## Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot Chapter 1 ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:1) **משנה:** חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּבּוּם עַד סוֹף העוֹלָם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנוֹ בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו אֲחוֹתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Fifteen [categories of] women¹. 25:5 requires that the widow of any man who died without legitimate or illegitimate issue be married by the man’s brother. If, however, that brother is forbidden one of the deceased’s wives by the incest prohibition of *Lev*. 18 or the rules of *Deut.* 25:5–10, she may not be married by the brother to whom she is forbidden. free their co-wives² and the co-wives of their co-wives from *ḥalîṣah* and levirate forever³ polygamous brothers; *n* arbitrary.. They are the following: one’s daughter⁴.). Legitimate children are covered by *Lev*. 18:17. However, the Yerushalmi (Note 135) does not make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate daughters. Sadducees (followed by Karaites and Christians) did forbid marriage with a niece since marriage with an aunt is a biblical prohibition and they held that the incest prohibitions of *Lev*. 18 are gender symmetric. Pharisaic opinion is that “one does not introduce punishable offence by argument;” what is written is forbidden, what is not written is not (biblically) forbidden., his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter⁵. 18:10., his wife’s daughter and her daughter‘s daughter and her son’s daughter⁶. 18:17: “The genitals of a women and her daughter (including mother-in-law and wife) you may not [both] uncover, her son’s daughter (wife’s granddaughter or wife as paternal grandmother’s daughter) or her daughter’s daughter (this forbids the wife’s maternal grandmother) you may not marry to uncover her genitals; they are relatives, it is tabu.”, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister⁷. 18:9) married to a paternal halfbrother. It will be established that the levirate applies only to paternal brothers; the first marriage of the halfsister was legitimate. and his maternat aunt⁸. 18:13. and his wife’s sister⁹. 18:18., his maternal halfbrother’s wife¹⁰. 18:16. It is assumed that the halfbrother died or divorced his wife who then married a paternal halfbrother of the man in question to whom she was not related. The earlier marriage to the maternal halfbrother forbade her permanently to the levir, the brother-in-law on the husband’s side. Since in *Deut*. 25, “brother” is assumed to mean “paternal brother”, it needs some discussion in the Halakhah why in *Lev*. 18 “brother” may mean “maternal or paternal brother” since the usual stance is that in legal texts one word can have only one meaning., the wife of his brother who did not live in his world¹¹. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family., and his daughter-in-law¹². 18:15) except for the case that the son had died and his widow married a brother of her father-in-law unrelated to her. The prohibition of 18:15 is permanent; the earlier marriage to the son forbade her permanently to the father-in-law.. footnotes: ¹ Deut ² The House of Hillel hold that if one widow is forbidden, all co-widows are forbidden. This is not accepted by the House of Shammai, Mishnah 6. ³ If one of three brothers had married the second brother’s daughter and another woman, died childless, the other wife was married by the third brother who already had another wife, if the third also dies childless both of his widows are forbidden because one of them is forbidden. This scenario can be extended to n ⁴ This statement seems to be needed only for an illegitimate daughter, except the daughter from a gentile or a slave woman who are not legally his relatives (Rashi ad loc ⁵ Lev ⁶ Lev ⁷ This is needed only for the maternal halfsister (Lev ⁸ Lev ⁹ Lev ¹⁰ Lev ¹¹ Deut ¹² This is obvious (Lev ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:2) **הלכה:** חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן כול׳. כְּתִיב מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives”, etc. ¹³ 2(9–10); another version of 2(10) in Babli *Yebamot* 39b. The basis of the argument is the 12th exegetical rule of R. Ismael [Introduction to *Sifra* (2)]: If anything was in some set and was removed from it for another purpose, you cannot return it to that set unless the verse returns it explicitly. See *Midraš* *Gen*.*rabba* 85(6) for a formulation of 2(10) referring more directly to the rule. (For an introduction to these rules, see H. Guggenheimer, *Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition*, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196; *Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike*, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–161.) What exactly was permitted, became forbidden, and is now commanded is a matter of interpretation in the next paragraphs. It is written¹⁴. 6:9, speaking of the leftovers of cereal offerings in the Tabernacle. These leftovers must be eaten by priests, in the holy precinct, and unleavened, after the prescribed rites were performed. “unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted¹⁵ and then forbidden¹⁶, when it became permitted again¹⁷ should one think it returned to its prior permission? The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted and then forbidden, when she became permitted again should one think she returned to her prior permission¹⁸? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment. footnotes: ¹³ Sifra Ṣaw Parashah ¹⁴ Lev ¹⁵ Before dedication as offering, the flour was profane and permitted to everybody. It is in the set of unrestricted permitted food. ¹⁶ After dedication and before the prescribed rites were performed, the flour is forbidden to everybody, including priests. It is no longer in any set of permitted food. ¹⁷ After the prescribed rites were performed, it cannot return to the set of unrestricted permitted food. ¹⁸ A rhetorical question; this is impossible by rule 12. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:3) רִבִּי יוֹסֵי פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָה. מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישָׁהּ. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל אוֹכֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְנֶאֶסְרָה קָרַב קוּמְצָהּ וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל אוֹכֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס כּוֹנֵס. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ כוֹנֵס. נִשֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וְנֶאֶסְרָה וּמֵת אָחִיו בְּלֹא בָנִים חָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס כּוֹנֵס. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ כוֹנֵס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yose¹⁹ 40a, the parallel arguments, in inverse order, are attributed to Rava, a preeminent authority. He is known sometimes to represent Yerushalmi positions, cf. צבי דוֹר, תוֹרת ארץ ישׂראל 1971. בבבל, דביר, תל אביב explains the *baraita*: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat. When he dedicated it became forbidden. When the fistful²⁰. 6:8, brought to the altar to be burned. Once the offering starts to burn, the remainder is permitted to the priests. was brought it became permitted again; should one think it returned to its prior permission? If he wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat²¹. and *Lev*.? The verse states “unleavened it must be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house²², he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment²³ to marry her whether he likes her or not.. footnotes: ¹⁹ The Amora. In the Babli, Yebamot ²⁰ A fistful of the offering with all the incense, Lev ²¹ This is also Rava’s argument in the Babli. The Babli corrects the statement since the obligation to eat the remainders of the offering is repeated several times in Ex ²² As his bride. ²³ He has ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:4) רִבִּי הוּנָא פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵירָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישָׁהּ. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל חָמֵץ אוֹכֵל. מַצָּה אוֹכֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס לְשֵׁם תּוֹאָר כּוֹנֵס. לְשֵׁם מָמוֹן כּוֹנֵס. נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וְנֶאֶסְרָה. מֵת אָחִיו בְּלֹא בָנִים חָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס לְשֵׁם תּוֹאָר כּוֹנֵס. לְשֵׁם מָמוֹן כּוֹנֵס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Huna²⁴. *c*. 39b) this is the opinion of Rav Isaac ben Eudaimon, a minor figure. Here also, the author R. Huna of this paragraph does not have the authority of R. Yose of the preceding paragraph. explains the *baraita*: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it leavened, he eats it, unleavened, he eats it. ²⁵ The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her brother-in-law shall come upon her” as commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment²⁶. footnotes: ²⁴ In the Babli (l ²⁵ The argument of the preceding paragraph has to be inserted here. Since the corrector of the ms. did not insert anything here, it probably was not in the ms. before the copyist; the lacuna can be replaced by three dots. ²⁶ She remains forbidden if the levir has any intention other than to fulfill the commandment. This means that in practice the brother has to refrain from marrying the sister-in-law to avoid enjoying her sexually. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:5) אַתְיָא דְרִבִּי חוּנָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. דְּתַנָּא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ לְשׁוּם נוֹי אוֹ לְשׁוּם דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעִילַת זְנוּת וְקָרוֹב לִהְיוֹת הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It turns out that Rebbi Ḥuna follows Abba Shaul, as we have stated²⁷: “Abba Shaul says, one who brings his sister-in-law into his house because of beauty or another reason²⁸ commits intercourse of prostitution and the child is close to be a bastard²⁹. 23:3..” footnotes: ²⁷ A different formulation, stressing the opposition of the anonymous majority, in Babli 39b. ²⁸ Other than fulfilling the biblical commandment. ²⁹ Who is forbidden to marry a Jewish partner, Deut ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:6) מַה אַבָּא שָׁאוּל כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בִיבָמָה. מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בִּיבָמָה שֶׁזִּינָת. מַה דְאָמַר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. אַתְיָא כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲלַפְתָּה. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא יִיבֶּם אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. חָמֵשׁ חֲרִישׁוֹת חָרַשׁ וְחָמֵשׁ נְטִיעוֹת נָטַע וְדֶרֶךְ סַדִּין בָּעַל. אֵילּוּ הֵן. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי מְנַחֵם בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי אֵבְדִּימוֹס בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Does Abba Shaul hold with Rebbi Aqiba? Since Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! What Rebbi Aqiba said refers to a sister-in-law who whored³⁰. 25:5) “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man” he holds that any marriage of a widow not released from levirate duty to another man is invalid and her relationship is one of whoring. A parallel, but more differentiated, statement is in the Babli 92a.. What Abba Shaul said refers to his sister-in-law³¹. It comes like Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta³² since Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta contracted a levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He ploughed five times and planted five saplings and had intercourse using a bedsheet³³ 48a). The story contradicts Mishnah 4:4 which states that once married, the sister-in-law becomes a wife *in all respects*, including the husband’s duty to satisfy her sexual needs. Tosaphot (Babli *Šabbat* 118b) discuss the Yerushalmi versions but they read that R. Yose contracted levirate marriages *with the widows of his brothers* implying that he married five widows, had with each of them only the one biblically required intercourse (*Deut*. 25:5) and then divorced them. This custom was followed by some Jewish Berber groups in the Atlas mountains to modern times. (R. Moses Margalit restricts the avoidance of direct contact to the first intercourse in fulfillment of the biblical command. R. David Fraenckel concludes that R. Yose rejects Mishnah 4:4 except that he agrees that the wife acquired in levirate can be divorced by the rules applying to any other wife.) The parallel in Babli *Šabbat* 118b, formulated as personal statement of R. Yose does not mention either the sheet or levirate marriage, and appears in a completely different context.. These are they: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose³⁴, Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eudaimon ben Rebbi Yose. footnotes: ³⁰ R. Aqiba holds that any child born of any forbidden union is a bastard; the majority opinion is that bastards are created only by incestuous relations that either are capital crimes or sanctioned by extirpation (cf. Halakhot 4:15, 11:1). Since it is written (Deut ³¹ In a completely legal situation. ³² The Tanna, who is a much more important authority than the older Abba Shaul. The formulation as a story implies that R. Yose followed Abba Shaul as a matter of personal piety but did not impose his discipline on others. ³³ He avoided direct contact with his levirate wife following Abba Shaul. In a regular marriage, such behavior permits the wife to force a divorce (Babli Ketubot ³⁴ Only the first two are renowned; R. Ismael ben R. Yose was the teacher of R. Yehudah the Prince. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:7) כְּתִיב עֶרוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה. מַשְׁמַע הוּא בֵין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁהָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. בֵּין לְחַיִּים בֶּין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָנִים בִּין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָנִים. הוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. יָכוֹל לְכָל דָּבָר. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּיו. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר עֲבָדֶיךָ אַחִים אֲנַחְנוּ. מַה אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אַף אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It is written³⁵. 18:16.: “The genitals of your brother’s wife you may not uncover.” One understands both his paternal and his maternal brothers’ wives, both the wife of a brother who lived concurrently with him or onewho did not live concurrently with him, whether he had children or did not have children³⁶. 25:5; among them a reference to *Lev*. 18:9, where “sister” is expressly defined as at least a halfsister from any side. [A tannaitic source, *Sifra Qedošim Pereq* 11(8), restricts the meaning of “brother” in this verse to that in *Deut*. 25:5. Cf. R. Abraham ben David’s commentary ad loc.] The Yerushalmi has no need for an additional argument since this paragraph is still a continuation of the first one in this Halakhah, an application of the 12th exegetical rule (Note 13), only that the argument is inverted. Since we know that if something was permitted, forbidden, and permitted again, the set of second permissions must be a proper subset of that of first permissions, it is necessary that the restrictions applied to the meaning of “brother” in the second set cannot apply to the prohibition. {The Babli avoids using rules 7–13 of R. Ismael and never has systematic comparisons between arguments following R. Ismael and those following R. Aqiba.}. She became permitted, excluded from this set, by levirate. Should I think unconditionally? It is said here³⁷ 25:5.: “When brothers live together”; and it is said there³⁸. 