisture is regarded by them as actual oil which does render food susceptible to uncleanness. Broaching is consequently necessary in order to indicate thereby that the owner had no desire to preserve the liquid."
,k15b_9:" I.e., the liquid, having clearly been shewn to be unwanted, does not render the olives susceptible to Levitical uncleanness. 'Ed. IV, 6."
,k15b_10:" R. Johanan the Horonite."
,k15b_11:" Lit., 'all his deeds he only did'."
,k15b_12:" Beth Shammai."
,k15b_13:" Lit., 'that is his greatness'; i.e., his conduct was remarkable and worthy of note in that he acted according to the ruling of Beth Hillel despite the practice of his colleagues of acting in accordance with the rulings of their own School."
,k15b_14:" Lit., 'what was his greatness'; he only acted on the same lines as the other disciples of Beth Shammai. Consequently it must be concluded that Beth Shammai did act in accordance with their own rulings."
,k15b_15:" [A locality in Judaea; on the identification of the other names, v. Klein <I>MGWJ</I> 1910, 25ff, and 1917, 135ff and Buchler Priester, p. 186.]"
,k15b_16:" Who, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel, married strangers without previously performing <i>halizah</i> with the levirs."
,k15b_17:" Beth Shammai."
,k15b_18:" As the rivals, acting on the ruling of Beth Shammai, might have married the brothers, their children who, according to Beth Hillel, would thus be descendants of marriages forbidden under the penalty of <i>kareth</i>, would be deemed to be bastards. These would certainly resent R. Joshua's declaration in favour of Beth Hillel, and his life would thus be in danger."
,k15b_19:" No one could possibly resent his decision since no one would be adversely affected by it. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 83, n. 10, final clause."
,k15b_20:" <i>Infra</i> 49a. Now, even if he had decided in favour of Beth Hillel no one would have been degraded thereby to the level of a bastard. Why then was he afraid?"
,k15b_21:" A descendant from a marriage punishable by <i>kareth</i>."
,k15b_22:" Though not actually a bastard, he would, were he a kohen, he disqualified from the priesthood."
,k15b_23:" Born from her marriage with a High Priest."
,k15b_24:" A widow is forbidden only to a High Priest. V. Lev. XXI, 14."
,k15b_25:" V. note 8."
,k15b_26:" Cur. edd., 'etc.'"
,k15b_27:" A rival is forbidden to Israelites as well as priests."
,k15b_28:" Strangers without previous <i>halizah</i> with the levirs."
,k15b_29:" Are the children of such marriages, which are forbidden by a negative precept, disqualified from the priesthood?"
,k15b_30:" Since the <i>halachah</i> is according to Beth Hillel."
,k15b_31:" A daughter."
,k15b_32:" After she had been married to another man. Such remarriage is also forbidden (v. <i>supra</i> note 2) by a negative precept (V. Deut. XXIV, 1-4.)"
,k15b_33:" In this case according to Beth Hillel, as in the case of a rival's son according to Beth Shammai; both cases coming under the prohibition of a negative precept."
,k15b_34:" V. p. 84, n. 10."
,k15b_35:" V. p. 84, n. 8."
,k15b_36:" A rival."
,k15b_37:" A rival is forbidden to Israelites as well as to priests."
,k15b_38:" On the death of the High Priest to whom she was unlawfully married she may not marry any more even an ordinary priest, and as she was a priest's daughter she is henceforth forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>. On a woman, however, who was remarried after divorce no new restrictions are imposed."
}

txt:
<p>
the onlooker might assume that the extension was made in order to increase the volume of the water.<a id="k15b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: R. Eleazar b. Zadok said: When I was learning Torah with R. Johanan the Horonite<a id="k15b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; I noticed that in the years of dearth he used to eat dry bread with salt. I went home and related it to my father, who said to me, 'Take some olives to him'. When I brought these to him and he observed that they were moist<a id="k15b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he said to me, 'I eat no olives'.<a id="k15b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; I again went out and communicated the matter to my father, who said to me, 'Go tell him that the jar was broached,<a id="k15b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; only the lees had blocked up the breach';<a id="k15b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and we learned: A jar containing pickled olives, Beth Shammai said, need not be broached;<a id="k15b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but Beth Hillel say: It must be broached.<a id="k15b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; They admit, however, that where it had been broached and the lees had blocked up the holes, it is clean.<a id="k15b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And though he<a id="k15b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; was a disciple of Shammai, he always conformed in practice<a id="k15b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; to the rulings of Beth Hillel. Now, if it be conceded that they<a id="k15b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; did act in accordance with their own rulings, one can well understand why his<a id="k15b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; action was worthy of note;<a id="k15b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; if, however, it were to be contended that they did not so act, in what respect was his conduct noteworthy!<a id="k15b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: R. Joshua was asked, 'What is the law in relation to the rival of one's daughter'? He answered them, 'It is a question in dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel'. &mdash; 'But [he was asked] in accordance with whose ruling is the established law'? 'Why should you,' he said to them, 'put my head between two great mountains, between two great groups of disputants, aye, between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel? I fear they might crush my head! I may testify to you, however, concerning two great families who flourished in Jerusalem, namely, the family of Beth Zebo'im of Ben 'Akmai and the family of Ben Kuppai of Ben Mekoshesh,<a id="k15b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; that they were descendants of rivals<a id="k15b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet some of them were High Priests who ministered upon the altar'. Now, if it be conceded that they<a id="k15b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; acted [in accordance with their own rulings] it is quite intelligible why he said, 'I fear'.<a id="k15b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, it be suggested that they<a id="k15b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; did not so act, why did he say, 'I fear'!<a id="k15b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But even if it be granted that they did act [according to their rulings], what [cause had he for saying,] 'I fear'? Surely R. Joshua said that a bastard was only he who was a descendant of one of those who are subject to capital punishments which are within the jurisdiction of the <i>Beth din</i>!<a id="k15b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Granted that he<a id="k15b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; was not a bastard, he is nevertheless tainted;<a id="k15b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; as may be deduced by inference a minori ad majus from the case of the widow: If the son of a widow<a id="k15b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; who is not forbidden to all<a id="k15b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is nevertheless tainted,<a id="k15b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [how much more so the son of a rival]<a id="k15b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; who is forbidden to all.<a id="k15b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	They asked him concerning rivals and he answered them about the sons of the rivals! &mdash; They really asked him two questions: 'What is the law concerning the rivals? And if some ground could be found in their case in favour of the ruling of Beth Hillel, what is the law according to Beth Shammai in regard to the sons of the rivals, [who married]<a id="k15b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel'?<a id="k15b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; What practical difference is there?<a id="k15b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That a solution may be found, according to Beth Hillel, for the question of the child<a id="k15b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; of a man who remarried his divorced wife.<a id="k15b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Do we<a id="k15b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; apply the inference a minori ad majus, arguing thus: 'If the son of a widow who was married to a High Priest, who is not forbidden to all,<a id="k15b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; is nevertheless tainted,<a id="k15b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; how much more so the son of her<a id="k15b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; who is forbidden to all';<a id="k15b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; or is it possible to refute the argument, thus: 'The case of the widow is different because she herself is profaned'?<a id="k15b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; And he said to them, 'With reference to the rivals I am afraid;<a id="k15b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k16a_1:" Whether they are tainted or not."
