## Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot Chapter 4 ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:1:1) **משנה:** הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ וְנִמְצֵאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַוְולָד שֶׁלְּקַיָימָא הוּא מוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ וְהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת בִּקְרוֹבָיו. וְלֹא פְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. אֵין הַוְולָד שֶׁלְּקַיָימָא הוּא אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה בִּקְרוֹבָיו. וּפְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If somebody performed *ḥalîṣah* with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant and gives birth, if it is a live birth¹ 5:3 states that a one-day old baby causes levirate (if the husband died childless one day after a brother was born to him) and frees from levirate (if the pregnant widow gave birth to a live baby). Then her late husband potentially had a child when he died, there can be no levirate or *ḥalîṣah* and, legally, the ceremony never happened. her relatives are permitted to him and his relatives are permitted to her; he has not disabled her [from marrying into] priesthood. If it is a still birth, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her; he has disabled her [from marrying into] priesthood². footnotes: ¹ Even though usually וולד של קיימא denotes a child surviving more than 30 days; in case of levirate, Mishnah Niddah ² The ceremony is valid; she is (rabbinically) under all rules of a divorcee from the brother. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:1:2) **הלכה:** הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ וְנִמְצֵאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת כול׳. בְּשֶׁעָבַר. הָא כַתְּחִילָּה לֹא. דֵי מַתְנִיתָא הַיְּבָמָה לֹא תַחֲלוֹץ וְלֹא תִתְיַבֵּם עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִּׁים. וְתַחֲלוֹץ מִיָּד. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. אִם בֶּן קַיָימָא הוּא לֹא נָגְעָה בָהּ חֲלִיצָה. אִם אֵינוֹ בֶּן קַיָימָא הוּא הֲרֵי חֲלִיצָתָהּ בְּיָדָהּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָה רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵּׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה כְרוּז לִכְהוּנָּה. רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה כְרוּז לִכְהוּנָּה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. מֵאֵן יְבָמִי. אֶת שֶׁאוֹמְרִין לוֹ. יַיבֵּם. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. חֲלוֹץ. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. יַיבֵּם. אֵין אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. חֲלוֹץ. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. הָיְתָה כְשֵׁירֵה וְנִתְחַלְּלָה. כְּגוֹן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. מָאן דְּאָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה כְרוּז לִכְהוּנָּה. וְזוּ הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָהּ צרִיכָה כְּרוּז לִכְהוּנָּה חוֹלֶצֶת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֶת שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ יַיבֵּם. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. חֲלוֹץ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If somebody performed *ḥalîṣah* with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” etc. If he transgressed, but not from the start³. That follows the Mishnah⁴ is not needed since she could not remarry even if she had children, for the same reason.: “The widow should not perform *ḥalîṣah* or have levirate until after three months.” Why can she not have *ḥalîṣah* immediately? As you take it, if she has a live birth, *ḥalîṣah* did not affect her¹ 5:3 states that a one day old baby causes levirate (if the husband died childless one day after a brother was born to him) and frees from levirate (if the pregnant widow gave birth to a live baby). Then her late husband potentially had a child when he died, there can be no levirate or *ḥalîṣah* and, legally, the ceremony never happened.. If she has a still birth, she holds *ḥalîṣah* in her hand. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood⁵ prevents a woman from marrying a priest, an invalid *ḥalîṣah* demands public proclamations by the town crier (a herald, Greek κῆρυξ), to make sure people would not think that her children from a Cohen are desecrated. The same argument in Babli 41b. Cf. also Chapter 16, Note 11.. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah, that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “My levir refuses⁶. 25:7. As long as the levir is not required to marry her, she cannot claim that he refused. The same argument in Babli 41b..” To the one to whom one says: perform levirate, to him one says: perform *ḥalîṣah*; but to the one to whom one cannot say: perform levirate, to him one cannot say: perform *ḥalîṣah*! What is the difference between them? If she had been acceptable and was desecrated⁷. 