42:13. להלן is a Babylonism; in true Galilean style it would be תמן. The parallel argument is in Babli 17b; because the constructive framework of the Yerushalmi is missing in the Babli, the latter has a lengthy discussion why the definition of “brother” for levirate is narrower than that for incest prohibitions.: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers.” Since the “brothers” mentioned there are paternal brothers, so the “brothers” mentioned here must be paternal brothers. footnotes: ³⁵ Lev ³⁶ The verse is discussed in the Babli, 55a, independently from the verse quoted next. Therefore, the Babli engages in a series of arguments to indicate that “brother” in this verse has a wider meaning than “brothers” in Deut ³⁷ Deut. ³⁸ Gen ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:8) יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן. הֵן בַּחַיִּים. אֲפִילוּ גֵּירְשָׁהּ וּמֶת זוּ פְטוּרָה. וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵן פְּטוּרָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ³⁹. 25:5. The parallel in the Babli, 17b, follows *Sifry* *Deut*. #288 in inferring from “together” not only to exclude the wife of a predeceased brother but also the wife of the maternal halfbrother who in a patriarchal world would not live in their clan.“Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. “And one of them died”, of those who lived. Even if he divorced her and then died? This one is exempted⁴⁰. “Without child”. Therefore, if he has a child she is exempted. footnotes: ³⁹ Deut ⁴⁰ Exempted from the rules of the levirate. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:9 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:9) כְּתִיב כִּי אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֶל וְנִכְרָת. וַהֲלֹא אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בִּכְלָל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הַוָות וְהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. יָכוֹל אַף שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלָלָן עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. עָלֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. יִבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בַּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בַּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It is written⁴¹ 18:29. The verse is not quoted exactly. The argument is in *Sifra Qedošim Pereq* 10(10). A similar version in Babli 3b.: “For anyone who is acting out any of these abominations will be extirpated”⁴². Was not the brother’s wife in the set of all incest prohibitions and was removed from this set by the levirate? Could one say that all other incest prohibitions were removed from this set by levirate? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “upon her⁴³ 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51.”, “upon her⁴⁴”: “her levir shall come upon her.⁴⁴” Since with respect to “upon her” which was said there, the verse speaks about paternal brothers, so with respect to “upon her” which was said here⁴³ 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51., the verse speaks about paternal brothers⁴⁵ 18 can be subject to the levirate, as spelled out in the Mishnah.. footnotes: ⁴¹ Lev. ⁴² The argument is made explicit (in the name of the 5th generation Galilean Amora R. Jonah) in Babli 8a: The verse considers all incest prohibitions as equivalent. ⁴³ Lev. ⁴⁴ Deut. 25:5. ⁴⁴ Deut. 25:5. ⁴³ Lev. ⁴⁵ This implies (a) that a sister which also is a sister-in-law cannot be subject to the levirate and (b) no woman subject to an incest prohibition of Lev. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:10 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:10) רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִן בַּר גִּידַל וְרִבִּי אָחָא הֲווּ יָתְבִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא הָדָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִן בַּר גִּידַל. אוֹ מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָחָא. הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בִּיבָמָה וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ [רִבִּי] בִּנְיָמִן בַּר גִּידַל. הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר בִּיבָמָה. ואִיקְפִּיד רִבִּי אָחָא לְקוֹבְּלֵיהּ. אַמָר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא דְרִבִּי אָחָא פַּלִּיג אֶלָּא דְהוּא מַקְפֵּד עַל לִישְׁנָא דְשָׁמַע מִן רַבֵּיהּ. מַה כְדוֹן. יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּ(שֶׁאֵינָה) יְבָמָה. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן אֲפִילוּ יְבִמְתּוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there⁴³ 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51., the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here⁴⁴, does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law⁴⁷18:18 obviously includes the prohibition of a sister-in-law who is not a brother’s wife, R. Yose ben Ḥanina’s argument seems illogical.? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions⁴⁴ the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions⁴³ 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51. one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law⁴⁸ to *Lev.* would restrict the prohibition of the sister-in-law to a brother’s widow!! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there⁴⁴ is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here⁴³ 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51. is even about a brother’s widow⁴⁹ 18:18 applies even to the widow of the childless brother as claimed in the Mishnah.. footnotes: ⁴³ Lev. ⁴⁴ Deut. 25:5. ⁴⁷ Since an argument based on the invariable meaning of words in legal texts must work both ways and Lev. ⁴⁴ Deut. 25:5. ⁴³ Lev. ⁴⁸ The implication from Deut. ⁴⁴ Deut. 25:5. ⁴³ Lev. ⁴⁹ The correct implication, parallel to the argument of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, is that Lev. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:11 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:11) אָמְרָה תוֹרָה וְאִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ לֹא תִקַּח. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הִיא. צָרָתָהּ מְנַיִין. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר לִצְרוֹר. לֹא לְצָרָתָהּ וְלֹא לְצָרַת צָרָתָהּ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת מְנַיִין. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בַּר חֲנִינָה. קַל וַחוֹמֶר. מַה אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְיוּחֶדֶת עֶרְוָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ הֲרֵי הִוא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָן לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. מַה זוֹ עֶרְוָה פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ אַף שְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** The Torah said⁵⁰ 18:18.: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister”. Not only her, her co-wife from where? The verse says “to ‘bundle’ together”, not her co-wife nor her co-wife’s co-wife⁵¹ 14:25. The duplication of consonants is taken to imply “many bundlings together”, to exclude the co-wives’ co-wives. That argument is more in the line of R. Aqiba’s teaching than the bare argument here.. Not only his wife’s sister, all other incest prohibition from where? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: A conclusion *de minore ad majus*⁵²*.* Since his wife’s sister, who is under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed⁵³, nevertheless is prohibited from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions which cannot be lifted after being imposed not much more so! Since in the first case the incest prohibition exempts the prohibited co-wife, all other incest prohibitions also exempt their co-wives⁵⁴. This follows Rebbi Aqiba. footnotes: ⁵⁰ Lev. ⁵¹ The problem is the verb form לִצְרוֹר which has been translated as “to ‘bundle’ together” (from צרר II, Arabic صرّ) but which might also be taken as “to be a co-wife” (from צרה II, Arabic ضرّ). The Yerushalmi opts for the first version. In the Babli, 13a, the argument is that the verb appears in two forms, צרר here and צור in Deut. ⁵² The first of R. Ismael’s rules (cf. Note 13) which is universally accepted, also by R. Aqiba. ⁵³ After the wife’s death. ⁵⁴ Since there is no argument pointing to the opposite conclusion. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:12 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:12) כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. קַל וַחוֹמֶר. מַה אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְיוּחֶדֶת עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. אַף כָּל עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Following Rebbi Ismael? ⁵⁵ *Pereq*11(10); a version combining the argument with the argument excluding the co-wives in Babli 3b. Both sources are anonymous. Rebbi Ismael stated an argument *de minore ad majus.* Since his wife’s sister is particular being under incest prohibition for whose violation one is punished if intentional by extirpation, if in error by an obligation to bring a purification offering, and is barred from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions for whose violation one is sanctioned if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation to bring a purification offering, should be barred from the levirate. footnotes: ⁵⁵ Sifra Qedošim ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:13 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:13) מַה נִפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. מָאן דָּמַר עֶרְוָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ. זוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. מָאן דָּמַר עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת הֲרֵי זֶה אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. זֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין חַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת תְּהֵא מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** What is the difference between them? A widow for the High Priest. For him who says, a woman under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed, this one, not being permitted after being prohibited⁵⁶21:14. No sanction in mentioned in this case, in contrast to violations of incest prohibitions whose punishment is detailed in Chapter 20. On the other hand, following the principle that “one ascends in holiness but does not descend”, a High Priest may become inactive but he cannot return to the status of common priest permitted to marry a widow., should be barred from the levirate. For him who says, a woman under an incest prohibition for which one is punished if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation to bring a purification offering, is barred from the levirate, in this case since one is not sanctioned if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation of a purification offering, should be permitted for the levirate⁵⁷. footnotes: ⁵⁶ A widow is forbidden for the High Priest as a new wife, Lev. ⁵⁷ This conclusion has to be shown to be faulty. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:14 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:14) רִבִּי אַיְיבוּ בַּר נַגָּרִי קְרִיסִפּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. זוֹ אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא זָרָה לוֹ. אָמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה. לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אֲפִילוּ מִצְוָה. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. יְבִמְתּוֹ יְבִמְתּוֹ. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּחֲלִיצָה. אִי יְבִמְתּוֹ יְבִמְתּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּיִיבּוּם. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מָאֵן יַבְּמִי. זוֹ שֶׁמִּיאֵן יַבְּמִי. לֹא שֶׁמֵּיאֵינוֹ שָׁמַיִם. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. הֲוֵוי צוֹרְכָה לְהֵין דְאָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. יְבִמְתּוֹ יְבִמְתּוֹ. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּחֲלִיצָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari, Crispus, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “The dead man’s wife should not be outside, to a strange man⁵⁸ 25:5. “To be” referring to a woman means “to be married”, *Deut.*24:2. זר “strange” means “outside the clan”, cf. *Num.* 17:5. This is interpreted here to mean “outside her marriage group”, e. g., the High Priest for the widow..” That is a wife who is a stranger to him. The Torah said, she should not be his wife even in case of a commandment. That being, she should not need *ḥalîṣah!* Rebbi Jeremiah⁵⁹ said: “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of *ḥalîṣah*⁶⁰ 25:7 reads: “If the man does not want to take his sister-in-law, then his sister-in-law shall go to the elders at the gate and she shall say: My levir refuses to sustain his brother’s name in Israel, my levir does not agree.” The second “sister-in-law” seems unnecessary; if it were written “then she shall go” it would have the same meaning. Since we hold that no word in the Torah is unnecessary, R. Jeremiah concludes that there is a sister-in-law who goes even though the levir did not refuse but Heaven refused for him. This is the subject of the next paragraph.! If from “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, did the Torah not increase the cases of levirate⁶¹ 25:7 also repeats “levir”, should there not be a levir who marries his sister-in-law even though the union otherwise would be forbidden?? Rebbi Ismael stated⁶² #289. There, the second “levir” is used to express what R. Jeremiah concluded from the first part of the verse: “My *levir* does not agree,” to exclude the case that the Omnipresent does not agree.: “My levir refuses”. That is, my levir refused, not that Heaven refused for him. In that case, she should not need *ḥalîṣah*! That means, the statement of Rebbi Jeremiah is needed, “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of *ḥalîṣah*! footnotes: ⁵⁸ Deut. ⁵⁹ In the differently formulated Babli parallel, 20a, the author is Rav. It seems therefore that one should read “Rav Jeremiah” (first generation Babylonian) rather than “Rebbi Jeremiah” (fifth generation Galilean). ⁶⁰ Deut. ⁶¹ Since Deut. ⁶² Sifry Deut. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:15 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:15) רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֶיפְשַׁר לוֹמַר קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי אַיילוֹנִית קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי אַיילוֹנִית מִטַּעַם אַחֵר הוּצֵאתָה. אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד. יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a widow need *ḥalîṣah*? He said to him, is it possible to say that her *qiddushin*⁶³, requires the groom to hand over to the bride an object of value (today, a gold ring) or a written promise of marriage and to declare before two witnesses that the woman is betrothed to him. From that moment on they are married as far as penal law is concerned. In antiquity, the prospective bride (who probably was in her early teens) did not prepare any trousseau. Hence, after *qiddushin* she was given adequate time to prepare and then was married to live with her husband in a second public ceremony, *nissuïn,* the execution of the *ketubah* document, in which the groom mortgages all his possessions and earnings for the upkeep of his wife and the care of his children, followed by the public recitation of seven benedictions (in the presence of 10 adult males). From that moment on, the couple is required to live in intimacy. Today, the two ceremonies are separated only by the reading of the *ketubah* and, sometimes, by a rabbi’s sermon. The period between *qiddushin* and *nissuïn* is one in which the groom is legally married, but as he is forbidden marital relations with his wife, as yet has no financial responsibility. After *nissuïn,* since the wife has a claim on his property enforceable in court, he receives administration of her estate. The “preliminary marriage” contracted by *qiddushin*, in Greek speaking communities called πρωτογαμία (cf. *Demay* 6, Note 19), can be dissolved only by a valid bill of divorce. are legally recognized⁶⁴ (where the relationship is punished by extirpation by the Heavenly court or as a capital crime by the earthly court) are null and void. Forbidden marriages for which no particular penalties are indicated, such as marriages of priests with unsuitable women or marriages of bastards, are sinful but valid. Since the marriage of a High Priest with a widow would be valid, it is clear that a levirate union would be sinful but valid and, therefore, the widow needs *ḥalîṣah.