,k16a_2:" V. <i>supra</i> 15b, which shews that they were not tainted, since they were permitted to occupy the highest office in the priesthood."
,k16a_3:" Of the father of that daughter."
,k16a_4:" Since the permission to marry was issued by a brother of R. Dosa (v. <i>infra</i>) who was a member of Beth Shammai."
,k16a_5:" R. Dosa, who was thought to be the author of the ruling."
,k16a_6:" And they did not venture to act against his decision without first consulting him."
,k16a_7:" And was thus unaware that the general opinion at the College was against the ruling."
,k16a_8:" Ps. XXXVII, 25."
,k16a_9:" R. Joshua."
,k16a_10:" Lit., 'surrounded him with halachoth'."
,k16a_11:" I.e., that Dosa permitted the rival."
,k16a_12:" Without the mention of the name of the son."
,k16a_13:" Lit., 'not specifically', 'undefined'."
,k16a_14:" [H], 'the first-born of Satan', first in obstinate dispute (Jast.); Satansjunge similar to Teufelskerl (Golds.); keen and obstinate (Rashi). Some suggest [H] 'keen &mdash; witted youth'. R. Dosa appears to have been playing upon the rhyme of ah katan, bekor satan, and Jonathan."
,k16a_15:" And it must have been Jonathan who dared to issue a ruling in accordance with the views of his school against those of Beth Hillel."
,k16a_16:" [H] or mortar-shaped seat."
,k16a_17:" [That does not mean that he was a contemporary of Haggai the prophet, but that he had an incontrovertible tradition on the matter, Me'iri.]"
,k16a_18:" Of the septennial cycle. The countries of Ammon and Moab, though conquered by Moses and included in the boundary of the Land of Israel, were in the days of the Second Temple excluded. The laws of the Seventh or Sabbatical year, which apply to the Land of Israel, were consequently inapplicable to the lands of Ammon and Moab. Any Jews living in those countries, it was ordained by the Rabbis, were to be allowed to cultivate their fields in this year, but besides the 'first tithe' which is due in all other years, they were to give the tithe of the poor also."
,k16a_19:" Despite the opinion of some Rabbis that they were to be regarded as bastards. Cordyene or Kardu was in Babylon; Tarmod or Tadmor, (Palmyra) lay in an oasis of the desert of Syria. [According to Obermeyer (p. 133) the question as to the legitimacy of the offering of the Kardu was on account of the possible intermarriage of the non-Jewish inhabitants with the Jewish converts, won over to Christianity by the Christian missions from Edessa in the first century.]"
,k16a_20:" To interview R. Dosa."
,k16a_21:" Either in order not to attract Jonathan's attention, or, on the contrary, in the hope that one of them at least might meet him."
,k16a_22:" Lit., 'and made him stand'."
,k16a_23:" In the days of Joshua."
,k16a_24:" In the days of Ezra."
,k16a_25:" Hag. 3b."
,k16a_26:" In the Sabbatical year."
,k16a_27:" Of the Land of Israel where no cultivation was permitted and where consequently no poor-tithe was given in that year."
,k16a_28:" By obtaining employment in the fields or by receiving the tithes and the other gifts of the poor."
,k16a_29:" Mountaineers of Media. The [G] natives of Karta are mentioned by Polybius and Strabo."
,k16a_30:" The Cordyenians, however, are not tainted."
,k16a_31:" Place on the borders of Palestine. Perhaps Petra or the Biblical Sela in Edom, v. Git., Sonc. ed. p. 1, n. 2."
,k16a_32:" Only the menstrual blood of the daughters of Israel is levitically unclean; and no pure Israelites lived at Rekem."
,k16a_33:" Though they no longer observed the religious laws of Judaism they were once proselytes and as such their menstrual blood is levitically unclean as is the case with that of Israelites."
,k16a_34:" I.e., from localities where no Israelites live."
,k16a_35:" Nid. 56b, Bek. 38b. "
}

txt:
<p>
as to the sons of the rivals<a id="k16a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; I may testify to you'.<a id="k16a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: In the days of R. Dosa b. Harkinas the rival of a daughter was permitted to marry the brothers.<a id="k16a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; From this it may be inferred that [Beth Shammai] acted [in accordance with their own rulings].<a id="k16a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves the point.
</p><p>
	[To turn to] the main text. In the days of R. Dosa b. Harkinas, the rival of a daughter was permitted to marry the brothers. This ruling was very disturbing to the Sages, because he<a id="k16a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; was a great scholar<a id="k16a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and his eyes were dim so that he was unable to come to the house of study.<a id="k16a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; When a discussion took place as to who should go and communicate with him, R. Joshua said to them, 'I will go'. 'And who after him?' &mdash; 'R. Eleazar b. Azariah.' 'And who after him?' &mdash; 'R. Akiba'. They went and stood at the entrance of his house. His maid entered and told him, 'Master, the Sages of Israel are come to you'. 'Let them enter', he said to her; and they entered. Taking hold of R. Joshua he made him sit upon a golden couch. The latter said to him, 'Master, will you ask your other disciple to sit down'? 'Who is he?' [the Master] enquired. &mdash; 'R. Eleazar b. Azariah'. 'Has our friend Azariah a son?' [the Master] exclaimed, and applied to him this Scriptural text, I have been young and now I am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread;<a id="k16a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and so took hold of him also and made him sit upon a golden couch. 'Master', said he,<a id="k16a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 'will you ask your next disciple also to sit down'? 'And who is he?' [the Master] asked. &mdash; 'Akiba the son of Joseph'. 'You are,' [the Master] exclaimed, 'Akiba son of Joseph whose name is known from one end of the world to the other! Sit down, my son, sit down. May men like you multiply in Israel'. Thereupon they began to address to him all sorts of questions on legal practice<a id="k16a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; until they reached that of the daughter's rival. 'What is the halachah', they asked him, 'in the case of a daughter's rival?' 'This,' he answered them, 'is a question in dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.' 'In accordance with whose ruling is the <i>halachah</i>?' &mdash; 'The <i>halachah</i>,' he replied, is in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel'. 'But, indeed,' they said to him, 'it was stated in your name that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai!' He said to them: 'Did you hear, "Dosa"11 or "the son of Harkinas?"'<a id="k16a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'By the life of our Master.' they replied. 'We heard no son's name mentioned.'<a id="k16a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I have,' he said to them, 'a younger brother who is a dare-devil<a id="k16a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and his name is Jonathan and he is one of the disciples of Shammai.<a id="k16a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Take care that he does not overwhelm you on questions of established practice, because he has three hundred answers to prove that the daughter's rival is permitted. But I call heaven and earth to witness that upon this mortar<a id="k16a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; sat the prophet Haggai<a id="k16a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and delivered the following three rulings: That a daughter's rival is forbidden, that in the lands of Ammon and Moab the tithe of the poor is to be given in the Seventh Year,<a id="k16a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and that proselytes may be accepted from the Cordyenians and the Tarmodites.'<a id="k16a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A Tanna taught: When they came<a id="k16a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; they entered through one door; when they went out they issued through three different doors.<a id="k16a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; He came upon R. Akiba, submitted his objections to him and silenced him.<a id="k16a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Are you', he called out, 'Akiba whose name rings from one end of the world to the other? You are blessed indeed to have won fame while you have not yet attained the rank of oxherds.' 'Not even,' replied R. Akiba, 'that of shepherds.'