21:7,14., e. g., a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who had performed *ḥalîṣah* for a common priest. According to him who says that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood; that one, who does not need a proclamation for the priesthood, should have *ḥalîṣah*. According to him who says that to the one to whom one says: perform levirate, to him does one say: perform *ḥalîṣah*?⁸ footnotes: ³ The Mishnah is formulated “if it happened”, not that it should be the rule. ⁴ Mishnah 4:11. To ascertain that the widow is not pregnant. Before that time, ḥalîṣah ¹ Even though usually וולד של קיימא denotes a child surviving more than 30 days; in case of levirate, Mishnah Niddah ⁵ Since ḥalîṣah ⁶ Deut ⁷ By a marriage contracted in violation of the holiness prohibitions, Lev ⁸ The answer, that still even a desecrated woman cannot remarry for 90 days after her husband’s death, is missing. This is either a scribal omission or it is assumed that everybody will be able to supply the rest of the argument. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:1:3) חָלַץ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא צְרִיכָה לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִים. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. קְטַנָּה שֶׁחָלְצָה תַחֲלוֹץ מִשֶׁתַּגְדִּיל. וְאִם חָלְצָה חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁירָה. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בְרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה מָטֵי בָהּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. אֵין חוֹלְצִין וְאֵין מְיַיבְּמִין אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁמָּא תִימָּצֵא אַיְילוֹנִית. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָלְצָה חוֹלֶצֶת. וְהָכָא נַמֵּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָלְצָה חוֹלֶצֶת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If there was *ḥalîṣah* during these three months, does she need another one after three months? Let us hear from the following⁹: “A minor who performed *ḥalîṣah* should perform *ḥalîṣah* after she grows up; if she performed [only one] *ḥalîṣah*, the *ḥalîṣah* she performed is valid¹⁰ is the declaration of the levir, by necessity an adult, that he refuses to marry the widow..” Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya brought it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹¹; this is Rebbi Meïr‘s, since Rebbi Meïr says one does neither perform *ḥalîṣah* nor levirate with a minor: maybe she would turn out to be a she-ram¹² unnecessary. The same argument in Babli *Bekhorot* 19b; a detailed discussion in Tosaphot *ad. loc., s. v*. איש.. As you say there, even though she already performed *ḥalîṣah*, she again performs *ḥalîṣah*; so here also though she did perform *ḥalîṣah*, she performs *ḥalîṣah*¹³ was performed early, against the rules, it has to be performed again after the three months have passed but, in case this was not done, the first *ḥalîṣah* is valid.. footnotes: ⁹ Mishnah 12:5. ¹⁰ In a plurality of mss. of the Babylonian Mishnah, “not valid”. A minor cannot perform acts that are legally valid, but the essence of ḥalîṣah ¹¹ In the parallel in Chapter 12, R. Jonah instead of R. Joḥanan. ¹² R. Meïr is known in many cases to require attention to possibilities that are seldom realities. For a she-ram, levirate is forbidden and ḥalîṣah ¹³ If ḥalîṣah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:1:4) רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. חָלַץ לָהּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְהִפִּילָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הֲרֵי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת יָכוֹל תְּהֵא זְקוּקָה לְיָבָם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְלֹא יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אֶת שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ מָחוּי. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר. לְהָקִים לְאָחִיו שֵׁם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. עַד שֶׁתֵּדַע אִם בֶּן קַיָימָה הוּא אִם אֵינוֹ בֶּן קַיָימָה. יָכוֹל אַף אֵשֶׁת סָרִיס תְּהֵא צְרִיכָה לְיִיבּוּם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְלֹא יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אֶת שֶׁאֵין שְׁמוֹ מָחוּי. יָצָא זֶה שֶׁ(אין) שְׁמוֹ מָחוּי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yudan asked: If he performed *ḥalîṣah* with a pregnant woman and she had a miscarriage¹⁵? Let us hear from the following: If somebody died and left a pregnant widow, should I think that she must have recourse to her levir¹⁶? The verse says, “that his name should not be extinguished from Israel,” only one whose name is extinguished¹⁷. The verse says, “to establish a name in Israel for his brother,” until you know whether there is a live child or not¹⁸ is of no legal value.. I could think that the wife of an eunuch should need levirate, the verse says “that his name should not be extinguished from Israel,” only one whose name is not extinguished; this excludes this one whose name was already extinguished¹⁹. footnotes: ¹⁵ Is the procedure valid if intended as a precaution in case the woman had a miscarriage? ¹⁶ At the moment of death, the husband was childless. ¹⁷ But not one who had the potential of offspring at the time of his death. ¹⁸ The early ḥalîṣah ¹⁹ Before his death. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:1:5) יָכוֹל אוֹמֵר. צָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִינָּשֵׂא. הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ וְנִמְצֵאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר. צָרָתָהּ לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתֵּדַע בְּמַה הִיא מוּתֶּרֶת אִם בְעִיבּוּר אִם בְּבִיאָה. אַף בַּחֲלוּצָה כֵן. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר וּבִיאָה פְטוֹר. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר בְּבִיאָה כָּךְ אַתְּ מָר בַּחֲלִיצָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Could I say, her²⁰. co-wife may remarry? “²¹ are in Babli, 36a, Tosephta 6:3. He who marries his sister-in-law and she turns out to be pregnant,” as you say, “her co-wife cannot marry until you know by which means she is permitted, whether by pregnancy or by intercourse²²” The same is valid for the one who performed *ḥalîṣah. Ḥalîṣah* frees and intercourse frees²³. As you said it for intercourse so it was said for *ḥalîṣah*. footnotes: ²⁰ The pregnant woman who performed ḥalîṣah ²¹ Similar baraitot ²² Whether the deceased finally had a posthumous child and the rules of levirate do not apply or whether she is freed by the levirate of her co-wife, which is justified after the fact if the widow has a miscarriage or a still birth. ²³ The co-wife. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:1:6) שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. זָכִין בָּעוֹבָּרִין. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. אֵין זָכִין בָּעוֹבָּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר זָכִין לָעוֹבָּרִין. מוֹדֵי הוּא שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשּׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ בַחַיִים. דֵי מַתְנִיתָא הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ וְנִמְצֵאת מְעוֹבֶּרֶת. כְּמָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר כָּאן. הוּא לְמַפְרֵעַ לֹא נָגְעָה בָהּ חֲלִיצָה. וְהָכָא בֵּ(י)ן הוּא לְמַפְרֵעַ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הָאוֹמֵר. אִם יָלְדָה אִשְׁתִּי זָכָר יִטּוֹל מָנֶה. יָלְדָה זָכָר נוֹטֵל מָנֶה. אִם נְקֵיבָה מָאתַיִם. יָלְדָה נְקֵיבָה נוֹטֶלֶת מָאתַיִם. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְנוֹ. הָא אַחֵר לֹא. רִבִּי יוֹסָה אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ אַחֵר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר וּבִלְבַד שְׁכִיב מְרַע. הָא בָרִיא לֹא. בִּלְבַד מְטַלְטְלִין. הָא קַרְקָעוֹת לֹא. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָעְזָר. גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וּבִיזְבְּזוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת נְכָסָיו. וְנוֹדַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵן בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה עִיבְּרָה. הַכֹּל חַיָיבִין לְהַחֲזִיר. מַה עָבַד לָהּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הָכָא שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ. וְסֵיפָא פְלִיגָא עַל שְׁמוּאֵל מִן הָדָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסָה. הֶחֱזִירוּ הַכֹּל. אַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַבֵּן אוֹ שֶׁהִפִּילָה. כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה זָכָה. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא זָכָה. אֲפִילוּ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא יִזְכֶּה. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. זָכִין לָעוֹבָּרִין. מוֹדֵי וְהוּא שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ בַחַיִים. הֲרֵי אֵינוֹ בֶּן קַיָימָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֶלְעָזָר. מִשּׁוּם יִיאוּשׁ. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיסָרִין רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר וָוא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר נָתָן. חָזַר בָּהּ רִבִּי נָתָן. מִן מַתְנִיתָא. אִם זָכָר מָנֶה. אִם נְקֵיבָה מָאתַיִם. וּנְקֵיבָה גַבָּהּ לֹא בְעִנְיָין כְּאַחֵר הוּא. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. בֶּן יוֹמוֹ זָכִין לוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to fetuses²⁴141b/142a, Yerushalmi *Baba Batra* 9:1 in a similar way. The opinion of R. Eleazar is attributed to (the slightly older) Rav Huna in the Babli.. Rebbi Yose²⁵ said, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive²⁶ 142a, that a gift to a minor is acquired only at the time of birth is the opinion of Rav Naḥman, Samuel’s foremost student in matters of civil law.. That is the Mishnah, “if somebody performed *ḥalîṣah* with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” as you say here, retroactively *ḥalîṣah* did not touch her, so retroactively the child is a son and receives the benefit²⁷. There, we have stated: “If somebody says, if my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina²⁸ 141b, only the male baby is mentioned. In Yerushalmi *Baba batra*9:2, edited by a different group, and Tosephta *Baba batra* 9:5, a different text, the male gets double the amount of the female., if she gave birth to a male, [the male baby] will take a mina. If a female, 200 [drachmae], if she gave birth to a female, that one will take 200.