* and you say she may not need *ḥalîṣah*? He answered him: But *qiddushin* of a she-ram⁶⁵ are legally recognized and one says that she does not need *ḥalîṣah*! He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear⁶⁶ #289, quoted in Babli 12a. *Deut.* 25:6: “It shall be that the firstborn *she will bear* should replace the name of his dead brother”.”, this excludes the one who cannot have children. footnotes: ⁶³ A Jewish marriage is performed in two stages. The first, qiddushin ⁶⁴ Incestual qiddushin ⁶⁵ A woman lacking secondary feminine sex characteristics held to be infertile. ⁶⁶ Sifry Deut. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:16 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:16) עַד שֶׁאַתְּ לָמֵד כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת מֵאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ לְאִיסּוּר. לְמַד כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת מֵאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לְהֵיתֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לְמֵידִין שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין מִשְּׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין. וְאֵין לְמֵידִין שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין מֵאִיסּוּר אֶחָד. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אָבוּן. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטֶל הָאִיסּוּר. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וּמַה אִית לָךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. כְּגוֹן אֵילּוּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. בִּתּוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו אֲסוּרָה לוֹ. נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו מוּתֶּרֶת לוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Instead of inferring from his wife’s sister that all women under incest prohibitions remain prohibited⁶⁷, deduce from his brother’s wife that all women under incest prohibitions become permitted⁶⁸! Rebbi Mana⁶⁹ said,one infers two prohibitions from two prohibitions⁷⁰ but one does not infer two prohibitions from one prohibition⁷¹. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun: For anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for anything not induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. What is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, e. g., those fifteen categories of women. That you should not say that his daughter is forbidden to him before she is married to his brother; once she is married to his brother she is permitted to him. footnotes: ⁶⁷ For levirate; see above, Notes 50–55. ⁶⁸ That the prohibitions are eliminated by the duty of levirate. The argument is repeated in the Babli, 8a, by Amoriam of the last Babylonian generation who add an additional argument. ⁶⁹ Since the authors quoted in the following are of early generations, this must be R. Mana I. ⁷⁰ One pre-existing prohibition to which was added the additional prohibition of adultery when she married the brother. ⁷¹ In the case of an unrelated woman, the prohibition of adultery and that of marrying the brother’s wife are one and the same. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:17 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:17) לֵוִי בַּר סוּסַיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי. נִיתְנֵי שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. אִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ. נִיכַּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מוֹחַ בְּקָדְקֳדוֹ. וְלָמָּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וּבִמְפוּתַּת אָבִיו. וְלֹא מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם קִידְּשָׁהּ שֶׁתָּפְסוּ בָהּ קִידֻּשִׁין. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנִּינָן שֵׁשׁ עֲרָיוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת מֵאֵילּוּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נְשׂוּאוֹת לָאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כֵן. אִם יְכוֹלוֹת לְהִינָּשֵׂא לְאָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא בַעֲבֵירָה צָרוֹתֵיהֶן פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם. וּמִכּוּלָּם אֵין לָךְ אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. לָמָּה לֹא תַנִּיתָהּ. בְּגִין דְּתַנִּיתָהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה לֹא נִיתְנִינָהּ. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְנִינָהּ. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְתַנִּינָן. אֲחוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתָּהּ אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתִיַיבֶּמֶת. וְאַתְּ מִשְׁכַּח בְּכוּלְּהוֹן אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתּוֹ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. חוּץ מֵאִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ⁷² Levi bar Sisi asked before Rebbi: Should we not state “sixteen women”? One’s mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother⁷³ 23:1 does not forbid the unmarried mother of a son to his paternal halfbrothers. R. Jehudah disagrees but even he must hold that the prohibition of the unwed mother to the halfbrothers of her son is not severely penalized and therefore, a marriage would be legally valid. The incest prohibitions of *Lev.* 18 all speak of the “father’s wife”.. He said to him, it is evident that this person has no brain in his head. And why? He said to him, because of Rebbi Jehudah, because Rebbi Jehudah forbids the one who was raped or seduced by his father. Does Rebbi Jehudah not agree that if [the halfbrother] gave her *qiddushin,* the preliminary marriage is legally recognized? But because we have stated⁷⁴: “Six incest prohibitions more severe than these; because they are married to others their co-wives are free.” And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thereupon: ⁷⁵ 1:7. In that case, the marriage is valid and the co-wives are freed as co-wives of a forbidden one. But if the “marriage” of the brother was in sin, it was in deadly sin and the marriage was not legally recognized. In that case, the brother was not married to the forbidden woman and the so-called co-wife was in fact the only wife and subject to the laws of the levirate.“If they may marry his brother without sin their co-wives are freed from *ḥalîṣah* and levirate.” And among all of them there is only his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. Why did we not state this? Because Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it, should we not state it? Certainly we should state it! But because we have stated⁷⁶: “Her sister who also is her sister-in-law either takes *ḥalîṣah* or accepts the levirate.” We find in all cases⁷⁷ 9b. In the 16th case, if the raped woman married a son of the man who raped her, her sister cannot marry her son since the maternal aunt is forbidden in *Lev.* 18:13. Therefore, her sister cannot be her sister-in-law in a case involving prohibited levirate. that her sister who also is her sister-in-law accepts the levirate except for his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. footnotes: ⁷² Babli 9a. There, many other interpretations are given and the discussion extends up to fol. 10b. ⁷³ According to the majority interpretation, Deut. ⁷⁴ Mishnah 1:5. ⁷⁵ Tosephta Yebamot ⁷⁶ Babli 9b, in the name of R. Ḥiyya. ⁷⁷ The complicated scenario for all 15 cases of the Mishnah is given in detail by Rashi in his Commentary to Yebamot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:18 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:18) יִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַיָיה אָמַר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי. נִיתְנֵי. שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. חֲלִיצָה פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמַיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָתָהּ. בְּגִין רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בַּחֲלוּצָה. נִיתְנִינָהּ עַל דְּרַבָּנִן. לֹא אָתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא מִילִין דְּכָל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי בְהוֹן. אַתְיָיא דְּיִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַיָיא כְּרִבִּי אִמִּי. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְהָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. בֵּין הוּא וּבֵין אַחִים חַיָיבִין עַל הַצָּרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בֵּין הוּא בֵין אַחִין אֵינָן חַיָיבִין לֹא עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְלֹא עַל הַצָּרָה. רִבִּי אִימִּי מַחֲלִיף שְׁמוּעָתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְהָא רִבִּי אִימִּי מַחֲלִיף שְׁמוּעָתָא. אֶלָּא דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילוּ תֹאמַר. דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לְרִבִּי יוֹחָָנָן. דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּיִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַיָיא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי אִמִּי וּמִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן מְסַיְיעִין לְרִבִּי יָסָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי בָּא תְּרֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּצָרָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. מַה פְלִיגִין. בַּחֲלוּצָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְהָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Isaac, the son of the isatis grower⁷⁸, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? *Ḥalîṣah* frees her co-wife⁷⁹, she is forbidden to him and all other brothers. The majority opinion is that she is forbidden not as his brother’s wife since that prohibition was eliminated when levirate became possible but because it is written in *Deut*. 25:5 אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִבְנֶה אֶת־בֶּית אָחִיו which is interpreted not as “who *would* not build his brother’s house but as “who *will* not build”; if he refused once he will not build in the future. If the brother who performed *ḥalîṣah* nevertheless afterwards marries his sister-in-law, that marriage is recognized since no special penalties are attached to this prohibition. If he then dies childless, according to R. Simeon ben Laqish she is forbidden to any remaining brothers as wife of the first brother since for them that prohibition was never lifted. Since she is severely forbidden, the co-wife is free without ceremony.! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got *ḥalîṣah*⁸⁰. One should have stated it for the rabbis⁸¹! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed⁸². Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty⁸³ for the woman who got *ḥalîṣah*, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got *ḥalîṣah*. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife⁸⁴ is not different from that vis-à-vis the other brothers.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got *ḥalîṣah* or for the co-wife⁸⁵. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions⁸⁶. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions⁸⁷. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions⁸⁸? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got *ḥalîṣah*. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got *ḥalîṣah*, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got *ḥalîṣah*. footnotes: ⁷⁸ His name appears only here. ⁷⁹ This cryptic argument is explicit in Babli 10b in the form of a discussion between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. It is generally agreed that when a levir freed his brother’s widow from the levirate by the ceremony of ḥalîṣah ⁸⁰ R. Aqiba, who denies any difference between severely or simply forbidden marriages, declares all children born from all kinds of forbidden marriages as bastards forbidden to marry untainted Jewish partners. ⁸¹ Who disagree with R. Aqiba. ⁸² The Babli quotes only the tradition here attributed to R. Immi. ⁸³ “Guilty” of the severe sin of incest with the brother’s wife. ⁸⁴ Since she was not selected for the ceremony, her status vis-à-vis the brother performing ḥalîṣah ⁸⁵ Since any of the brothers could have performed the ceremony, the severe prohibition was lifted for all of them and was never re-instituted. ⁸⁶ Since the position of R. Simeon as quoted by R. Yasa contradicts the position of R. Simeon quoted by R. Isaac the isatis grower’s. ⁸⁷ He taught different positions to different students (R. Immi and R. Yasa). ⁸⁸ Should he have changed his position just to oppose R. Joḥanan? ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:19 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:19) מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. חֲלוּצָה פְטוֹר. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה בֵין חוֹלֵץ מַה בֵין מְגָרֵשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּחוֹלֵץ אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ⁸⁹ gives the widow the additional status of divorcee, a position endorsed by Rebbi. Samuel holds that *ḥalîṣah* is simply the removal of an impediment for the widow to remarry and does not create new marriage restrictions. The words of the rabbis mean that *ḥalîṣah* is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having *ḥalîṣah* and divorcing⁹⁰ is at least rabbinically treated as a divorcee.? He said to him: You think that *ḥalîṣah* is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty⁹¹ for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in *ḥalîṣah*” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.” footnotes: ⁸⁹ This paragraph belongs to Halakhah 3:1 where the main discussion is whether ḥalîṣah ⁹⁰ Since in relation to a Cohen the woman freed by ḥalîṣah ⁹¹ If they would engage in sexual relations with her. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:20 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:20) רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעָא. כְּמַה דְּאָמַר. בֵּין הוּא בֵין אַחִין אֵין חַיָיבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עַל הַצָּרָה. נִיחָא הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. שֶׁכְּבָר נִרְאֶה לִפְטוֹר בָּהּ. וְחַיָיב עַל הַצָּרָה. שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאֶה לִפְטוֹר בָּהּ. אַחִין מַה בֵּין חֲלוּצָה אֶצְלוֹ מַה בֵּין צָרָה אֶצְלוֹ. חָזַר וְאָמַר. אֵין אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ מִשֵּׁם מַה אַתְּ מְחַיְיבוֹ. אִי מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּחוֹלֵץ אִי מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּחוֹלֵץ אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁלַּמֵת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got *ḥalîṣah* but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got *ḥalîṣah* since he was cleared to have her freely⁹². He is guilty about the co-wife since he was never cleared to have her freely. What is the difference for one of the brothers between the woman who got *ḥalîṣah* and the co-wife? He turned around and said, you do not know under which head to declare him guilty, whether as wife of the one performing *ḥalîṣah* or wife of the deceased. Rebbi Yose said, do you think *ḥalîṣah* is acquisiton? But it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in *ḥalîṣah*” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”. footnotes: ⁹² Since he could have married her in levirate. The Babli, 9a, rejects this kind of argument since any one of the brothers could have acted as levir of any of the widows which, therefore, were potentially available to all brothers and none of them could be accused of incest with any of the women. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:21 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:21) רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּצָרָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. קִידֵּשׁ אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן וּבָא הַיָּבָם וְחָלַץ לָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. וּפָקְעוּ מִמֶּנָּה קִידּוּשִׁין. חָלַץ לַחֲבֵירָתָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. לְמַפְרֵיעָה חָלוּ עֲלֶיהָ קִידּוּשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. נִמְנוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וְכַמָּה זְקֵינִים. מְנַיִין שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בִּיבָמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לָהּ הֲוָיָיה אֵצֶל אַחֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָה הִיא. אוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּחֲלוֹץ לֵיךְ יַבְּמֵיךְ. אֵינֶהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְהָיָה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְקַלֶּס לָהּ. הַזָּלִים זָהָב מִכִּיס. בְּנִי אַל יַלִּיזוּ מֵעֵינֶיךָ. חֲכַם בְּנִי וְשַׂמַּח לִבִּי. תֵּן לְחָכָם וְיֶחְכַּם עוֹד. יִשְׁמַע חָכָם וְיוֹסֵף לֶקַח. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּתַר כָּל אִילֵּין קִילּוּסַיָיא יְכוֹל (הוא) אֲנָא פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בִּיבָמָה. אֶלָּא תַּמָּן יְבָמָה אַחַת וְהָכָא שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא אִיסּוּר יְבָמָה אַחַת שַׁנְיָיא הִיא אִיסּוּר שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says that everybody agrees about the co-wife that he is guilty, if somebody from the market gave *qiddushin* to one of them and then the levir came and performed *ḥalîṣah* with her or had intercourse with her, did the *qiddushin* become invalid? If he performed *ḥalîṣah* with her companion but then had intercourse with her, were *qiddushin* validated retroactively? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 elders voted, from where that *qiddushin* have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, ⁹³. 25:5.“the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with another man⁹⁴ or simply makes them sinful like other non-incestuous forbidden unions. The editors of the Babli explicitly follow Samuel and reject the opinion of the Yerushalmi. That a transgression which is not a capital crime either before the human or the heavenly court is invalid is a very exceptional statement.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? ⁹⁵ 3:5. The Mishnah enumerates situations in which consummation of the marriage is impossible at the moment but may become possible later on. If consummation of the marriage is impossible then *qiddushin* are impossible since they make the bride a wife for all aspects of criminal law. She becomes a wife for matters of civil law only by entering the husband’s house in *nissuïn*, the marriage ceremony. (R. Meїr disagrees and acknowledges inoperative *qiddushin* which become activated once the impediment to marriage is removed. The second question of R. Yudan must refer to R. Meїr’s position.)“Or after your levir will have performed *ḥalîṣah* with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai⁹⁶ 2:1 and a similar text in *Kilaim* 8:1 (p. 258). praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet⁹⁷. 46:6.,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,⁹⁸. 3:21.” “get wise, my son, and make me happy⁹⁹. 27:11.”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser¹⁰⁰. 9:9.,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.¹⁰¹. 1:5.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law³⁰. 25:5) “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man” he holds that any marriage of a widow not released from levirate duty to another man is invalid and her relationship is one of whoring. A parallel, but more differentiated, statement is in the Babli 92a.! But there¹⁰². is one sister-in-law, here are two sisters-in-law. The prohibition of a single sister-in-law is different from that of two sisters-in-law¹⁰³! footnotes: ⁹³ Deut ⁹⁴ This is the unquestioned doctrine of the Yerushalmi. In the Babli, 92b, it is the position only of Rav; Samuel doubts whether the verse invalidates qiddushin ⁹⁵ Qiddušin ⁹⁶ The text here reads “R. Joḥanan”. This has been changed in the translation following the parallel text in Soṭah ⁹⁷ Is ⁹⁸ Prov ⁹⁹ Prov ¹⁰⁰ Prov ¹⁰¹ Prov ³⁰ R. Aqiba holds that any child born of any forbidden union is a bastard; the majority opinion is that bastards are created only by incestuous relations that either are capital crimes or sanctioned by extirpation (cf. Halakhot 4:15, 11:1). Since it is written (Deut ¹⁰² Mishnah Qiddušin ¹⁰³ The biblical argument of R. Yannai does not imply anything about the status of a co-wife; cf. Note 92 for the opposition of the Babli. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:22 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:22) רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעָא. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַחֲלִיצָה אֲבָל חַיָיב הוּא עַל הַצָּרָה. חֲלִיצָה פְּטוֹר. בִּיאָה פְּטוֹר. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר. חָלַץ לָהּ נֶאֶסְרָה לָאַחִין. וְדִכְוָותָהּ בָּא עָלֶיהָ נֶאֶסְרָה לָאַחִין. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. מֵת הָרִאשׁוֹן יְיַבֵּם הַשֵּׁינִי. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי יְיַבֵּם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה אַתְּ סָבַר. הִיא חֲלִיצָה הִיא בִּיאָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָלַץ לָהּ נֶעֶקְרָה הִימֶּינָּה זִיקַת הַמֵּת לְמַפְרֵיעָה. לְמַפְרֵיעָה חָל עָלֶיהָ אִיסּוּרוֹ שֶׁלְּמֵת אֵצֶל הָאַחִין. אֲבָל אִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. מֵת הָרִאשׁוֹן יְיַבֵּם הַשֵּׁינִי. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי יְיַבֵּם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got *ḥalîṣah* but he is guilty for the co-wife, *ḥalîṣah* is freeing; is intercourse freeing¹⁰⁴. 25:5. The act not only is one of binding the woman to him but also of freeing him from the incest prohibition of the brother’s wife.? As you say, if he performed *ḥalîṣah* with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate¹⁰⁵! Rebbi Yose said, what do you think? That *ḥalîṣah* is the same as intercourse? Once he performed *ḥalîṣah*, the claim of the dead is removed from her retroactively. Retroactively fell on her the prohibition¹⁰⁶ of the dead man regarding the brothers. But if he had intercourse with her, she is his wife¹⁰⁷. On that did Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate¹⁰⁸. footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ Intercourse is the only way a sister-in-law can be married, Deut ¹⁰⁵ How can the third man marry her if she is forbidden to him by the levirate of the second? ¹⁰⁶ The incest prohibition. ¹⁰⁷ “In every respect”, Mishnah 4:4. Her relationship with the first husband is legally dissolved. ¹⁰⁸ But if two husbands die (except in war or during an epidemic) she is considered a danger to a husband’s life and must have ḥalṣîah. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:23 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:23) אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ. נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ. גְּבַר וּבְרֵיהּ נָסְבִין תַּרְתֵּין אַחֲוָון. אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. תְּרֵין אַחִין נְסִיבִין לְתַרְתֵּין אַחֲוָון. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “His maternal halfsister,” married to his paternal halfbrother. “His mother’s sister,” a man and his son married two sisters. “His wife’s sister,” two brothers being married to two sisters¹⁰⁹. footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ From here to the end of the Halakhah one constructs cases in which the prohibitions of levirate can actually apply. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:24 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:24) וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אַחֲוָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר עֲבָדֶיךָ אַחִים אֲנַחְנוּ. מַה אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אַף אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן יְשִׁיבָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן יְשִׁיבָה. וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בָּהּ. מַה יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ יְרוּשָּׁה. אַף יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ יְרוּשָּׁה. רִבִּי אָבוּן בַּר בִּיסנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן דְּבֵית גּוּבְרִין. יָשְׁבוּ. אֶת שֶׁיְּשִׁיבָתָן בְּבַיִת אֶחָד. יָצְאוּ אַחִים מִן הָאֵם שֶׁזֶּה הוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיו וְזֶה הוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיו. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “His maternal halfbrother’s wife.¹¹⁰” It mentions here brotherhood and it is said there: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers.” Since the “brothers” mentioned there are paternal brothers, so the “brothers” mentioned here must be paternal brothers¹¹¹. Rebbi Jonathan said, it is said here dwelling and it says there dwelling. “You will inherit and dwell there¹¹² 17:13..” Since with “dwelling” mentioned there, inheritance is connected. so with “dwelling” mentioned here, inheritance is connected. Rebbi Abun bar Bisna in the name of Rebbi Jonathan from Bet Gubrin: “they dwell¹¹³ 25:5. The argument is based on the expression “dwell *together*”. Cf. *Sifry Deut*. #288, first paragraph. The argument is hinted at in the Babli, 17b, as a side remark.”. Those whose dwelling is in one house. This excludes maternal halfbrothers where one goes to his own father’s house and the other one goes to his own father’s house. footnotes: ¹¹⁰ One explains why the scenario described in Note 10 is intended, that there is no levirate among maternal halfbrothers. ¹¹¹ See above, Note 37. ¹¹² Deut. ¹¹³ Deut. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:25 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:25) יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה אָמַר. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. אַיילוֹנִית וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ הָיוּ בְפָרָשָׁה. מֶה חָמִית מֵימַר. אַיילוֹנִית צָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ צָרָתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַיילוֹנִית מִטַּעַם אַחֵר הוּצֵאתָה. אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד. יָצָאת זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת. לא דַיֵיךְ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתְּ מְבַקֵּשׁ לֶאֱסוֹר צָרָתָהּ. אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ עֶרְוָה הִיא וְעֵרְוָה פוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. אַסִּי אָמַר. צָרַת אַיילוֹנִית אֲסוּרָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל אַסִּי. וְכוּלָּן אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. מַה דָמַר אַסִּי כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. כֹּל שֶׁאֵין אַתְּ מְיַיבְּמֵינִי אֵין אַתְּ מְיַיבֵּם צָרָתִי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world¹. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family.³⁹. 25:5. The parallel in the Babli, 17b, follows *Sifry* *Deut*. #288 in inferring from “together” not only to exclude the wife of a predeceased brother but also the wife of the maternal halfbrother who in a patriarchal world would not live in their clan.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: The she-ram⁶⁵ and the wife of his brother who did not live in his world were in the paragraph. Why do you see fit to say that the co-wife of the she-ram is permitted but the co-wife of the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is forbidden? He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children⁶⁶ #289, quoted in Babli 12a. *Deut.* 25:6: “It shall be that the firstborn *she will bear* should replace the name of his dead brother”.. Is it not enough that she cannot be eligible for the levirate but you also want to forbid her co-wife? But the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is under an incest prohibition and any incest prohibition frees the co-wife. Assi¹¹⁴ said, the co-wife of a she-ram is forbidden. The Mishnah¹¹⁵ disagrees with Assi: “All of these, if they died, or refused, or were divorced, or turned out to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Assi follows Rebbi Meїr since Rebbi Meїr said, in any case where you cannot take me in levirate you cannot take my co-wife¹¹⁶. footnotes: ¹ Deut ³⁹ Deut ⁶⁵ A woman lacking secondary feminine sex characteristics held to be infertile. ⁶⁶ Sifry Deut. ¹¹⁴ He is Rav Assi; his statement is in Babli 12b. Since he is Babylonian and slightly older than Rav for whom the title of “Rav” was invented, it seems correct to leave him without title. ¹¹⁵ Mishnah 1:2. ¹¹⁶ The Babli holds that the Mishnah speaks about a girl whose first husband never realized that she was congenitally sterile. Therefore, we assume that had he known this, he would not have married her; the marriage act was in error and she is not his widow. But if he knowingly married a sterile woman she is his wife and her co-wife is forbidden (accepting R. Meiir’s reasoning without quoting him.) ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:26 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:1:26) וְכַלָּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁמּוּתָּר לָאָדָם לִישָּׂא אֶת אֵשֶׁת בֶּן אָחִיו. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “And his daughter-in-law.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man is permitted to marry his brother’s son’s wife¹¹⁷. footnotes: ¹¹⁷ A daughter-in-law becomes a sister-in-law only if the son dies or divorces her and she marries a brother. The statement is attributed to R. Ḥaggai in Halakhah 11:4. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:2:1) **משנה:** הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם. וְכוּלָּם אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֵנוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. וְאֵי אַתְּ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בַּחֲמוֹתוֹ וּבְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת אוֹ שֶׁמֵּיאֵינוּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from *ḥalîṣah* and levirate forever³ polygamous brothers; *n* arbitrary.. And all of these, if they died, or repudiated¹¹⁸, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted¹¹⁹. But you cannot say about his mother-in-law or his mother-in-law’s mother that they were found to be she-rams or that they had repudiated¹²⁰. footnotes: ³ If one of three brothers had married the second brother’s daughter and another woman, died childless, the other wife was married by the third brother who already had another wife, if the third also dies childless both of his widows are forbidden because one of them is forbidden. This scenario can be extended to n ¹¹⁸ Only a father can give his minor daughter in marriage. If the father died, mother or brother can marry her off, but this marriage is rabbinic only and the girl can walk out of the marriage as long as she is a minor by a simple declaration that she refuses to be married to this man. ¹¹⁹ An impediment to levirate must exist at the moment of death of the childless brother. If the relationship with the brother was dissolved before his death, it no longer has any influence. ¹²⁰ If they had a daughter they must have had marital relations when adult. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:2:2) **הלכה:** הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְמֵאֵנֶת הִיא בְּיָבָם לַעֲקוֹר זִיקַת הַמֵּת לְהַתִּיר צָרָה לְאָבִיהָ וְכַלָּה לְחָמִיהָ. רַב וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. אֵינָהּ מְמֵאֵנֶת בְּיָבָם לַעֲקוֹר זִיקַת הַמֵּת וּלְהַתִּיר צָרָה לְאָבִיהָ וְכַלָּה לְחָמִיהָ. רַב וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים בְּבַעַל. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי לֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵיךְ וְלֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵי אָחִיךְ. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהִיא עוֹקֶרֵת. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵיפְשִׁי בְנִישּׂוּאִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי לֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵיךְ וְלֹא בְנִישּׂוּאֵי אָחִיךְ. רַב וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בְנִישּׂוּאֵיךְ אֲבָל בְּנִישּׂוּאֵי אָחִיךְ רוֹצָה אֲנִי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְכוּלָּן אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ וְלֹא הִימֶּינּוּ. וְדִכְוָותָהּ מֵיאֵינוּ הִימֶּינּוּ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כֵן. אִם מֵיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ בְחַיֵי הַבַּעַל צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל צָרוֹתֵיהֶן חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from *ḥalîṣah* and levirate, etc.” ¹²¹ Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law¹²² is permitted to the girl’s father in case the father had lost his guardianship over the daughter (see below). She herself is permitted to her non-husband’s father. The Babli, 12a, agrees that repudiation of the levir invalidates the marriage to the dead brother but nevertheless in this case forbids the girl to the father-in-law (a Babylonian *baraita*).. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”¹²³? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates¹²⁴. But we hold in case she says “I cannot stand marriage¹²⁵”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him¹²⁶. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted¹²⁷. But levirate cannot be tolerated since that would show that the rabbinically valid marriage is a sham.. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform *ḥalîṣah* but not levirate. footnotes: ¹²¹ The main place of this Halakhah is Halakhah 13:1. ¹²² If the girl walks out of the marriage, the marriage did never exist. The co-wife after ḥalîṣah ¹²³ Mishnah 13:1; the House of Shammai limit repudiation strictly to the husband even if the widow is a minor. It would be very unusual if practice were to follow the House of Shammai against the declared opinion of the House of Hillel. ¹²⁴ Reading of Halakhah 13:1. The ms. here reads “does not invalidate”. The practice is that of the House of Hillel. ¹²⁵ Without spelling out which marriage. ¹²⁶ The first husband in his lifetime. ¹²⁷ To the brothers in levirate. The marriage of a minor except through the father is only rabbinic and cannot eliminate the biblical requirement of levirate or ḥalîṣah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:2:3) אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְּרִבִּי מַתָּנְיָת. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁמֵּתוּ וְלֹא מֵיאֵנוּ. דְּמַתְנִיתָא. כָּל הַיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵינָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. כֵּן מַתְנִיתָא. כָּל הַיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵנָה וּמֵתָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר בְּקַיֶימֶת. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁאֵין שָׁם יָבָם אַחֵר אֶלָּא אָבִיהָ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died without having repudiated since there is a Mishnah¹²⁸: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs *ḥalîṣah* but cannot be married in levirate¹²⁷. But levirate cannot be tolerated since that would show that the rabbinically valid marriage is a sham..” So is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not dies, her co-wife performs *ḥalîṣah* but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if her father is the only levir¹²⁹. footnotes: ¹²⁸ Mishnah 1:4. ¹²⁷ To the brothers in levirate. The marriage of a minor except through the father is only rabbinic and cannot eliminate the biblical requirement of levirate or ḥalîṣah ¹²⁹ Since at the moment of the husband’s death the rabbinic marriage of the daughter was still presumed to be valid and the daughter cannot repudiate her father, there is no way to circumvent the prohibition of levirate. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:2:4) רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. בִּלְבַד מִן הָאֵירוּסִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. אַף מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. בְּמַחֲזֵירָה תִנְיָנָא חָזַר בּוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי פִּינְחָס. לֹא כֵן אִלְּפָן רִבִּי. מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהִיא קְבוּעָה גַּבָּךְ כְּמַסְמֵרָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Jonah said, only after *qiddushin*¹³⁰. Rebbi Yose said, even after final marriage. In the second repetition¹³¹., Rebbi Yose changed his mind. Rebbi Phineas said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us “after final marriage”? He answered him, is that fixed in you like a nail¹³²? footnotes: ¹³⁰ This refers to the she-ram married to the dead brother. R. Jonah holds that after consummation of the marriage the husband would recognize that his wife had no secondary sex characteristics and that she was congenitally sterile. If he did not claim that the marriage was in error (since usually people marry with a view to have children), the marriage was valid and it is not clear why an incest prohibition for the she-ram should be irrelevant for the co-wife. ¹³¹ The second time R. Yose taught Yebamot ¹³² He refused to be bound by his prior opinion. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:2:5) אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. יֵאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עַד לֹא יַחֲזוֹר בָּהּ. אִילּוּ בִתּוֹ מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין בְּלֹא אַיילוֹנִית צָרָתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּיתּוֹסַף לָהּ אַיילוֹנִית צָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַיילוֹנִית כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּעוֹלָם. אִילּוּ שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת אַחַת אַיילוֹנִית וְאַחַת שֶׁאֵינָהּ אַיילוֹנִית וּבָא הַיָּבָם וְחָלַץ לָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. שֶׁמָּא פָטַר בַּחֲבֵרָתָהּ כְּלוּם. הֲוֵי אַיילוֹנִית כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּעוֹלָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, did not Rebbi Yose say correctly before he changed his mind? Once a man’s daughter is married without being a she-ram, her co-wife is forbidden. If in addition she is a she-ram, does her co-wife become permitted¹³³? He said to him, the she-ram is as if non-existent. If there are two sisters-in-law, one a she-ram and one not a she-ram, if the levir comes and performs *ḥalîṣah* or has intercourse with the first¹³⁴, did he free her companion of anything? That shows that the she-ram is as if non-existent. footnotes: ¹³³ The daughter married to a brother is forbidden to her father. A she-ram is forbidden to all brothers (cf. Notes 65, 66). Since when do two prohibitions add up to a permission? ¹³⁴ Who is forbidden for levirate. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:2:6) בִּתּוֹ. וּבִתּוֹ מְמֵאֶנֶת. וְלֹא כְנִישּׂוּאֵי תוֹרָה הִיא. אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה. רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תִּיפְתָּר בִּקְטַנָּה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ וְנִתְגָּרְשָה. שֶׁהִיא כִיתוֹמָה בְחַיֵי אָבִיהָ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “His daughter”. How can his daughter repudiate, is she not married by Torah standards, “my daughter I gave to this man¹³⁵. 22:16. From the text it is clear that the marriage is valid in all respects. The verse implies that the father has the right to marry off his daughter, but only the Babli (*Soṭah* 23b) infers from it that the mother does not have this right, even though the Yerushalmi accepts that ruling in practice.”? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Explain it by a minor, who was married off by her father¹³⁶ 44b. and divorced, who is like an orphan while her father is alive. footnotes: ¹³⁵ Deut ¹³⁶ She is emancipated from her father by the marriage but not able to validly contract while under age. This is quoted cryptically in Babli Qiddušin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:2:7) רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאֵין קְטַנָּה יוֹלֶדֶת. דִּלֹא כֵן תַּמְתִּין עַד שֶׁתַּגְדִיל וּתְמֵאֵן בְּבַעֲלָהּ וְתַתִּיר צָרָתָהּ לְחַתְנָהּ. כַּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מֵיאֵנָה וּבְנָהּ עַל כְּתֵיפָהּ. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. תַּנֵּי. עַד אֵימָתַי הַבַּת מְמֵאֶנֶת. עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחוֹר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁתִּתְפַּשֵּׁט הַכַּף. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. עַד שֶׁתִּתְפַּשֵּׁט הַכַּף וִיהֵא הַשָּׁחוֹר רָבָה עַל הַלָּבָן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This means¹³⁸ that a minor cannot give birth; because otherwise she could wait until she grew up, repudiate her husband, and permit her co-wife to her son-in-law. The daughter-in-law¹³⁹ 52a, the daughter. of Rebbi Ismael repudiated while her son was on her shoulder. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Ismael¹⁴⁰., R. Ismael is quoted to hold that no biblically invalid marriage bars the woman from walking out. It is also stated that the action of the daughter was in accordance with her deceased father’s opinion. Since according to the Yerushalmi that opinion is nowhere recorded formally, the Babli’s explanation is one of the possibilities mentioned in the paragraph after the next as R. Ismael’s. said the same. It was stated¹⁴¹. and Tosephta *Niddah* 6:11.: Until when may the daughter repudiate? Until she grows two pubic hairs¹⁴² 5:7–8, 6:1., the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Judah says until the black covers most. Rebbi Simeon says until the hill of Venus expands. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya¹⁴³ in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Until the mons Veneris enlarges and the black be more than the white¹⁴⁴. footnotes: ¹³⁸ The statement that the mother-in-law could not have repudiated her husband since she had a daughter from him. ¹³⁹ In Babli Niddah ¹⁴⁰ In the Babli, loc. cit ¹⁴¹ A slightly different version is in Babli loc. cit ¹⁴² Alternatively, the breasts as indicators of puberty are described in Mishnaiot Niddah ¹⁴³ R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. ¹⁴⁴ Corrected version of R. Simeon’s opinion. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:2:8) רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי לָעֲזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָן. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יַסָּא. אָמַר. אֵיזְלוֹן לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ דְּאִית לֵיהּ אוּלְפָן. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אֲנָן לֵית לָן אוּלְפָן. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְצִיפּוֹרַיָיא. אַתּוּן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. וְלֵית הִיא כֵן. מַאי כְדוֹן. חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מוֹדֵיי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם נִבְעֲלָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מוֹדֵיי רִבִּי יוּדָה שֶׁאִם נִתְקַדְּשָׁה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָה יְכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָה דְאָמַר. נִתְקַדְּשָׁה מִשֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת. הָא אִם נִתְקַדְּשָׁה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת וְנִבְעֲלָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְּׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְמָאֵן. נִיחָא. עַל דַעְתִּין דַּחֲבֵרַיָּא דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. נִבְעֲלָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת. הָא אִם נִבְעֲלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְמָאֵן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah¹⁴⁵ 52a, the statement is Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar and includes that of the colleagues below.. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. A case came before Rebbi Yasa; he said, go to Rebbi Abbahu since he has learned that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah; we did not learn that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said to the Sepphoreans, you say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, but it is not so. How is it? The colleagues¹⁴⁶ in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if she had intercourse after she grew two hairs, she cannot repudiate¹⁴⁷ 52a.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if she received *qiddushin* after she grew two hairs, she cannot repudiate¹⁴⁸. According to Rebbi Ze‘ira who said “she received *qiddushin* after she grew two hairs”, it follows that if she received *qiddushin* before she grew two hairs and had intercourse after she grew two hairs, she can repudiate¹⁴⁹ 46a, disagrees.. That fits¹⁵⁰. According to the colleagues who say “she had intercourse after she grew two hairs”, it follows that if she had intercourse before she grew two hairs, she can repudiate¹⁵¹. footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ In the Babli, Niddah ¹⁴⁶ Rav Ḥanania and his brother Rav Oshaia. ¹⁴⁷ He agrees that the criterion of R. Meїr is valid to give her the right to contract marriage but if she is not forced to make a decision her right to repudiation remains in force; cf. Rashi in Niddah ¹⁴⁸ This opinion, the more important one in the Yerushalmi, is ignored in the Babli. ¹⁴⁹ The Babli, Niddah ¹⁵⁰ As explained in the next paragraph, one holds with R. Simeon that the rabbinic marriage of the minor becomes biblically valid only by a conscious act, for example intercourse to confirm the marriage. Since people usually think that a rabbinic marriage is all they need, simple intercourse does not satisfy the requirement. Therefore, R. Ismael’s daughter-in-law could repudiate even as an adult. ¹⁵¹ By the same reason as given in the previous paragraph. But for them, if she was married as a minor and the marriage was not consummated until she produced two pubic hairs, she cannot repudiate. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:9 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:2:9) וְזֶה אֵימָתַי. עִיבֵּרָה וְיָלְדָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת. וְחָיָה הִיא. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי רְדִיפָא רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. אִיתָא. עִיבֵּרָה וְיָלְדָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת הִיא וּבְנָהּ מֵתִים. מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת הִיא וּבְנָהּ חַיִים. עִיבֵּרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת וְיָלְדָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת הִיא חָיָה וּבְנָהּ מַת. מַאי כְדוֹן. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה שָׁחוֹר כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. עַל תְּנַאי קִידּוּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבָעַל. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּאָמְרֵי. בַּסִּימָנִין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דּוּ אָמַר. לִכְשֶׁיּוֹסִיף בָּהּ קִינְיָין אֶחָד. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ גְדוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. וְכֵינִי. אֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפָּרְצוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּזִימָּה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** When was it¹⁵²? She became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs. Could she have lived? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila¹⁵³ 12b, rejects a similar (Galilean) statement; the Babylonian Rav Saphra declares that pregnancy is a sign of puberty.: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Rebbi Ismael follows RebbiJehudah, until the black covers most¹⁵⁴ [and] Rebbi Simeon, that intercourse occurred with the idea of the prior *qiddushin*¹⁵⁰. Following the opinions of Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Jehudah who say that her status depends on the signs of development, it fits¹⁵⁵. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon who says, if he adds another act of acquisition, then even if she is an adult! Rebbi Isaac said, that is so¹⁵⁶. Only that the daughters of Israel should not be unbridled in breaking tabus¹⁵⁷. footnotes: ¹⁵² The daughter-in-law of R. Ismael who had a child and wanted to repudiate her husband following her father’s rules. ¹⁵³ The Babli, Yebamot ¹⁵⁴ In all these criteria, he will replace “two hairs” with “most of the mons Veneris is black”. ¹⁵⁰ As explained in the next paragraph, one holds with R. Simeon that the rabbinic marriage of the minor becomes biblically valid only by a conscious act, for example intercourse to confirm the marriage. Since people usually think that a rabbinic marriage is all they need, simple intercourse does not satisfy the requirement. Therefore, R. Ismael’s daughter-in-law could repudiate even as an adult. ¹⁵⁵ As explained above, the daughter-in-law could have had a baby and still be a minor according to R. Jehudah [not according to R. Meїr; he is mentioned here only to reject the implied opinion of R. Saphra (Note 152).] ¹⁵⁶ The daughter-in-law of R. Ismael could have been an adult if no conscious validation of the marriage took place after her reaching adulthood (Note 150). ¹⁵⁷ The rejection of this interpretation in practice is rabbinic; the Babli (cf. Note 140) takes this as a reason to reject R. Ismael’s position. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:10 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:2:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:2:10) אַתְיָיא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר יִבְדְקוֹ דַדֶּיהָ. מַה. כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה שָׁחוֹר. וְהוּא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֵין בֵּין יְמוֹת הַנַּעֲרוּת לִימוֹת הַבַּגְרוּת אֶלָּא שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִים בִּלְבַד. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין עוֹשִׂין מַעֲשֶׂה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמָן. אֲבָל לְאַחַר הַזְּמַן עוֹשִׂין מַעֲשֶׂה. בְּרַם הָכָא סָפֵיק רָבָה שָׁחוֹר סָפֵק לֹא רָבָה שָׁחוֹר כּוֹפוֹ אֲנִי לִיתֵּן גֵט. רָבָה הַשָּׁחוֹר אֵינוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בַּגֵּט. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** There came a case before Rebbi Yose¹⁵⁸. He said: One should examine her breasts¹⁵⁹ 5:7–8 explains the progress of puberty from minority to adulthood through the state called נערוּת “maidenhood” when she is an adult and legally responsible for her actions but still under the authority of her father. This paragraph identifies the beginning of maidenhood with the growing of two pubic hairs and adulthood with the covering of the mons Veneris by hair. This means that R. Meїr permits repudiation only during minority and R. Jehudah during minority and maidenhood.. How? Following Rebbi Jehudah! Since Rebbi Jehudah said, until the black covers most. Is not that what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, between maidenhood and adulthood thare are only six months¹⁶⁰ 65a, this is a statement of the contemporary Babylonian Samuel., and Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one does not act on this¹⁶¹? This means during that period¹⁶². But after that period one acts¹⁶³ 46a, which disregards R. Jehudah’s opinion and forbids repudiation by maidens, holds that after the age of 12 full years no examination is necessary to establish the fact of maidenhood.. But in this case where there was a doubt whether the black covered most or the black did not cover most, I force him to give a bill of divorce¹⁶⁴. When the black covers most one does not touch a bill of divorce. footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ Of a girl repudiating when it was doubtful whether or not she was an adult. ¹⁵⁹ Mishnah Niddah ¹⁶⁰ In the Babli, Niddah ¹⁶¹ How can Rebbi Yose follow R. Jehudah when according to R. Meїr any marriage contracted by the repudiating girl would be adultery and R. Joḥanan forbids to follow R. Jehudah (even if in the abstract R. Jehudah might be correct). ¹⁶² When she is no longer a minor but not an adult, the court does not act either to permit repudiation or to deny it, as explained later. ¹⁶³ Six months after the first signs of puberty one forbids repudiation without checking for signs of adulthood. The Babli, Niddah ¹⁶⁴ Since one cannot deny repudiation according to R. Jehudah and cannot permit it following R. Meїr, the court forces the husband to confirm the repudiation by a formal divorce. Then the girl can remarry without problems. But once she is an adult, she cannot force a divorce in court (except for infertility or serious misbehavior of the husband.) ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:3:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:3:1) **משנה:** בְּאֵי זֶה צַד פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. הָיְתָה בִתּוֹ אוֹ אַחַת מִכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֵילּוּ נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו וְלוֹ אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת וָמֵת כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבִּתּוֹ פְּטוּרָה כָּךְ צָרָתָהּ פְּטוּרָה. הָלְכָה צָרַת בִּתּוֹ וְנִשֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו הַשֵּׁנִי וְלוֹ אִשָּׁה אֶחֶרֶת וָמֵת כְּשֵׁם שֶׁצָּרַת בִּתּוֹ פְּטוּרָה כָּךְ צָרַת צָרָתָהּ פְּטוּרָה אֲפִילוּ הֵן מֵאָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** How do they free their co-wives? If a man’s daughter or one of the incest-prohibited women¹⁶⁵ was married to his brother who has another wife and dies, just as his daughter is free so her co-wife is free¹⁶⁶. If his daughter’s co-wife went and was married to a second brother¹⁶⁷ who then died, just as his daughter’s co-wife is freed, so the co-wife’s co-wife is freed; even if this is repeated a hundred times. footnotes: ¹⁶⁵ Forbidden to him but not to his brother. ¹⁶⁶ If the man is the only brother of the deceased. ¹⁶⁷ Since the daughter is not forbidden to his brother, her co-wife is also permitted. The brother could have married his niece in levirate. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:3:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:3:2) **הלכה:** כֵּיצַד פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. הָיְתָה בִתּוֹ אוֹ אַחַת מִכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֵילּוּ כול׳. הִיא מַתְנִיתָא כָּל הַיְּכוֹלוֹת לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵנָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “How do they free their co-wives? If a man’s daughter or one of the incest-prohibited women,”, etc. That is the baraita¹⁶⁸: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs *ḥalîṣah* but cannot be married in levirate¹²⁷. But levirate cannot be tolerated since that would show that the rabbinically valid marriage is a sham..” footnotes: ¹⁶⁸ This is not the text of the next Mishnah since here the daughter is still alive. A similar text is in Tosephta 1:2. It refers to the second case in the Mishnah, if there are at least three brothers. If there is only one brother and the daughter is still a minor one might teach her to repudiate the former marriage (cf. Mishnah 13:7) and her co-wife will be permitted to her father. ¹²⁷ To the brothers in levirate. The marriage of a minor except through the father is only rabbinic and cannot eliminate the biblical requirement of levirate or ḥalîṣah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:4:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:4:1) **משנה:** בְּאֵי זֶה צַד אִם מֵתוּ הֵן צְרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. הָיְתָה בִתּוֹ אוֹ אַחַת מִכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֵילּוּ נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו וְלוֹ אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת מֵתָה בִתּוֹ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָחִיו צָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת. וְכָל הַיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵינָה וּמֵתָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** How are their co-wives permitted¹⁶⁹ if they die? If his daughter or one of the incest-prohibited women was married to his brother who has another wife, if his daughter died and then his brother died her co-wife is permitted. And if a woman could repudiate but did not do so, when she died her co-wife performs *ḥalîṣah* but cannot be married in levirate¹²⁷. But levirate cannot be tolerated since that would show that the rabbinically valid marriage is a sham.. footnotes: ¹⁶⁹ To the levir in Levirate. ¹²⁷ To the brothers in levirate. The marriage of a minor except through the father is only rabbinic and cannot eliminate the biblical requirement of levirate or ḥalîṣah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:4:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:4:2) **הלכה:** כֵּיצַד אִם מֵתוּ הֵן צְרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא כָּל הַיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֵנָה וּמֵתָה צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “How are their co-wives permitted if they die,” etc. That is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, when she died her co-wife performs *ḥalîṣah* but cannot be married in levirate¹⁷⁰ text of the preceding Halakhah which presumes the daughter to be a widow..” footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ This is the Mishnah text “when she died”, in contrast to the baraita ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:5:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:5:1) **משנה:** שֵׁשׁ עֲרָיוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת מֵאֵילּוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנְּשׂוּאוֹת לָאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. אִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וָאֲחוֹת אָבִיו אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו. וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Six incest prohibitions are more stringent than these¹⁷¹ since they [concern women who] must be married to others¹⁷², their co-wives are permitted¹⁷³: A man’s mother, his father’s wife, his father’s sister, his paternal sister, his paternal aunt, and his paternal brother’s wife¹⁷⁴. footnotes: ¹⁷¹ Than the 15 mentioned in Mishnah 1. ¹⁷² They are equally forbidden to all paternal brothers and never can be parties to levirate. ¹⁷³ If they were widowed or divorced and married an unrelated husband, their co-wives from this marriage are unrelated to the brothers since co-wives can become forbidden only in cases of levirate. ¹⁷⁴ Who had children or was divorced. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:5:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:5:2) **הלכה:** שֵׁשׁ עֲרָיוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת מֵאֵילּוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נְשׂוּאוֹת לָאֲחֵרִים כול׳. מַה אִינָּה חֲמוּרָה. הָכָא כָרֵת וְהָכָא כָרֵת. הָכָא מַמְזֵר וְהָכָא מַמְזֵר. מַהוּ חֲמוּרוֹת. שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלוֹת לְהִינָּשֶׂא לָאַחִים שֶׁלֹּא בַעֲבֵירָה. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כֵן. וְכוּלָּן אִם יְכוֹלוֹת לְהִינָּשֶׂא לָאַחִין שֶׁלֹּא בַעֲבֵירָה צָרוֹתֵיהֶן פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמַן הַיִּבּוּם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “Six incest prohibitions are more stringent than these since they [concern women who] must be married to others”, etc. In what are they more stringent? Here there is extirpation, there is extirpation¹⁷⁵. Here there is bastardy, there there is bastardy¹⁷⁶. What is more stringent? That they cannot be married to the brothers without transgression. And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: For all women who may be married to the brothers without transgression, their co-wives are free from *ḥalîṣah* and levirate¹⁷⁷. footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ Incest with some of the women is a capital crime. Even these are subject to divine extirpation if there are no two witnesses to the act. ¹⁷⁶ The child of any of the forbidden unions is a bastard excluded from marriage with natural-born Jews. ¹⁷⁷ A slightly different version in Tosephta 1:7. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:5:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:5:3) תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אֵין צָרָה אֶלָּא מֵאָח בִּלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נְשׂוּאוֹת לָאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. וּתְהֵא צָרָה מִן הַשּׁוּק. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לֹא שְׁמִיעַ רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה הָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. לֹא שְׁמִיעַ לְמַתְנִיתִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נְשׂוּאוֹת לַאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. חָזַר וָמַר. אִין דִּשְׁמִיעַ. אֶלָּא כְּאִינַשׁ דִשְׁמִיעַ מִילָּה וּמַקְשֵׁי עֲלָהּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Ḥiyya stated¹⁷⁷: “A co-wife is only from a brother”. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says the same: “Since they must be married to others¹⁷⁸, their co-wives are permitted.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Why can there not be a co-wife from the market place¹⁷⁹? Rebbi Yose said, did Rebbi Jeremiah not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, did he not hear our Mishnah, “since they must be married to others, their co-wives are permitted”¹⁸⁰? He turned around and said, certainly did he hear. But he is a person who hears something and questions it¹⁸¹ *Qedošim* *Pereq*11(12), Babli *Yebamot* 8a/b.. footnotes: ¹⁷⁷ A slightly different version in Tosephta 1:7. ¹⁷⁸ Others than the brothers. ¹⁷⁹ If an incest-prohibited woman is married to a total stranger, why should her co-wife, if divorced or widowed, not be forbidden also to the family of the other wife? ¹⁸⁰ It is impossible to become an ordained rabbi without knowing the Mishnah. ¹⁸¹ The Yerushalmi leaves this without an answer. Two different answers are given in Sifra ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:5:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:5:4) רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. הַבָּא עַל הַצָּרָה מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אַח. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִילּוּ אֶיפְשַׁר לְצָרָה בְּלֹא אֵשֶׁת אַח יְאוּת. אֶיפְשַׁר לְאֵשֶׁת אַח בְּלֹא צָרָה. אֵיפְשַׁר לְצָרָה בְּלֹא אֵשֶׁת אַח. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If one has intercourse with a co-wife¹⁸², is he guilty because of his brother’s wife¹⁸³ 25:5–9 speaks only of one sister-in-law and one house to build. The question is, does the brother who sleeps with the excluded co-wife infringe on the prescription (regarding a single levirate) of *Deut*. 25 or the incest prohibition of *Lev*. 18? The problem does not appear in the Babli since it derives all prohibitions directly from *Lev*. 18.? Rebbi Yose said, if a co-wife were possible without a brother’s wife, that would be a valid question¹⁸⁴. It is possible to be a brother’s wife without a co-wife. It is impossible to be a co-wife without a brother’s wife¹⁸⁵. 18:16.. footnotes: ¹⁸² Widow of his brother whom he cannot marry because of the incest prohibition regarding the other wife. ¹⁸³ In general, the brother’s wife is forbidden under penalty of divine extirpation. But if levirate is possible, the widows of the dead brother become potentially permitted. If one of them is married by a brother, the others are forbidden since Deut. ¹⁸⁴ In the sense of R. Jeremiah’s first question. ¹⁸⁵ As R. Ḥiyya stated. Therefore, the prohibition of the co-wife is no separate prohibition, but only that one of the dead brother’s wives gets a special dispensation from the incest prohibition of Lev ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:5:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:5:5) וְאֵשֶׁת אָח לֹא יְבִמְתּוֹ הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ בָּנִים מֵאַחִים. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Is the brother’s wife not his sister-in-law? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, explain it if she had children from a brother¹⁷⁴. footnotes: ¹⁷⁴ Who had children or was divorced. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:6:1) **משנה:** בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַתִּירִין הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין. חָלְצוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין מִן הַכְֹּהוּנָּה וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. נִתְיַיבְּמוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַכְשִׁירִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל פּוֹסְלִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ אוֹסְרִין וְאֵלּוּ מַתִּירִין אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַכְשִׁירִן לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּישָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל וְלֹא בֵית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי. כָּל הַטְּהָרוֹת וְהַטּוּמְאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אֵילּוּ מְטַהֲרִין וְאֵילּוּ מְטַמְּאִין לֹא נִמְנְעוּ עוֹשִׂין טְהָרוֹת אֵילּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי אֵילּוּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers¹⁸⁶, but the House of Hillel forbid. If they took *ḥalîṣah*, the House of Shammai disqualify them for the priesthood¹⁸⁷. 21:7) and *ḥalîṣah* is the equivalent of a divorce (Mishnah 2:4). but the House of Hillel declare them qualified¹⁸⁸. 