</p><p>
	'In the lands of Ammon and Moab the tithe of the poor is given in the Seventh Year,' because a Master said: Those who came up from Egypt<a id="k16a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; had conquered many cities which those who came up from Babylon<a id="k16a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; did not conquer, and the first sanctification<a id="k16a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; was intended for that time only but not for the future.<a id="k16a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence they were allowed [cultivation]<a id="k16a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; in order that the poor<a id="k16a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; might find their support there in the Seventh Year.<a id="k16a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'And that proselytes may be accepted from the Cordyenians and the Tarmodites'. But [the law, surely,] is not so! For Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: No proselyte may be accepted from the Cordyenians. &mdash; R. Ashi replied: The statement was Kartuenians,<a id="k16a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; as people, in fact, speak of 'disqualified Kartuenians'.
</p><p>
	Others say: Rami b. Ezekiel learnt, 'No proselytes are to be accepted from the Kartuenians'. Are not Kartuenians the same as Cordyenians? &mdash; R. Ashi replied: No; Kartuenians are a class by themselves, and Cordyenians are a class by themselves, as people, in fact, speak of 'disqualified Kartuenians'.<a id="k16a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Both R. Johanan and Sabya maintain that no proselytes may be accepted from the Tarmodites. Did R. Johanan. however, say such a thing? Surely we learned: All blood stains [on women's garments] that come from Rekem<a id="k16a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; are levitically clean,<a id="k16a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Judah declares them unclean because [the people there] were proselytes though misguided;<a id="k16a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [those that come] from the heathens<a id="k16a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; are levitically clean.<a id="k16a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; And the difficult point was raised
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k16b_1:" Lit., 'he decides and teaches'."
,k16b_2:" But can that be so in view of the doubtful character of the admixture of Jewish stock of its inhabitants?"
,k16b_3:" Nid. 56b. I.e., they are not regarded as an admixture of Jewish stock and tainted from birth and disqualified. How then could it be said <i>supra</i> that R. Johanan maintains that proselytes may not be accepted from the Tarmodites?"
,k16b_4:" 'This proves etc.' <i>supra</i>."
,k16b_5:" I.e., he disagrees with the Mishnah."
,k16b_6:" Which, as has been shewn, implies that proselytes may be accepted from Tarmod."
,k16b_7:" Who married Jewish women."
,k16b_8:" This is explained immediately."
,k16b_9:" Lam. V, 11."
,k16b_10:" Or 'Prince of the world'; identified by some writers with Metatron 'whose name is similar to that of his master'; v. Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 245, nn. 11 and 12 and cf. <i>op. cit</i>. p. 246, n. 6. V. also 'A.Z., Sonc. ed. p. 10, n. 6."
,k16b_11:" Ps. XXXVII, 25, referred to by R. Dosa <i>supra</i> 16a."
,k16b_12:" Lit., 'what of that which was written?'"
,k16b_13:" Lam. I, 10."
,k16b_14:" Deut. XXIII, 4."
,k16b_15:" Lam. I, 17."
,k16b_16:" Both were localities in Babylon. The former, inhabited by Greeks, was a constant source of annoyance to the latter the inhabitants of which were poor Israelites. Humania was below the city of Ctesifon and near it was Pum Nahara."
,k16b_17:" Whom Shalmaneser had carried away into captivity (II Kings XVIII, 11) where they intermarried with the heathens. Children born from such marriages are bastards, and R. Assi holds that a bastard's betrothal is valid."
,k16b_18:" I.e., if it is not known to which group or class a person or object that comes from a mixed multitude belongs, it is always assumed that the unit came from the majority. Now, since the ten tribes represent only a minority of the heathens, it should be assumed that the betrothal was not made by one of the ten tribes but by a heathen."
,k16b_19:" And formed a majority of the inhabitants (Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.). Rashi: A group which is in a settled condition, (kabu'a, v. Keth. 15a and <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>), though it is a minority, is deemed to represent a half of the whole multitude."
,k16b_20:" II Kings XVIII, 11."
,k16b_21:" So Kid. 72b. Cur. edd., [H]. Halwan is a locality in Assyria. V. Kid., Sonc. ed. p. 367, n. 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
that having stated categorically,<a id="k16b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; '[those that came] from the heathens' [he must also imply,] 'even those from Tarmod'!<a id="k16b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Johanan replied: This proves that proselytes may be accepted from Tarmod.<a id="k16b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And if it be replied [that R. Johanan only said], 'This',<a id="k16b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but he himself does not hold this view,<a id="k16b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; surely R. Johanan said, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with an anonymous Mishnah'!<a id="k16b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is a question in dispute between Amoraim as to what was actually the view of R. Johanan.
</p><p>
	Why are no [proselytes to be accepted] from Tarmod? &mdash; R. Johanan and Sabya give different reasons. One says, 'On account of the slaves of Solomon,'<a id="k16b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other says, 'On account of the daughters of Jerusalem.'<a id="k16b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	According to him who Says. 'On account of the slaves of Solomon,' the reason is quite intelligible, because he may hold the opinion that the child of a heathen or a slave who had intercourse with a daughter in Israel is a bastard. According to him, however, who said, 'On account of the daughters of Jerusalem', what is the reason? &mdash; R. Joseph and the Rabbis dispute the point, and both of them in the name of Rabbah b. Bar Hana. One maintains that [the number was] twelve thousand [foot]men and six thousand archers, and the other maintains that there were twelve thousand men and, of these, six hundred archers. At the time when the heathens entered the Temple, everyone made for the gold and the silver, but they made for the daughters of Jerusalem; as it is said in the Scriptures. They have ravished the women in Zion, the maidens in the cities of Judah.<a id="k16b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: The following verse was uttered by the Genius of the Universe:<a id="k16b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; I have been young and now I am old<a id="k16b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; For who else could have said it! If the Holy One, blessed be He, be suggested, is there any old age in his case? Then David must have said it? But was he so old? Consequently it must be concluded that the Genius of the Universe had said it.