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is only for his son, but not for any other. Rebbi Yasa²⁹ said, even any other. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, only from a sick person, but not a healthy one; only movables but not real estate³⁰ and *Baba batra*. Real estate can be acquired only if all rules are followed; since the fetus cannot perform the act of acquisition, no real estate can be transferred to him on the death bed.. A *baraita* disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “³¹ in Babli *Baba batra* 142a. If a proselyte has no children after he became Jewish, his estate has no heirs; so anybody who wants to may take it. It is assumed here that if the deceased had a wife, he died without a will and she was not present since either way she immediately could lay claim to the entire property. Therefore, it is stated that only later it became known that the widow was pregnant. If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son overseas or that [his wife] was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took].” What does Rebbi Eleazar do with this³². 27:8).? There is a difference because it is his child. The second part [of the Mishnah] disagrees with Samuel in the interpretation of Rebbi Yose: “If they returned everything and then the son died³³ or she had a miscarriage³⁴, anybody who takes first *after that* acquires it.” The first group did not acquire. Even at the beginning they should not have acquired! Did not Rebbi Yose say, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. He was not living³⁵! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar³⁶ 9:1 this is an anonymous statement of the editors. In ms A: R. Eleazar. Cf. *Berakhot* 7:117. said, because of abandoning³⁷ 2.. The rabbis of Caesarea, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Abba bar Natan³⁸: Rebbi Natan changed his mind because of that Mishnah: “If a male, a mina, if a female, 200.” Is a female in this situation not like an outsider³⁹? Bar Qappara stated: “On transfers benefit to a one day old.⁴⁰ 5:3.” footnotes: ²⁴ The question whether an unborn child can inherit and receive gifts is discussed in Babli Baba Batra ²⁵ R. Yose, the fifth generation Amora, colleague of R. Jonah. In ms. A, the name appears as ר׳ יונסה, a confluence of both names. ²⁶ In Babli Baba Batra ²⁷ After birth, the gift is valid from the time it was given but it is not acquired (and cannot be invested by the baby’s trustees) before birth. ²⁸ 100 drachmae. In the parallel, Baba batra ²⁹ It seems here that instead of ר׳ יוסה (in both mss.) one should read ר׳ יסה; he is R. Yasa (Assi), contemporary of R. Eleazar. ³⁰ The rules of emergency wills, which are much more lenient than those of standard wills, are detailed in tractates Giṭṭin ³¹ A similar baraita ³² The unborn baby inherits his father’s estate. This is a biblical decree (Num ³³ And again there are no legal heirs. ³⁴ If a fetus cannot acquire, then the first group of people who had returned what they had taken, simply should be given back what they had returned. If a fetus can acquire, then the first group took the possession illegally and they should not be considered as owners. ³⁵ In the interpretation of R. Yose, the return was in error and the people who took first should take their property back. ³⁶ In Baba batra ³⁷ The owners had given up hope to recover their property. Then they had given up ownership. Loss of ownership by giving up hope of recovery is the topic of Baba meṣi‘a ³⁸ A Babylonian in Galilee, older than R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, student of Rav Huna. The next name, R. Nathan, seems to be corrupt; possibly one should read “R. Eleazar”. Unfortunately, two lines are missing here in ms. A. ³⁹ Since in the presence of sons she does not inherit (but can claim support from the estate and a dowry). ⁴⁰ He denies that an unborn child can inherit or receive gifts; cf. Mishnah Niddah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:2:1) **משנה:** הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ וְנִמְצֵאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַוְולָד שֶׁל קַיָימָא יוֹצִיא וְחַיָיבִין בְּקָרְבָּן. וְאִם אֵין הַוְולָד שֶׁל קַיָימָא יְקַיֵים. סָפֵק בֶּן תֵּשַׁע לָרִאשׁוֹן סָפֵק בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן יוֹצִיא וְהַוְולָד כָּשֵּׁר וְחַיָיבִין בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If somebody marries his sister-in-law but she turned out to have been pregnant and gave birth. If the child is alive, [the levir] has to divorce her and they must bring a sacrifice⁴¹. 