21:7 prohibits the marriage of a Cohen with “a woman divorced from her husband”, but not a woman divorced from a non-husband.. If they entered levirate, the House of Shammai declare them qualified¹⁸⁹ but the House of Hillel as disqualified. Even though these forbid and those permit, these declare disqualified and those qualified, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel nor the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai. Regarding all purities and impurities which these were declaring as pure and those as impure¹⁹⁰, these did not refrain to process pure foods with the help of those¹⁹¹. footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ They dispute the validity of Mishnaiot 1–4. The schools of Hillel and Shammai existed for about 100 years in the first Century C. E. The Babli (17a) dates the public permission of the co-wives to the brothers to the short time of ascendancy of the House of Shammai shortly before the outbreak of the revolt against the Romans. ¹⁸⁷ A divorcee is forbidden to a Cohen (Lev ¹⁸⁸ Since the marriage is impossible, so is the corresponding divorce. Lev ¹⁸⁹ The children are legitimate. For the House of Hillel the children are bastards and excluded from endogamous marriage. ¹⁹⁰ The differences in the interpretation of laws of purity are noted in the sixth order of the Mishnah. ¹⁹¹ They lent one another pure vessels. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:6:2) **הלכה:** בֵּית שַׁמַּי מַתִּירִין אֶת הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִין כול׳. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם נְהוֹרַיי. טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. הַחִיצוֹנָה לֹא תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר. אַתְיָיא דְבֵית שַׁמַּי כְּאִילֵּין כּוּתַיָיא שֶׁהֵן מְיַיבְּמִין אֶת הָאֲרוּסוֹת וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַנְּשׂוּאוֹת. דְּאִינוּן דָּרְשִׁין. חוּצָה הַחִיצוֹנָה. מַה מְקַיְימִין בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמַיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ מִן הַנְּשׂוּאָה. הַחִיצוֹנָה לא תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא יְחַסְּדוּנָךְ כּוּתָאֵי דְאַתְּ מְקַיֵים דְּרָשֵׁיהוֹן. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. נוֹמֵיתִי לְסוֹפְרֵי כּוּתִים. מִי גָרַם לָכֶם לִטְעוֹת. דְּלֵית אַתּוּן דָּרְשִׁין כְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. דְּתַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לַמֵּ״ד מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְלֹא נִיתָּן לוֹ. נִיתֵּן לוֹ הֵ״א בְסוֹפוֹ. כְּגוֹן לַחוּץ חוּצָה. לִשְׂעִיר שְׂעִירָה. לְסוּכּוֹת סוּכּוֹתָה. מְתִיבִין לְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. וְהָא כְתִיב יָשׁוּבוּ רְשָׁעִים לִשְׁאוֹלָה. אָמַר רָבָא בַּר זַבְדָּא. לְדִיַיטֵי הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁלִּשְׁאוֹל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers,” etc. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name ofNehorai: The reason of the House of Shammai, “the outside wife of the deceased shall not belong to a strange man¹⁹² 25:5. The verse reads לֹא־תִהְיָה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. In the masoretic text, הַחוּצָה is adverbial לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר and therefore is stressed on the penultimate syllable. The House of Shammai read an unlikely adjective לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. Following masoretic grammar, הַחוּצָה then should be stressed on the last syllable. As E. Y. Kutscher has shown in his study of the Isaiah scroll, one may assume that in the last century of the Jewish state the stress was penultimate irrespective of meaning. Therefore, in Mishnaic times there may not have been an audible difference between the two versions. The House of Shammai would translate: “The deceased man’s wife who is outside [the family of the levir] shall not be to a strange man,” implying that only the widow who already belongs to the levir’s family is free from the obligations of the levirate. The argument is quoted in the Babli, 13b.,” the “outer one” should not be another man’s. It turns out that the House of Shammai hold like those Samaritans who perform levirate with the betrothed but remove the married, for they explain “outside” as “the outer one¹⁹³ but not yet finally married, she is not yet part of the family. This interpretation avoids any appearance of conflict between *Lev*. 18:16, declaring relations with the brother’s wife incestuous, and *Deut*. 25:5, requiring marriage to the brother’s wife. In rabbinic Hebrew, ארוסה “the betrothed one”, is a seldom used synonym of מקודשת “who had received *qiddushin*”..” How do the House of Shammai¹⁹⁴ confirm “when he has no child¹⁹⁵. 25:5. You do not expect a man to have a child before marriage.”? Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, “when he has no child” from the married one, “the outer one shall not belong outside to a strange man.¹⁹⁶. 25:5 and *Lev*. 18:16. The practice of the Samaritans is confirmed in the Babli, *Qiddušin* 75b–76a.” He said to him, will not the Samaritans love you that you confirm their interpretations! Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: I told the learned Samaritans, what did cause you to err? That you did not explain following Rebbi Neḥemiah, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: Anything which needs a ל as a prefix but did not get it, we give it a ה at the end, e. g., to the outside חוּצָה, to Se‘ir¹⁹⁷. 33:16. שְׂעִירָה, to Succoth¹⁹⁸. 33:17. סוּכּוֹתָה. They objected to Rebbi Neḥemiah, is it not written: “The wicked shall return to the pit לִשְׁאוֹלָה¹⁹⁹. 9:18; one of the two signs of direction is superfluous..” Rabba bar Zabda said, to the lowest living space²⁰⁰ in Sheol. footnotes: ¹⁹² Deut. ¹⁹³ Having received qiddushin ¹⁹⁴ The commentators want to replace “House of Shammai” by “Samaritans”, but it was stated before that the House of Shammai accepts the reading of the Samaritans while giving it another interpretation. ¹⁹⁵ Deut ¹⁹⁶ In this interpretation, the “outside” wife is the woman betrothed, legally a wife, but not married to live in her husband’s family. For them, a woman widowed after marriage is never subject to levirate, only one becoming a widow from betrothal to a childless man. This eliminates any conflict between Deut ¹⁹⁷ Gen ¹⁹⁸ Gen ¹⁹⁹ Ps ²⁰⁰ Greek δίαιτα. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:6:3) תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. רְאֵה הֵיאַךְ הֲלָכָה זוֹ רוֹוָחַת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. אִם לְקַיֵים דִּבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִדִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אִם לְקַיֵים דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִדִּבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי. בּוֹאוּ וּנְתַקֵּן שֶׁיְּהוּ הַצָּרוֹת חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. תַּנֵּי. לֹא הִסְפִּיקוּ לְהַתְקִין עַד שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה הַשָּׁעָה. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְאִם כֵּן מַה נַעֲשֶׂה לְצָרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּישְּׂאוּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ²⁰¹ Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, look how this practice is widespread in Israel! If one upholds the words of the House of Shammai, the child is a bastard following the words of the House of Hillel²⁰². If one upholds the words of the House of Hillel, the child is a bastard²⁰³. 25:5, which only R. Aqiba declares to result in bastards. The *baraita* of the Yerushalmi must come from R. Aqiba’s school and cannot represent practice. following the words of the House of Shammai. Come and let us institute that the co-wife perform *ḥalîṣah* but not be admitted to levirate²⁰⁴ would let the co-wife marry outside the family for the House of Shammai and be ineffective for the House of Hillel.. It was stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable²⁰⁵. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if it were so, what would one have done with the earlier co-wives who married²⁰⁶? footnotes: ²⁰¹ Tosephta 1:9–10, Babli 14b, 27a, 13b. ²⁰² For them the co-wife is forbidden because of the incest prohibition. ²⁰³ In Tosephta and Babli: “damaged”; of questionable origin and unfit for the priesthood but not a bastard. The co-wife who married outside the husband’s family did breach a simple prohibition, Deut ²⁰⁴ Ḥalîṣah ²⁰⁵ The revolt of Bar Kokhba and its aftermath intervened. ²⁰⁶ After the restitution of the patriarchate, R. Simeon ben Gamliel refused to follow R. Joḥanan ben Nuri since he would characterize women who had married following the House of Shammai as lawbreakers. The Babli, 27a, asserts that later generations followed R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. This is not the position of the Yerushalmi. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:6:4) אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּצָרוֹת מוֹדִין הָיוּ שֶׁאֵין הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. שֶׁאֵין מַמְזֵר אֶלָּא מֵאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה וְחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ כָרֵת. אָמַר רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. תָּאֵב אֲנִי שֶׁיְּהֵא לִי צָרַת הַבַּת שֶׁאַשִּׂיאֵהָ לִכְהוּנָּה. שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. בְּנֵי צָרַת הַבַּת מַה הֵן. אָמַר לָהֶן. הֲרֵי אַתֶּם מַכְנִיסִין אֶת רֹאשִׁי בֵּין שְׁנֵי הֶהָרִים הַגְּבוֹהִים בֵּין דִּבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי וּבֵין דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּרִיצוּ אֶת מוֹחִי. אֲבָל מֵעִיד אֲנִי עַל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית עֲנוּבַיי מִבֵּית צְבוֹעִים וְעַל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית נְקִיפַי מִבֵּית קוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי צָרוֹת. וְהָיוּ בְּנֵי בְנֵיהֶם כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים עוֹמְדִין וּמַקְרִיבִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ²⁰⁷ Rebbi Eleazar said, even though the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai disagreed about co-wives, they agree that the child is not a bastard²⁰⁸, since a bastard is only from a woman which is forbidden to [a man] by an incest prohibition and one is subject to extirpation for [sinning with] her²⁰⁹. Rebbi Tarphon said, I would love to have a daughter’s co-wife to marry her into priesthood²¹⁰. They asked Rebbi Joshua, what are children of a daughter’s co-wife? He said to them, you bring my head between two large mountains, between the words of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel, that they should smash my brain. But I testify about the family ‘Anubai from Bet Ṣeba‘im and the family Neqipai from Bet Meqošeš²¹¹ 11:34 as settled by the returnees from the tribe ofBenjamin; cf. B. Z. Luria, ערי הכהנים בימי בית שני, HUCA 44 (1973) א-יח. that they were sons of co-wives and their grandchildren were High Priests officiating on top of the altar²¹². footnotes: ²⁰⁷ Tosephta 1:10 (which proves that R. Eleazar ben Shamua, the Tanna, is the author); Babli 14a. ²⁰⁸ The House of Shammai agree with the House of Hillel, against R. Aqiba and R. Joḥanan ben Nuri, that the child of a co-wife married according to the House of Hillel is not a bastard since even for the House of Shammai only a simple prohibition is involved. In the shortened version of the Babli it is easy to read into the text a one-sided version, implying that the children according to the House of Shammai are indeed bastards. It is difficult to read this into the Yerushalmi and the Tosephta text. ²⁰⁹ This extends even to incestuous relationships that are capital crimes since in absence of two witnesses to the forbidden act, when there can be no prosecution, the guilty pair still faces divine retribution in the form of extirpation. ²¹⁰ In the Babli, “that I would marry her”, being a Cohen, to invalidate the position of the House of Shammai. ²¹¹ In the Tosephta (1:10): בית עלובי (עליבאי) מבית צבאים (צביים), בית קיפאי (קיפא) מבית מקושש. In the Babli (15b): משפחת בית צבועים מבן עכמאי ומשפחת בית קופאי מבן מקושש. The town of צבעים is mentioned in Neh. ²¹² Even though he did not want to express any opinion of the co-wives themselves, he was adamant that the children were untainted. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:6:5) רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ זְקֵינִים אֵצֶל רִבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הֻרְכֵּינֹס לִשְׁאוֹל לוֹ עַל צָרַת הַבַּת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁאַתְּ מַתִּיר בְּצָרוֹת. אַמָר לוֹן. מַה שְׁמַעְתּוֹן. דוֹסָא בֶּן הֻרְכֵּינֹס. אָמְרוּ לוֹ בֶּן הֻרְכֵּינֹס. אָמַר לוֹן יוֹנָתָן אָחִי הֲוָה בְּכוֹר שָׂטָן הֲוָה וּמִתַּלְמִידֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי. הִיזָּהֵרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת תְּשׁוּבוֹת יֶשׁ לוֹ עַל צָרַת הַבַּת. אָזְלוֹן לְגַבֵּיהּ. שָׁלַח וְכָתַב לֵיהּ. הִיזָּהֵר שֶׁחַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִכְנָסִין אֶצְלָךְ. עָלוֹן וְיָתִיב לְהוֹ קוֹמוֹי. הֲוָה מַסְבִּיר לְהוֹן וְלָא סָבְרִין. מִיסְבַּר לְהוֹן וְלָא סָבְרִין. שַׁרְיָין מִתְנַמְנְמִין. אָמַר לָהֶן. מַה אַתּוּן מִתְנַמְנְמִין. שָׁרֵי מִישְׁדֵּי עֲלֵיהוֹן צְרִירִין. וְאִית דָּמְרִין. בְּחַד תְּרַע עָלוֹן וּבִתְלָתָא נָפְקִין. שָׁלַח אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה שָׁלַחְתָּ לִי בְּנֵי נַשׁ בָּעוֹ מֵילַף. וְאָמַרְתָּ לִי. אִינּוּן חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָתוֹ לְגַבֵּיהּ אָמְרוּן לֵיהּ. אַתְּ מַה אַתְּ אָמַר. אָמַר לָהֶן. עַל הַמְּדוֹכָה הַזֹּאת יָשַׁב חַגַּי הַנָּבִיא וְהֵעִיד שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים. עַל צָרַת הַבַּת שֶׁתִּינָּשֵׂא לִכְהוּנָּה. וְעַל עֲמוֹן וּמוֹאָב שֶׁהֵן מְעַשְּׁרִין מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. וְעַל גֵּירֵי תַּדְמוֹר אָמַר שֶׁהֵן כְּשֵׁירִין לָבוֹא בַקָּהָל. תָּלוֹן עֵינַיי דְנֵיחְמֵי לְחַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. רָאָה אֶת רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְקָרָא עָלָיו אֶת מִי יוֹרֶה דֵיעָה. זָכוּר אֲנִי שֶׁהָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מוֹלֶכֶת עֲרִיסָתוֹ לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּתְדַּבְּקוּ אָזְנָיו בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אֶת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. וְקָרָא עָלָיו כְּפִירִים רָשׁוּ וְרָעֵבוּ. מַכִּירוֹ אֲנִי שֶׁאָדָם גִיבּוֹר בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא. רָאָה אֶת רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. וְקָרָא עָלָיו נַעַר הָיִיתִי גַם זָקַנְתִּי. מַכִּירוֹ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא דוֹר עֲשִׂירִי לְעֶזְרָא. וְעָינוֹי דָמְיָין לְדִידֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה דְצִיפּוֹרִין. אַף רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן הֲוָה עִמָּהֶן וְקָרָא עָלָיו כְּהָדָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ²¹³ Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that the Sages visited Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos²¹⁴ to ask him about the daughter’s co-wife. They said to him, are you the one who permits co-wives? He said to them, what did you hear? Dosa ben Hyrkanos? They said to him, ben Hyrkanos. He said to them, my brother Jonathan is exceedingly sharpminded²¹⁵ and of the students of the House of Shammai. Be careful with him, he has three hundred arguments about the daughter’s co-wife. They went to him. He sent and wrote to him²¹⁶, be careful because the Sages of Israel will visit you. They came and he placed them before him. He lectured²¹⁷ but they did not understand, repeatedly. They started to get drowsy. He said to them, why are you getting drowsy? He started pelting them with pebbles. But some people said, they entered in one door and left in three²¹⁸. He sent to say to him²¹⁹, why did you send to me, the people want to learn and you said to me, these are the Sages of Israel? They came to him²²⁰ and said to him, what do you say in the matter? He said, on this stone²²¹ sat the prophet Ḥaggai and testified to three things: On the daughter’s co-wife that she can be married into priesthood²²², on Ammon and Moab that they tithe for the poor in a Sabbatical year²²³ 3:3., and on proselytes of Palmyra that they are acceptable to marry into the congregation²²⁴. He said, lift my eyelids so I can see the Sages of Israel. He saw Rebbi Joshua and said to him: “To whom will one teach knowledge²²⁵ 28:9. “To whom will one teach knowledge, to whom impart understanding, to those weaned from milk, removed from the breasts.” This determines the start of school for outstanding scholars at age 2. As usual, the part of the verse not quoted is the one intended.?” I remember that his mother brought his crib to the Synagogue that his ears should cling to the words of the Torah. [He saw] Rebbi Aqiba, and said to him: “Lion cubs will be poor and hungry²²⁶ 34:11: “Lion cubs will be poor and hungry, but those who seek the Lord will not lack any good thing.” R. Aqiba at the outset was an ignorant seeker of the Lord..” I know of him that he is a man strong in Torah. He saw Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and said to him: “I was a youth but became an elder²²⁷ 37:25. A pun is intended; זָקַנְתִּי “I grew old” is turned into “I was appointed as an elder” at age 16, cf. *Berakhot* 4:1, Note 118..” I know of him that he is the tenth generation from Ezra and their eyes are similar. Rebbi Ḥanina from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Tarphon also was with them and he addressed him as he did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. footnotes: ²¹³ A different version of the entire paragraph in Babli, 16a. ²¹⁴ A contemporary of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, already old at the time of the destruction of the Temple. He was almost blind in his old age. ²¹⁵ Interpretation of Rashi. ²¹⁶ R. Dosa to Jonathan. ²¹⁷ About his 300 reasons to permit the co-wives to the brothers. ²¹⁸ Defeated. ²¹⁹ Jonathan to Dosa. ²²⁰ R. Dosa. ²²¹ A stone used to crush spices. ²²² Following the House of Hillel. ²²³ Mishnah Yadayim ²²⁴ They are reputedly the children of Gentiles from Jewish women. The statement objects to the opinion (Halakhah 7:6) that the child of a Gentile and a Jewish woman, who certainly has to be counted as Jewish, is a bastard. It is known from the Babli that the soldiers of Odenathus of Palmyra in his campaigns in Babylonia abducted Jewish women for their own use. ²²⁵ Is. ²²⁶ Ps. ²²⁷ Ps. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:6:6) רַב נַחמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר. מְקַבְּלִין גֵּרִים מִן הַקַּרְדּוּיִין וּמִן הַתַּדְמוֹרִיים. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן שֶׁגֵּירֵי תַדְמוֹר כְּשֵׁירִין. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן כָּל הַכְּתָמִין הַבָּאִין מֵרֶקֶם טְהוֹרִין. הָא גֵירֵי תַדְמוֹר כְּשֵׁירִין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ²²⁹16a/b, *Niddah* 56b. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, one accepts proselytes from Kurds²³⁰ and Palmyrenians. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A Mishnah said that the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable²³¹. There, we have stated²³² 7:6, 56b. If a stain is found on a garment, it might be from menstrual blood and therefore would be impure. As a precaution, any stain on a garment from Jewish sources is considered impure. Gentiles are unable to be impure in biblical law; their impurity is only rabbinical. Considering stains of Gentile origin to be impure would be superimposing one rabbinical decree over another, which is inadmissible.: “All stains coming from Petra are pure.” Therefore²³³ One has to admit the version, tentatively offered in the Babli, “from Petra and Palmyra”. This would either clear the inhabitants of Palmyra from any suspicion of Jewishness (Rashi’s opinion) or make it clear that the descendents of Jewish mothers were raised as Jews but that a Jewish woman would not give away an unwashed cloth (opinion of Tosaphot, R. Elieser from Tuchheim). Therefore, even following Tosaphot, a proselyte will never be a bastard., the proselytes from Palmyra are acceptable. footnotes: ²²⁹ A similar text in Babli Yebamot ²³⁰ From Corduene. Again, the problem exists only for those who hold that the child of a Gentile from a Jewish mother is a bastard. ²³¹ As marriage partners for Jews. ²³² Mishnah Niddah ²³³ This looks like a non sequitur. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:6:7) רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר שְׁמוּעָתָא. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי חַד מַכְשִׁיר וְחַד מְקַבֵּל. מָאן דְּמַכְשִׁיר מְקַבֵּל. וּמָאן דְּמְקַבֵּל לֹא מַכְשִׁיר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. אבל לְיוּחֲסִין עַד נָהָר זרוק. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל חַד אָמַר עַד נָהָר זְרוֹק. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. עַד נָהָר וָואנִיי. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר. בֵּין הַנְּהָרוֹת כְּגוֹלָה לְיוּחֲסִין. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּרוֹקָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. בְּנֵי מֵישָׁא לֹא חָשׁוּ לָהוּ אֶלָּא מִשֵׁם סָפֵק חֲלָלוֹת. וְכֹהֲנִים שֶׁשָּׁם לֹא הִקְפִּידוּ עַל הַגְּרוּשׁוֹת. תַּמָּן קַרְיָין לְמֵישָׁא מֵתָה. לְמָדַי חוֹלָה. עֵילָם וגוובאי גוֹסְסוֹת. חֶבֶל יָמָא תְכִילְתָא דְבָבֵל. שניות עוונייא וגווכייא וצוצרייה תְכִילְתָא דְחֶבֶיל יָמָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Text of the parallel *Qiddušin*4:1: ²³⁴ 71b. The origin of the paragraph is in *Qiddušin,* the readings of the parallel from there seem to be slightly better. Since the canals of Antiquity all decayed after the Arab conquest, the names cannot be reconstructed. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible²³⁵. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Naḥman bar Jacob: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the *zrvq*²³⁶ canal. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said up to the *zrvq* canal, the other said up to the *Wani* canal. Rav Jehudah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea²³⁷ as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Jehudah: The people of Mesene²³⁸ are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women²³⁹. The Cohanim amongst them did not care about divorcees. There²⁴⁰ Neubauer (*La Géographie du Talmud,* Paris 1868, p. 325) thinks that the pun about Media connects the name of Media with the root דוה “to be unwell”., they called Mesene dead, Media sick, Elam and *gbby* dying. The maritime district²⁴¹ is the purple-blue of Babylonia. *Šny’*, *gbby’, and ṣrry*²⁴² 72b, שוניא גוביא, ציצורא. are purple-blue of the maritime district. footnotes: ²³⁴ A parallel to the paragraph in Babli Qiddušin ²³⁵ Anybody can become a proselyte. But only a person not descendent from Jews is sure not to be really Jewish and, according to the earlier opinion, a bastard. This problem is most urgent in Media, place of exile of the Ten Tribes, but also in Palmyra, part of Solomon’s empire. ²³⁶ In the Babli: עזק. ²³⁷ The place of exile of King Jojachin and the nobles of Jerusalem, usually called “exile”. The rivers are Euphrates and Tigris. ²³⁸ The province of the confluence of Tigris and Euphrates. ²³⁹ Women desecrated by a forbidden union with Cohanim: Divorcees, harlots, and daughters of such marriages. ²⁴⁰ In Babylonia. There seems to be a pun involved if מתה and מישא both are pronounced mēsā. ²⁴¹ It might be “the Western district”, but the West of Babylonia is desert. Neubauer conjectures that it might be the lake region of upper Mesopotamia. Since the meaning and location is unknown, the places cannot be determined. Purple-blue is the most costly of colors. ²⁴² In the Babli, Qiddušin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:6:8) אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּצָרוֹת וּבָאֲחָיוֹת וּבְגֵט יָשָׁן וּבִסְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וּבִמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְהַמְּגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְּפוֹנְדָקִי. וְהָאִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּדֵינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דֵינָר. לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי מִלִּישָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל וְלֹא בֵּית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אֶלָּא נוֹהֲגִין בֶּאֱמֶת וּבְשָׁלוֹם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֵהָבוּ. מַמְזֵירוּת בֵּנְתַיִים וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. קִידֵּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְהַשֵּׁינִי בְדֵינָר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי מְקוּדֶשֶׁת לַשֵּׁינַי וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבֵית הִלֵּל מְקוּדֶשֶׁת לָרִאשׁוֹן וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מַן הַשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹדִין בֵּית שַׁמַּי לְבֵית הִלֵּל לְחוֹמָרִין. מֵעַתָּה בֵּית שַׁמַּי יִשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל דְּאִינּוּן מוֹדֵיי לְהוֹן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל לֹא יִשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים מִבֵּית שַׁמַּי דְּלֵית אִינּוּן מוֹדֵיי לְהוֹן. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ כַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין. אִם כַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בְּדָא תַנִּינָן. שָׁלְחוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּפְחָתוּהָ. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. עַד שֶׁיִּפָּחוֹת אֶת רוּבָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָא מַעֲשֶׂה אֵצֶל בֵּית הִלֵּל הָיוּ בֵית שַׁמַּי נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. מִשֶׁבָּא מַעֲשֶׂה אֵצֶל בֵּית הִלֵּל לֹא הָיוּ בֵית שַׁמַּי נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּמָרִי. יְאוּת. מַה תַנִּינָן. טִימְּאוּ טָהֳרוֹת לְמַפְרֵעַ. לֹא מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר. אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ כַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין. וְחַד אָמַר. אֵילּוּ כְהִילְכָתָן וְאֵילּוּ כְהִילְכָתָן. מַמְזֵרֻת בֵּנְתַיִים וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. הַמָּקוֹם מְשַׁמֵּר וְלֹא אוּרָע מַעֲשֶׂה מֵעוֹלָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ²⁴³“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives²⁴⁴, and sisters²⁴⁵, and an old bill of divorce²⁴⁶ 8:8 calls “he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry.”, and a woman doubtfully married²⁴⁷, and one who gives *qiddushin* in the value of a *peruṭa,*²⁴⁸ 1:1. In *qiddushin,* the man has to give the woman something of value to make the act legally binding. The value according to the House of Hillel must be at least a *peruṭah,* the smallest copper coin in Hasmonean times, long out of circulation in Mishnaic times. The House of Shammai require a *denar,* the larger Roman silver coin in the early Empire. i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman receives *qiddushin* for at least a *denar* or the value of a *denar,* the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said²⁴⁹ 8:19.: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her *qiddushin* for a *peruṭa* and a second for a *denar,* in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of the second is a bastard²⁵⁰. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction²⁵¹ of the second are invalid, the woman remains permitted to the first, but for the House of Shammai the court would have to force the second to write a bill of divorce.. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice²⁵². If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated²⁵³ 4:5. If there is a trough in a rock too small to be a *miqweh* (40 *seah*), one may drill holes in the rock to lead the water to a *miqweh.* The House of Hillel require that the hole be slightly more than 2 fingers in diameter; the House of Shammai require that most of the bottom be removed. In a case in Jerusalem known as “trough of Jehu”, the House of Shammai actually did enlarge the hole even though practice should follow the House of Hillel.: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state²⁵⁴: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said both acted according to valid practice²⁵²; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened²⁵⁵. footnotes: ²⁴³ Tosephta 1:10, Babli 14b. ²⁴⁴ Discussed in the Mishnah here. ²⁴⁵ Mishnah 3:1, about two sisters married to two brothers who both die childless at the same time. ²⁴⁶ The House of Hillel hold that if a man divorces his wife and then spends time with her under circumstances that permit sexual relations, the bill of divorce is invalidated and the woman needs a new one to marry again. The House of Shammai disagree and hold that if they sleep with one another they do it in intended promiscuity. What the Tosephta calls “an old bill of divorce”, Mishnah Giṭṭin ²⁴⁷ There are several cases of disagreement about the status of a woman in the Mishnah, and Rashi, R. Ḥananel, and S. Lieberman all have their own preferences. Probably this refers to all instances. ²⁴⁸ Mishnah Qiddušin ²⁴⁹ Zach. ²⁵⁰ In the Babli, the discussion is about the more realistic case of the daughter’s co-wife, where the child is a bastard for the House of Hillel in a levirate following the House of Shammai but only damaged (unfit for a Cohen) for the House of Shammai if married outside following the House of Hillel. ²⁵¹ They would never permit a new marriage if an existing one is valid for the House of Hillel. There remains the difference that, if it happened, the qiddushin ²⁵² Following the House of Hillel. ²⁵³ Mishnah Miqwa’ot ²⁵⁴ It is unknown where this is stated. ²⁵² Following the House of Hillel. ²⁵⁵ The Babli, 14a, disagrees and holds that they informed one another in case the child of a family should not be married by a person of the other House. Since the ascendancy of the House of Shammai was so shortlived, the position of the Yerushalmi seems justified. One has to wonder what the rules were for marriages between Sadducees and Pharisees in late Temple times. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:9 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:6:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/1:6:9) כְּהָדָא דְתַנִּי. כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ לִנְהוֹג כְּחוּמְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי וּכְחוּמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל עַל זֶה נֶאֱמָר וְהַכְּסִיל בָּחוֹשֶׁךְ הוֹלֵךְ. כְּקוּלֵּי אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ נִקְרָא רָשָׁע. אֶלָּא אוֹ כְדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי כְקוּלֵּיהֶם וּכְחוּמְרֵיהֶן אוֹ כְדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל כְקוּלֵּיהֶם וּכְחוּמְרֵיהֶן. הָדָא דְתֵימַר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל. אֲבָל מִשֶׁיָּצָאת בַּת קוֹל לְעוֹלָם הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. וְכָל הָעוֹבֵר עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל חַיָיב מִיתָה. תַּנִי. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה. אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ דִבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִים הֵם אֲבָל הֲלָכָה כְבֵית הִלֵּל לְעוֹלָם. בְּאֵיכָן יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל. רַב בֵּיבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּיַבְנֶה יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** In this matter²⁵⁶, it was stated²⁵⁷ 2:3, *Yebamot*1:13, *Idiut* 2:3. Babli *Eruvin* 6b, *Roš Haššanah* 14b, *Ḥulin* 43b.: “About anybody who wants to take upon himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said²⁵⁸ 2:14.: ‘The silly one walks in darkness’. The leniencies of both of them, he is called wicked. Only either following the words of the House of Shammai in their leniencies and stringencies, or following the words of the House of Hillel in their leniencies and stringencies.” That is, before there came the disembodied voice²⁵⁹. But after the disembodied voice was heard, “practice follows the House of Hillel forever²⁵⁷ 2:3, *Yebamot*1:13, *Idiut* 2:3. Babli *Eruvin* 6b, *Roš Haššanah* 14b, *Ḥulin* 43b..” And any who transgresses the words of the House of Hillel is deserving of death²⁶⁰ 1:7.. It was stated: There came the disembodied voice and said: Both of them are the words of the Living God, but practice follows the House of Hillel forever. Where was the disembodied voice heard? Rav Bebai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh²⁶¹. footnotes: ²⁵⁶ As R. Moses Margalit points out, this kind of reference fits the style of the Yerushalmi. Those who want to delete כהדא ד are lead astray by the style of the Babli. ²⁵⁷ Tosephta Sukkah ²⁵⁸ Eccl. ²⁵⁹ The collective agreement of the people, over the heads of the rabbinic establishment. ²⁵⁷ Tosephta Sukkah ²⁶⁰ Cf. Mishnah Berakhot ²⁶¹ Between the two wars against the Romans.