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Nahmani further said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is [the meaning of] the Scriptural text,<a id="k16b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her treasures?<a id="k16b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This [refers to] Ammon and Moab. At the time when the heathens entered the Temple all made for gold and silver, but they turned to the Scroll of the Law, saying, 'That in which it is written, An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord,<a id="k16b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; shall be burned with fire.'
</p><p>
	The Lord hath commanded concerning Jacob that they that are round about him should be his adversaries.<a id="k16b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: As, for instance, Humania towards Pum Nahara.<a id="k16b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of R. Assi: If at the present time a heathen betroths [a daughter in Israel], note must be taken of such betrothal since it may be that he is of the ten tribes.<a id="k16b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely, anything separated [from a heterogeneous group] is re garded as having been separated from the majority!<a id="k16b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [R. Assi's statement refers] to places where they have settled;<a id="k16b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Abba b. Kahana said: And he put them in Halah and in Habor, on the river of Gozan, and the cities of the Medes;<a id="k16b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Halah is Halwan,<a id="k16b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and Habor
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k18a_1:" Lit., 'burst', 'split'."
,k18a_2:" Lit., 'by nothing', 'without formality', i.e., without the due performance of the <i>halizah</i>."
,k18a_3:" Because she is presumably regarded as his mother-in-law."
,k18a_4:" <i>Supra</i> 17a, q.v. for notes."
,k18a_5:" Why the levirate marriage is forbidden to the second"
,k18a_6:" The first, the widow of the first deceased brother."
,k18a_7:" Between the widow and the levir, from the moment her husband, the first brother, died."
,k18a_8:" With whom levirate marriage is forbidden."
,k18a_9:" Lit., 'acquires perfect possession', i.e., the widow is regarded as the legal wife of the second brother, and his own wife thus becomes her rival and is consequently exempt even from the <i>halizah</i>."
,k18a_10:" To Rabbah."
,k18a_11:" Lit., 'stood'."
,k18a_12:" The widow of the first deceased brother."
,k18a_13:" Lit., 'to him'."
,k18a_14:" The widow of the first deceased brother."
,k18a_15:" From the <i>halizah</i> and levirate marriage of the third brother."
,k18a_16:" Her rival, the widow of the second deceased brother."
,k18a_17:" With the third brother. <i>Infra</i> 19a."
,k18a_18:" v. <i>supra</i> p. 99' n. 5."
,k18a_19:" The bond being regarded to be just as binding as actual marriage."
,k18a_20:" And she should be exempt."
,k18a_21:" 'Ed. V, 5' <i>infra</i> 23b, 26a, 7b; because, obviously, both are bound by a levirate bond to both surviving brothers and each is the sister of a woman who is connected with either of the brothers by such a levirate bond."
,k18a_22:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 99' n. 5."
,k18a_23:" None of them standing in any marital relationship with either of the surviving brothers."
,k18a_24:" And be prevented from marrying the other widow."
,k18a_25:" Since the surviving brother would not be able to marry (or to participate in the <i>halizah</i> of) the second widow who is now his wife's sister."
,k18a_26:" <i>Infra</i> 51a."
,k18a_27:" A minor who was married to one brother while her sister had been married to another brother who died without issue."
,k18a_28:" A minor may refuse to live with her husband and no divorce is needed in her case. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>mi'un</i>."
,k18a_29:" Lit., 'she refused'. By her declaration of refusal her marriage becomes null and void retrospectively. As she has thus never been the legal wife of the Ievir, her sister (being no more his 'wife's sister') may contract the levirate marriage with him."
,k18a_30:" And becomes the legal wife of the surviving brother."
,k18a_31:" l.e., the elder sister."
,k18a_32:" <i>Infra</i> 79b, 109a; which shews that R. Gamaliel permits the annulment of the law of the levirate marriage. Similarly, if R. Meir maintains, like R. Gamaliel, that no levirate bond exists, he should also permit the annulment of the precept of the levirate marriage."
,k18a_33:" Rabbah."
,k18a_34:" Though they may agree on the question of the levirate bond, it does not necessarily follow that they agree also on the question of permission to annul the precept of the levirate marriage."
,k18a_35:" <i>Supra</i>; the possibility that one of the brothers might die."
,k18a_36:" It is a certainty that when the minor becomes of age the elder sister will be precluded from both marriage and <i>halizah</i>. This wide divergence of opinion is unlikely. Hence the fear of annulling the levirate marriage cannot be the reason for R. Meir's ruling in the above cited Mishnah; and consequently R. Meir cannot be of the opinion that no levirate bond exists."
,k18a_37:" Against the annulment of the precept of the levirate marriage."
,k18a_38:" So that R. Meir need not necessarily agree with R. Gamaliel on this point though he will agree with him on the question of the levirate bond."
,k18a_39:" That if a woman awaiting the decision of the levir died, the levir is still forbidden to marry her mother (<i>supra</i> 17b end)."
,k18a_40:" Not Rab's who also was his teacher. "
}

txt:
<p>
it might have been assumed [that this holds good only] while she is alive but that after death the bond is broken,<a id="k18a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it was taught that the levirate bond is not automatically<a id="k18a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; dissolved.
</p><p>
	May it be suggested that the following supports his view: 'If his deceased brother's wife died, the Ievir is permitted to marry her sister', which implies her sister Only but not her mother?<a id="k18a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The same law may apply even to her mother; but because he taught in the earlier clause, 'if his wife died he is permitted to marry her sister', in which case her sister only is permitted and not her mother, the latter being forbidden Biblically, he also taught in the latter clause, 'he is permitted to marry her sister'.
</p><p>
	R. Huna b. Hiyya raised an objection: IF HE ADDRESSED THE MA'AMAR TO HER AND DIED, THE SECOND MUST PERFORM <I>HALIZAH</I> BUT MAY NOT ENTER INTO THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<a id="k18a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason then<a id="k18a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is because he addressed to her<a id="k18a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the ma' amar, but had he not addressed a ma'amar to her,<a id="k18a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the second also would have been permitted to enter into the levirate marriage with him. Now, if it be maintained that the levirate bond does exist,<a id="k18a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; the second, owing to this bond, would be the rival of the 'wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'!<a id="k18a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah replied: The same law, that the second must perform the <i>halizah</i> with, but may not be married to the levir, applies even to the case where no ma'amar was addressed to her;<a id="k18a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and the ma'amar was mentioned only in order to exclude the view of Beth Shammai. Since they maintain that the ma'amar effects a perfect contract,<a id="k18a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; he teaches us [that it was not so].