4). One has to assume that the marriage was entered into without any suspicion of pregnancy.. If the child is not alive, he may keep her. If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month child of the first [brother] or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated to bring a reparation offering for an uncertain case⁴² are bastards. The reparation offering is the אָשָּׁם required if it is uncertain whether a sin was committed or not (*Lev*. 5:17–19).. footnotes: ⁴¹ His marriage to her is incestuous; she is forbidden to him as sister-in-law with children. The sacrifice is a purification sacrifice, חַטָּאת (Lev ⁴² His marriage to her is possibly incestuous; he must divorce her. A child is either a bastard or not a bastard; legally no children exist that possibly ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:2:2) **הלכה:** אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כָּל שֶׁאֶיפְשַׁר לָךְ לַעֲמוֹד עַל וַודָּאוֹ אֵין חַיָיבִין עַל סְפֵיקוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי זֵיתִים אֶחָד שֶׁלְּחֵלֶב וְאֶחָד שֶׁלְּשׁוּמָּן וְאָכַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וַחֲבֵירוֹ מוּנָח בְּתוֹכָהּ. וְאָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ אֶמְצָא אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ יָכוֹל אֲנִי לַעֲמוֹד עַל וַודָּאוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ חַיָיבִין עַל סְפֵיקוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ וְנִמְצֵאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִוָודַע לוֹ אִם בֶּן קַיָימָא הוּא אִם אֵינוֹ בֶּן קַיָימָא מֵבִיא. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Yose⁴⁴17b) by implication attributes to Rav Assi the opinion that a reparation offering is due if the true situation cannot be ascertained. said, in any case where the true fact can be ascertained, one does not have to bring a reparation offering because of doubt. How is that? If there were before him two olive-sized pieces, one of suet⁴⁵. 7:27). Eating an olive-sized piece of suet inadvertently requires a purification offering. and one of fat⁴⁶, he ate one of them and the other is locked up.He says, since I could determine the true fact if I would find the key, does one have to bring a reparation offering in this case of doubt⁴⁷? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody marries his sister-in-law but she turned out to have been pregnant”, as long as it is not known whether the child lives or does not live, does he have to bring a reparation offering because of the doubt⁴⁸? This means that he does not bring. footnotes: ⁴⁴ He cannot be either the late Amora or the Tanna; it seems that he is the Babylonian who in the Babli is called Rav Assi. The Babli (Keritut ⁴⁵ From the back part of a domestic animal. Since suet of a sacrifice has to be burned on the altar, it is forbidden as food from all animals that can be sacrifices (Lev ⁴⁶ Fat permitted as food. ⁴⁷ Theoretically, the true situation could be ascertained, whether a purification offering is due or no sin has been committed, but practically it cannot. Does one follow theory or practice? ⁴⁸ No, the Mishnah requires them to wait until the eventual necessity for a purification offering is decided. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:2:3) רַב אָמַר. כָּל שֶׁאֵיפְשַׁר לוֹ לַעֲמוֹד עַל וַודַּייוֹ אֵין חַיָיבִין עַל סְפֵיקוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי זֵיתִים אֶחָד שֶׁלְּחֵלֶב וְאֶחָד שֶׁלְּשׁוּמָּן וְאָכַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן. וּבָא עוֹרֵב וְאָכַל אֶת הַשֵּׁינִי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד עַל וַודַּייוֹ אֵין חַיָיבִין עַל סְפֵיקוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל עוֹרֵב תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל הוּא. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד עַל וַודַּייוֹ חַיָיבִין עַל סְפֵיקוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רַב. וְהוּא שֶׁיוֹכִיחַ לְפָנָיו חֵלֶב בָּרוּר. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרַב אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁיוֹכִיחַ לְפָנָיו חֵלֶב בָּרוּר. מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא. שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד עַל וַודָּאוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. כְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אוֹמֵר. חַיָיבִין עַל חֶלְבּוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מַה עֲבַד רַב. פָּתַר לָהּ. חֲלוּקִין עַל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. חֲתִיכָה שֶׁלְּחוּלִין וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁלְּקוֹדֶשׁ. אָכַל אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֶת אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן אָכַל מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָיה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם וַודַּאי. אָכַל אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָיה זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְזֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. נִיחָא רִאשׁוֹן מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. שֵׁינִי לָמָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיְתָה חֲתִיכָה גְדוֹלָה וְאָכַל חֶצְיָיהּ וְהִנִּיחַ חֶצְיָיהּ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. סָפֵק בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן יוֹצִיא וְהַוְולָד כָּשֵׁר וְחַיָיבִין אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. הֲרֵי אֵיפְשַׁר לָךְ לַעֲמוֹד עַל וַודָּייוֹ וְחַיָיבִין עַל סְפֵיקוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. קִיֶימָהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר וָוא. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא. קִיְימָהּ רִבִּי זְעוּרָה קָמִינָן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְהֶעָרוֹת וְלִפְרוֹשׁ וְלֵידַע אִם מִמֶּנּוּ הוּא אִם מֵאַחֵר הוּא. כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד עַל וַודָּייוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rav said, in any case where the true fact can never be established, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for the doubt⁵⁰2:8, Babli *Keritut* 17b. {The commentators who did not recognize that Yerushalmi אֵיפשר = Babli אי אפשר had to rewrite the text; cf. *Peah*, Chapter 7, Note 170.}. How is that? If there were before him two olive-sized pieces, one of suet⁴⁵. 7:27). Eating an olive-sized piece of suet inadvertently requires a purification offering. and one of fat⁴⁶, he ate one of them, and then a raven ate the other. Since he cannot ascertain the true fact, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for this doubt. But if the raven ate first and then he ate, since he could have ascertained the true fact⁵¹, one has to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. But did not Rav say, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet⁵² 17b, quotes a similar statement in the name of Ḥiyya bar Rav, that the offering for a doubt is due only if there were two pieces, one permitted, one forbidden, whose history can be traced and their true status ascertained. But if there is only one piece whose status is indeterminate (the case of Rebbi Yose, Rav Assi), the offering for a doubt does not apply.? Even though Rav said, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet, he agrees here that he could have ascertained the true fact. A *baraita* disagrees with Rav: “As Rebbi Eleazar says, one must bring a reparation offering for the doubt of suet⁵³ 2:8, quoted in Babli *Keritut* 17b. The animal is the *koy*, for which it is impossible to ascertain whether it is domestic (whose suet is forbidden) or wild (whose suet is permitted)..” What does Rav do with that? They⁵⁴ disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar. A *baraita* disagrees with Rav⁵⁵ 5:4; Tosephta *Keritut* 3:1. Neither of these texts is identical with the *baraita* quoted here.: “If there were both a piece of profane [meat] and a piece of sacrificial [meat], he ate one of them and it is not known which one, he brings a reparation offering for the doubt. If he [then] ate the second piece, he brings a reparation offering for a certain transgression⁵⁶. 5:14–16. Both texts quoted in Note 55 require two sacrifices, one a reparation sacrifice for the use of sacred meat, the other a purification sacrifice (*Lev*. 4:27–35) for the sin.. If he ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second, each one brings a reparation offering for the doubt.” One understands that the first brings a reparation offering for the doubt. Why the second? Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the piece was large, he ate half of it and left the other half⁵⁷. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav⁵⁸: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month child of the first [brother] or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt.” Here it is impossible to ascertain the true fact and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt! Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before us. Since he could just have touched her⁵⁹. 20:17 is taken to mean “touched (the female genital by the male genital)”, not the etymologically more likely “bared”. Mishnah 6:1 will explain that the biblically required act of validation of the marriage with the sister-in-law is the touching of the two genitals. They could have performed this act without ejaculation to be married (and make the brother financially responsible for the sister-in-law) and then waited the prescribed 90 days to ascertain the paternity of an eventual child. and then separated, he could have known whether it is his or the other’s, it is as if he could have ascertained the true fact! footnotes: ⁵⁰ The same statement in Bikkurim ⁴⁵ From the back part of a domestic animal. Since suet of a sacrifice has to be burned on the altar, it is forbidden as food from all animals that can be sacrifices (Lev ⁴⁶ Fat permitted as food. ⁵¹ By having the piece analyzed by a competent butcher. ⁵² The Babli, Keritut ⁵³ Bikkurim ⁵⁴ The