</p><p>
	Abaye pointed out the following objection to him:<a id="k18a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; In the case of two [contemporary] brothers one of whom died without Issue, and the second determined<a id="k18a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; to address a ma'amar to his deceased brother's wife<a id="k18a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but before he managed to address a ma amar to her a third<a id="k18a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; brother was born and he himself died, the first<a id="k18a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; is exempt<a id="k18a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary' while the second<a id="k18a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; either performs the <i>halizah</i> or enters into the levirate marriage.<a id="k18a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it be maintained that a levirate bond does exist,<a id="k18a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; the second, owing to this bond, would be the rival of 'the wife<a id="k18a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; of his brother who was not his contemporary'!<a id="k18a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Whose view is this? It is that of R. Meir, who holds that no levirate bond exists.
</p><p>
	Does R. Meir, however, maintain that no Ievirate bond exists?<a id="k18a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely we have learned: In the case of four brothers two of whom were married to two sisters, if those who were married to the sisters died, behold their widows perform the <i>halizah</i> but may not be taken in levirate marriage [by either of the levirs].<a id="k18a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if R. Meir is of the opinion that no levirate bond exists,<a id="k18a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; these would come from two different houses,<a id="k18a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and one brother could marry the one while the other could marry the other! &mdash; The fact is that [R. Meir maintains that] no levirate bond exists; [but the levirate marriage is nevertheless forbidden] because he is of the opinion that it is forbidden to annul the precept of levirate marriages, it being possible that while one of the brothers married [one of the widowed sisters] the other brother would die,<a id="k18a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and thus the precept of levirate marriages would be annulled.<a id="k18a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If, however, no Ievirate bond exists, let [also the precept of the levirate marriage] be annulled! For R. Gamaliel who holds that no levirate bond exists<a id="k18a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; also [maintains that] the precept of the levirate marriage may be annulled; as we learned; R. Gamaliel said, 'If she<a id="k18a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; made a declaration of refusal<a id="k18a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; well and good;<a id="k18a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; if she did not make a declaration of refusal let [the elder sister] wait until [the minor] grows up<a id="k18a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and this one<a id="k18a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; is then exempt as his wife's sister'!<a id="k18a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; -The other<a id="k18a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; said to him: Are you pointing out a contradiction between the opinion of R. Meir and that of R. Gamaliel?<a id="k18a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; No [replied Abaye]; we mean to say this: Does R. Meir provide even against a doubtful annulment<a id="k18a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Gamaliel does not provide even against a certainty!<a id="k18a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is quite possible that he who does not provide<a id="k18a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; makes no provision even against a certain annulment, while he who does provide<a id="k18a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; makes provision even against a doubtful annulment.<a id="k18a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Rab Judah's statement<a id="k18a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; is Samuel's;<a id="k18a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; for we learnt:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 31
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k18b_1:" Her sister being forbidden to him as the sister of the woman connected with him by a Ievirate bond."
,k18b_2:" With the consummation of the marriage."
,k18b_3:" I.e., married the widow, when the Ievirate bond between her and the third brother will have been severed, and her sister will consequently be permitted to marry him."
,k18b_4:" <i>Infra</i> 410. Meg. 18b. This shews that in the opinion of Samuel a levirate bond exists between a widow and the brothers-in-law whose decision she is awaiting. (V. previous note)."
,k18b_5:" R. Joseph."
,k18b_6:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 101, n. 13."
,k18b_7:" Cf. p. 101, n. 14."
,k18b_8:" Lit., 'that of Rab upon Rab', i.e., Rab's presumed statement reported by Rab Judah is contradictory to the statement made in his name by R. Huna, <i>supra</i> 17b."
,k18b_9:" R. Huna and Rab Judah, both of whom were disciples of Rab."
,k18b_10:" Lit., 'leave aside'."
,k18b_11:" Lit., 'and establish it'."
,k18b_12:" Rab Judah's."
,k18b_13:" Attributing the ruling to Rab Judah without mentioning the authority from whom it originated."
,k18b_14:" I.e., specifically indicating the reported authority."
,k18b_15:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 99, n. 5."
,k18b_16:" Of Samuel."
,k18b_17:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 98, n. 8."
,k18b_18:" Cf. <i>supra</i> [H] 16."
,k18b_19:" By the statement that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Judah b. Bathyra."
,k18b_20:" The sister-in-law awaiting the levir's decision."
,k18b_21:" By the statement, 'a levirate bond exists'."
,k18b_22:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 98, n. 24."
,k18b_23:" Without issue."
,k18b_24:" The widow of the first deceased brother who is now also the widow of the second."
,k18b_25:" From <i>halizah</i> and marriage with the third brother."
,k18b_26:" Both having been the wives of the second brother."
,k18b_27:" The second brother."
,k18b_28:" The first brother's widow."
,k18b_29:" Before marriage took place."
,k18b_30:" With the third brother."
,k18b_31:" With reference to the first case of our Mishnah."
,k18b_32:" The third brother."
,k18b_33:" And thereby exempt the other. "
,k18b_34:" That mentioned in the previous Mishnah (<i>supra</i> 17a ad fin.). In his opinion the third brother may marry or submit to <i>halizah</i> from either of the two widows, even if he was born before the second brother had married the first brother's widow. "
,k18b_35:" Lit., 'that which was taught'."
,k18b_36:" Of the third brother."
,k18b_37:" The third brother on the date of his birth."
,k18b_38:" The widow of the first brother."
,k18b_39:" As an ordinary sister-in-law; she being no more the 'wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'. Lit., 'for when he found her he found her in a permitted state'."
,k18b_40:" To marry the third brother."
,k18b_41:" In which case the third brother's birth took place during the period when she was forbidden him as the 'wife of his brother who was not his contemporary."
,k18b_42:" Lit., 'but not?'"
,k18b_43:" Who permits marriage with the third brother even where his birth occurred prior to the widow's marriage. v. <i>supra</i> note 6."
,k18b_44:" Lit., 'the strength of R. Simeon'."
,k18b_45:" Who forbid the marriage even when the birth followed the marriage. Cf 'pro note 4."
,k18b_46:" Lit., 'against them'."
,k18b_47:" Lit., 'but'; if R. Simeon permits marriage in both cases."
,k18b_48:" To be forbidden the levirate marriage in accordance with the statement in the first Mishnah of the Tractate, <i>supra</i> 2b ab init."
,k18b_49:" Lit., 'to him'."
,k18b_50:" The levirate relationship here is entirely due to the deceased brother who was not the surviving brother's contemporary; and marriage is. therefore, rightly forbidden."
,k18b_51:" The first of whom died without issue."
,k18b_52:" The third brother, who was born after the death of the first, is forbidden to marry the widow whose connection with the first brother has never been severed, since the second has neither married her nor submitted to her <i>halizah</i>."
,k18b_53:" For permitting the third brother to marry either of the widows."
,k18b_54:" With the second brother."
,k18b_55:" Of the third brother."
,k18b_56:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 104, on 2-4."
,k18b_57:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 104, n. 6."
,k18b_58:" For R. Simeon's permission of marriage."
,k18b_59:" Between widow and living levir."
,k18b_60:" The widow is consequently regarded as the wife of the second brother from the moment the first died. When the third brother is subsequently born the widow has no longer any connection with the deceased brother and cannot any more be regarded in relation to the third, as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'."
,k18b_61:" Obviously not. How then could it be said that R. Simeon definitely regards the 'levirate bond' alone as actual marriage?"
,k18b_62:" Lit., 'what is it?' where did R. Simeon express such doubt?"
,k18b_63:" The widow of the deceased brother."
,k18b_64:" The widows of the two deceased brothers."
,k18b_65:" Deut. XXV, 5."
,k18b_66:" May be taken in levirate marriage."
,k18b_67:" v. <i>supra</i> p. 98, n. 8."
,k18b_68:" V. <i>supra</i> p' 97' n. 16."
,k18b_69:" The levir."
,k18b_70:" R. Simeon does not recognize a double bond. If the ma'amar addressed by the second brother was binding. the bond with the first brother, he maintains, was thereby severed, and there remains only the bond with the second; and if it was not binding then again only one bond exists, that with the first brother."
,k18b_71:" <i>Infra</i> 31b. For the reason given anon."
,k18b_72:" Between the levir (the second brother) and the first widow."
,k18b_73:" The second brother's actual wife and the widow of the first to whom he addressed a ma'amar and who is his virtual wife. "
}

txt:
<p>
If the brother of the levir had betrothed the sister of the widow who was awaiting the levir's decision,<a id="k18b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he is told, so it has been stated in the name of R. Judah b. Bathyra, 'Wait<a id="k18b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; until your brother has taken action;'<a id="k18b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and Samuel said, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the ruling of R. Judah b. Bathyra'.<a id="k18b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; The other<a id="k18b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; asked him: 'What [objection could there be] if the statement<a id="k18b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; be attributed to Rab?<a id="k18b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it the contradiction between the two statements of Rab?<a id="k18b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely it is possible that these Amoraim<a id="k18b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; are in dispute as to what was the opinion of Rab!' &mdash; Since this ruling was stated with certainty in the name of Samuel, while as to Rab's view [on the matter] Amoraim differ, we do not ignore<a id="k18b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the statement attributing it with certainty to Samuel in favour of the one<a id="k18b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; which involves Amoraim In a dispute as to the opinion of Rab.
</p><p>
	Said R. Kahana: I reported the statement<a id="k18b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; in the presence of R. Zebid of Nehardea, when he said: You teach it thus;<a id="k18b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; our version is explicit:<a id="k18b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel, "If a woman awaiting the decision of the levir died, [the levir] is forbidden to marry her mother", from which it naturally follows that he is of the opinion that a levirate bond exists'.<a id="k18b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel is here consistent; for Samuel said, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the view of R. Judah b. Bathyra'.
</p><p>
	Said [both statements<a id="k18b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; are] necessary. For had he only stated, 'A levirate bond exists', it might have been assumed to refer to the case of one levir only<a id="k18b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to that of two,<a id="k18b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; hence we are taught<a id="k18b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [that the Same law applies also to two]. And if it had only been stated, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the opinion of R. Judah b. Bathyra', it might have been assumed [that the levirate bond is in force] while the widow<a id="k18b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; is alive but that after her death the bond is dissolved, hence we are taught<a id="k18b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; that the levirate bond Is not dissolved automatically.<a id="k18b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF THERE WERE TWO BROTHERS AND ONE OF THEM DIED,<a id="k18b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE SECOND PERFORMED THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WITH HIS [DECEASED] BROTHER'S WIFE, AND AFTER A [THIRD] BROTHER WAS BORN THE SECOND DIED,<a id="k18b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; THE FIRST<a id="k18b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; IS EXEMPT<a id="k18b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; ON ACCOUNT OF HER BEING THE WIFE OF HIS BROTHER WHO WAS NOT HIS CONTEMPORARY', WHILE THE SECOND IS EXEMPT AS HER RIVAL.<a id="k18b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE<a id="k18b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; ADDRESSED TO HER<a id="k18b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; A MA'AMAR AND DIED,<a id="k18b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SECOND MUST PERFORM THE <I>HALIZAH</I><a id="k18b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT SHE MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. R. SIMEON SAID:<a id="k18b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; HE<a id="k18b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY EITHER TAKE IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WHICHEVER OF THEM HE DESIRES<a id="k18b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; OR HE MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE <I>HALIZAH</I> WITH WHICHEVER OF THEM HE DESIRES.<a id="k18b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Oshaia said: R. Simeon disputed the first case also<a id="k18b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence is this inferred? From the existence of<a id="k18b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; a superfluous Mishnah. For in accordance with whose view was it necessary to teach the clause of the first [Mishnah]? If it be suggested, [according to that] of the Rabbis, [it may be retorted]: If when the levirate marriage had taken place first and the birth<a id="k18b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; occurred afterwards, in which case he,<a id="k18b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; found her<a id="k18b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; permitted,<a id="k18b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis nevertheless forbade her,<a id="k18b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; is there any need [for them to specify prohibition in the case where] the birth<a id="k18b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; occurred first and the marriage took place afterwards!<a id="k18b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently<a id="k18b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; it must have been required [in connection with the view] of R. Simeon; and the first [Mishnah] was taught in order to point out to you how far R. Simeon<a id="k18b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; is prepared to go<a id="k18b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; while the last Mishnah was taught in order to show you how far the Rabbis<a id="k18b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; are prepared to go. It would, indeed, have been logical for R. Simeon to express his dissent in the first case, but he waited for the Rabbis to conclude their statement and then he expressed his dissent with their entire statement.<a id="k18b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	How, in view of what has been said,<a id="k18b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; is it possible according to R. Simeon to find a case of 'a wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'?<a id="k18b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In the case of one brother who died and a second brother was subsequently<a id="k18b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; born;<a id="k18b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; or also in the case of two brothers<a id="k18b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; where the second has neither taken the widow in the levirate marriage nor died.<a id="k18b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>
</p><p>
	One can well understand [R. Simeon's reason]<a id="k18b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; where the levirate marriage<a id="k18b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; took place first and the birth<a id="k18b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; afterwards, for in this case he found her permitted;<a id="k18b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; where, however, the birth occurred first and the levirate marriage took place afterwards,<a id="k18b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; what [reason [could be advanced]?<a id="k18b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; -He holds the opinion that a levirate bond exists<a id="k18b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; and that such a bond is like actual marriage.<a id="k18b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joseph demurred: If R. Simeon is in doubt as to whether in the case of a 'levirate bond' and a 'ma amar' combined the widow should or should not be regarded as married, need there be any [doubt in the case of] a 'levirate bond' alone?<a id="k18b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence is this known?<a id="k18b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We have learned: In the case where three brothers were married to three women who were strangers [to one another] and, one of the brothers having died, the second brother addressed to her,<a id="k18b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; a ma'amar and died, behold these<a id="k18b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; must perform <i>halizah</i> with, but may not marry the [surviving] levir; for it is said in the Scriptures, And one of then die [etc.], her husband's brother shall go in unto her,<a id="k18b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; only she<a id="k18b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; who is tied to one levir,<a id="k18b_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; but not she who is tied to two levirs.<a id="k18b_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon said: He<a id="k18b_69"><sup>69</sup></a>&nbsp; may take in levirate marriage whichever of them he pleases<a id="k18b_70"><sup>70</sup></a>&nbsp; and submits to the <i>halizah</i> of the other.<a id="k18b_71"><sup>71</sup></a>&nbsp; He must not take both widows in levirate marriage since it is possible that a levirate bond exists<a id="k18b_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; and thus the two sisters-in-law<a id="k18b_73"><sup>73</sup></a>&nbsp; would be coming
</P>


lvr: 31
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k19a_1:" One as actual, the other as virtual wife of the same husband, the second brother. The Torah required the levir 'to build up his brother's house' (Deut. XXV, 9) from which it is inferred that it is his duty to build up only a house but not houses, i.e., to marry his brother's one wife but not his two wives."
,k19a_2:" Both of whom are subject to the levirate marriage. and one of whom cannot exempt the other."
,k19a_3:" R. Simeon."
,k19a_4:" As to whether a levirate bond exists. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 105, n. 9."
,k19a_5:" Where two brothers died simultaneously; when the one widow is as much tied to him as the other."
,k19a_6:" Lit., 'with nothing'."
,k19a_7:" Lit., 'saying and not saying' or 'ma'amar and not ma'amar'."
,k19a_8:" The third brother."
,k19a_9:" R. Joseph."
,k19a_10:" As in our Mishnah where the first brother was survived by one brother only. The subsequent birth of a third brother does not affect the levirate any more than it can affect an actual marriage."
,k19a_11:" Of which the cited Baraitha speaks. There, when the first brother died he was survived by two brothers."
,k19a_12:" Between one levir and two."
,k19a_13:" Of a third brother."
,k19a_14:" Of the second brother with the widow of the first."
,k19a_15:" Who survived the first deceased brother after whose death the third brother was born."
,k19a_16:" Which proves that even in the case of one levir R. Simeon does not recognize the existence of a levirate bond."
,k19a_17:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 4."
,k19a_18:" Where the birth of the third preceded the marriage of the second."
,k19a_19:" Where birth preceded marriage."
,k19a_20:" The Tanna preferred to draw a distinction between two sets of circumstances both of which relate to the brothers-in-law rather than to draw a distinction between one brother-in-law and two brothers-in-law in the same set of circumstances."
,k19a_21:" According to which neither <i>halizah</i> nor levirate marriage is allowed whenever the birth preceded the marriage. Both, according to what has just been said, are permissible in the case of one levir."
,k19a_22:" Against the statement that R. Simeon regards the levirate bond as actual marriage."
,k19a_23:" The women enumerated."
,k19a_24:" If their husbands, the two brothers, died without issue."
,k19a_25:" With the third surviving brother."
,k19a_26:" By that brother; since both are equally related to him by the same 'levirate bond' and each is forbidden to him as the consanguineous relative of the woman connected with him by such bond."
,k19a_27:" <i>Infra</i> 28b; even from the <i>halizah</i>."
,k19a_28:" I.e., the widow whose husband bad died first, and who, through the 'levirate bond', is regarded as the levir's virtual wife even before he married her."
,k19a_29:" Her consanguineous relative, the widow of the second deceased brother."
,k19a_30:" As a forbidden relative; being consanguineous with his virtual wife."
,k19a_31:" In R. Simeon's statement."
,k19a_32:" Whose husband died last. The first, however, is to be taken in levirate marriage."
,k19a_33:" <i>Infra</i> 28b, Rid. 50b."
,k19a_34:" 'Both' used by R. Simeon refers to the second of each pair. Raba assumed that the two brothers had married two sisters and also a mother and her daughter. One of the first is taken in levirate marriage and the others are thereby exempt either as 'forbidden relatives' or 'rivals'."
,k19a_35:" Enumerated in the cited Mishnah, assuming as he did that it meant marriage by the. two brothers of more than one pair (v. previous note)."
,k19a_36:" 'Or' occurs after the enumeration of each pair."
,k19a_37:" Viz., that R. Simeon's exemption refers to the second of each pair."
,k19a_38:" Since four pairs were enumerated."
,k19a_39:" Widows of the first brother."
,k19a_40:" Lev. XVIII, 18."
,k19a_41:" As in the case cited, where each of the two brothers was married to one of each pair, and when the first brother died all his widows became subject to levirate marriage with the second brother and thus become rivals."
,k19a_42:" Even the first widow. Consequently R. Simeon's exemption applies to all, which shews that he recognizes no distinction on the question of the levirate bond between one levir and two levirs!"
,k19a_43:" The widows."
,k19a_44:" That the 'levirate bond' in the case of one levir being recognized even by R. Simeon as being as forcible as actual marriage. the levir (the third brother) marries the first while the other is exempt, though her husband (the second brother) died before he actually married the first."
,k19a_45:" In the Mishnah cited by R. Oshaia in objection against the view attributing to R. Simeon a distinction between one levir and two levirs."
,k19a_46:" I.e., to ascertain that two things occur exactly at one and the same moment, Bek. 17a. Hence it may happen that both brothers die simultaneously and both widows simultaneously become subject to the third brother and consequently, on the view of R. Simeon, both exempt from <i>halizah</i> and levirate marriage."
,k19a_47:" Disagreeing with R. Oshaia, <i>supra</i> 18b."
,k19a_48:" From the Rabbis of our Mishnah."
,k19a_49:" With the second brother."
,k19a_50:" Of the third brother."
,k19a_51:" 'Marriage before birth' in our Mishnah and 'birth before marriage' in the previous one."
,k19a_52:" To shew that they exempt not only in the one case but also in the other. Cf. <i>infra</i> notes 11-12"
,k19a_53:" As to the objection raised (<i>supra</i> 18b): Since they exempt in the second case, what need was there to mention the first which could have been inferred from it a minori ad majus?"
,k19a_54:" The case in the first Mishnah, the birth of the third brother before the marriage of the second, where the birth occurred while the widow was still under a prohibition to marry him."
,k19a_55:" The case in the second Mishnah, where the birth of the third brother occurred when the widow was already permitted to him."
,k19a_56:" That when the birth of the third brother occurred prior to the marriage of the second with the widow of the first, R. Simeon agrees with the Rabbis."
,k19a_57:" From marriage and <i>halizah</i> with the third brother."
,k19a_58:" The widow of the second brother."
,k19a_59:" The second brother."
,k19a_60:" The ma'amar addressed to the first widow not having 'the same force as actual marriage to render the second brother's wife her rival to be exempt from <i>halizah</i> as well as from the levirate marriage with the third brother. "
}

txt:
<p>
from one house.<a id="k19a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Nor must he take one In levirate marriage and thereby exempt the other, for it is possible that the levirate bond is not as binding as actual marriage, and the two sisters-in-law would thus be coming from two houses.<a id="k19a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; From this it clearly follows that he<a id="k19a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is in doubt.<a id="k19a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you reply that Biblically one of the widows may indeed be taken in levirate marriage and the other is thereby exempt, but that this procedure had Rabbinically been forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of the assumption that where two sisters-in-law came from two houses<a id="k19a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; one may be taken in levirate marriage and the other is thereby exempt without any further ceremonial;<a id="k19a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; surely [it may be pointed out] R. Simeon's reason is because of his doubt as to the validity of the levir's ma'amar!<a id="k19a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: R. Simeon said to the Sages, 'If the ma'amar of the second brother is valid he<a id="k19a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is marrying the wife of the second; and if the ma'amar of the second is invalid he is marrying the wife of the first'! &mdash; Said Abaye to him:<a id="k19a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Do you not make any distinction between the levirate bond with one levir and the levirate bond with two levirs? It is quite possible that R. Simeon said the levirate bond is like actual marriage in the case of one levir only<a id="k19a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but not in that of two levirs.<a id="k19a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Does R. Simeon, however, recognize such a distinction?<a id="k19a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely it was taught: R. Simeon has laid down a general rule that wherever the birth<a id="k19a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; preceded the marriage<a id="k19a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; the widow is neither to perform <i>halizah</i> nor to be taken in levirate marriage. If the marriage<a id="k19a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; preceded the birth<a id="k19a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; she may either perform the <i>halizah</i> or be taken In levirate marriage. Does not this apply to one levir?<a id="k19a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And yet It is stated 'she is neither to perform <i>halizah</i> nor to be taken in levirate marriage'!<a id="k19a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; it applies to two levirs.<a id="k19a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But in the case of one levir,<a id="k19a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; may she in such circumstances also<a id="k19a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; either perform <i>halizah</i> or contract levirate marriage? If so, instead of stating, 'If the marriage preceded the birth she may either perform <i>halizah</i> or be taken in levirate marriage' the distinction should have been drawn in this very case itself,<a id="k19a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; thus: 'This applies only to the case of two brothers.in.law but with one brother-in-law she may either perform <i>halizah</i> or be taken in levirate marriage'! &mdash; The entire passage dealt with two brothers-in-law.<a id="k19a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What, then, is meant by the general rule?<a id="k19a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; And a further objection<a id="k19a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; was raised by R. Oshaia: If there were three brothers and two of them were married to two sisters, or to a woman and her daughter, or to a woman and her daughter's daughters or to a woman and her son's daughter, behold these<a id="k19a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; must<a id="k19a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; perform the <i>halizah</i><a id="k19a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but may not be taken in levirate marriage.<a id="k19a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon, however, exempts them.<a id="k19a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it be assumed that R. Simeon is of the opinion that the 'levirate bond' has the same force as actual marriage, let [the third brother] take the first widow<a id="k19a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; In levirate marriage and let the other<a id="k19a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; be thereby exempt.<a id="k19a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Amram replied: The meaning of 'exempt'<a id="k19a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; is that he exempts the second widow,<a id="k19a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; But has it not been taught: R. Simeon exempts them both'?<a id="k19a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; -Raba replied: The second of the one pair and the second of the other pair.<a id="k19a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba, however, was mistaken [in the interpretation] of the four pairs.<a id="k19a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; For, in the first instance, we have twice the word 'or',<a id="k19a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and, furthermore, [if Raba's interpretation were the correct one]<a id="k19a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; it should [have read], 'R. Simeon exempts the four'.<a id="k19a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, it was taught: R. Simeon exempts both<a id="k19a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; from the <i>halizah</i> and from the levirate marriage, for it is said in the Scriptures, And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to he a rival to her,<a id="k19a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; when they become rivals to one another<a id="k19a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; you may not marry even one of them!<a id="k19a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; But, said R. Ashi: If they<a id="k19a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; had become subject [to the levir] one after the other, the law would indeed have been so.<a id="k19a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; Here,<a id="k19a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; however, we are dealing with the case where both become subject to him at the same time; and R. Simeon shares the view of R. Jose the Galilean who stated, 'It is possible to ascertain simultaneous occurrence'.<a id="k19a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa<a id="k19a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; said: R. Simeon differs<a id="k19a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; only where the levirate marriage<a id="k19a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; took place first, and the birth<a id="k19a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; afterwards; he does not differ, however, when the birth<a id="k19a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; occurred first, and the marriage<a id="k19a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; took place afterwards; and both these cases<a id="k19a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; are required on account of the Rabbis,<a id="k19a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; and<a id="k19a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; [a stronger case is given after a weaker] 'not only this<a id="k19a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; but also that'.<a id="k19a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught in agreement with R. papa<a id="k19a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; and in contradiction to R. Oshaia: If one of two contemporary brothers died without Issue, and the second intended to address a ma 'amar to his deceased brother's wife but before he was able to do so a third brother was born and he himself died, the first widow is exempt<a id="k19a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; as 'the wife of the brother who was not his contemporary', and the second<a id="k19a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; may either perform the <i>halizah</i> or be taken in levirate marriage. If, however, he<a id="k19a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; addressed a ma'amar to the widow and subsequently a third brother was born, or if a third brother was born first and he<a id="k19a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; addressed the ma'amar to the widow subsequently, and died, the first widow is exempt<a id="k19a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary' while the second<a id="k19a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; must perform the <i>halizah</i>,<a id="k19a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; though she may not be taken in levirate marriage.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