majority of Sages disagree with the Tanna R. Eleazar ben Shamua. ⁵⁵ Similar texts are in Mishnah Keritut ⁵⁶ It is assumed that the person who ate is not a Cohen and commits a sin by eating sacrificial meat. The reparation offering is for unauthorized use of sacred property, Lev ⁵⁷ It is impossible to explain that both people ate from one large piece since that is the case in which Rav denies that a reparation offering is due. If must be that one piece was eaten completely but of the other enough is left that it could be analyzed. (This is the explanation rejected by קרבן העדה). ⁵⁸ This quote is the reason the entire discussion is placed here. ⁵⁹ In rabbinic Hebrew, the expression הערה in Lev ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:2:4) מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם כְּשֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ לְאַחַר מִיתַת בַּעֲלָהּ מִיָּד הוּכָּר עוּבְּרָהּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים. נִיתְנֵי. בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לַזֶּה וְלַזֶּה בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לַזֶּה וְלַזֶּה. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּשֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים וְהוּכָּר עוּבְּרָהּ לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. נִיתְנֵי. הַיְּבָמָה לֹא תַחֲלוֹץ וְלֹא תִתְיַבֵּם עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ לָהּ חֲמִשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין. כְּשֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ לְאַחַר אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְהוּכָּר עוּבְּרָהּ לְאַחַר חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם. הֲרֵי יֵשׁ כָּאן שְׁלֵימִין לָרִאשׁוֹן וּמְקוּטָעִין לַשֵּׁינִי. שְׁמַע מִינָהּ שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת לַחֳדָשִׁים שְׁלֵימִים. אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי יְצִירוֹת. אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת לַחֳדָשִׁים מְקוּטָעִין. אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ שֶׁהָאִִשָּׁה מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְחוֹזֶרֶת וּמִתְעַבֶּרֶת. אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת מִשְּׁנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם כְּאַחַת. וּפְלִיגָא עַל דְּרַבָּנִן דַאֲגַדְתָּא. דְּרַבָּנִן דַאֲגַדְתָּא אוֹמְרִים. וַיֵּצֵא אִישׁ הַבֵּינַיִים. מִמַּעַרְכוֹת פְּלִשְּׁתִּים. מִמֵּאָה עָרְלוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים. שֶׁהֶעֲרוּ בָהּ מֵאָה עָרְלוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. וְלָא פְלִיגִין. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִסְרַח הַזֶּרַע הָאִשָּׁה מְעוּבֶּרֶת מִשְּׁנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם כְּאַחַת. מִשֶּׁנִּסְרַח הַזֶּרַע אֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְעוּבֶּרֶת מִשְּׁנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם כְּאַחַת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** How do we hold⁶⁰? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months⁶¹, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform *ḥalîṣah* or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second⁶². This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations⁶³. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly⁶⁴ a, disagrees and holds that Jehudah and Ḥizqiah, children of Rebbi Ḥiyya, who were born 3 months apart, were twins; the one a seven-months child and the other a nine-months child.. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men⁶⁵. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her⁶⁶ 2(21), Midrash *Samuel* ed. Buber 20(4), Babli *Soṭah* 42b in the name of R. Joḥanan. These sermons identify (1) the Moabite Orpah, the daughter-in-law of Noemi who did not follow her to Bethlehem, with the Philistine Haraphah (*2S*. 21:22), and (2) Goliat mentioned in *2S*. 21 with the warrior in *1S*. 17:23. The latter is introduced in the written text as אִישׁ הַבֵּנַיִם מִמַּעַרְוֹת פְּלִשׁתִּים interpreted in a slightly pornographic way as “a man [created] in between the touchings (cf. Note 59) of the Philistines”, explaining that Orpah, once she had decided not to become Jewish, went to the enemies of the Jews, the Philistines of Gath, and slept with 100 of their warriors (מִמַּעַרְוֹת = מִמֵּאָה הֶעָרוֹת) in one night to create a super-warrior; in the words of R. Joḥanan, 100 fathers and one mother. One can construct such a sermon only if all gutturals had become silent and *pataḥ, qāmeṣ* assimilated to one another.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously. footnotes: ⁶⁰ Here starts the discussion of the last sentence of the Mishnah, how xan a child be a nine-months child or a seven-months child with equal probabilities. ⁶¹ Since a widow should not be married in levirate earlier than 3 months after the husband’s death (Mishnah 4:11) in order to avoid situations like the one discussed in the Mishnah, it follows that there are pregnancies that are recognized only after three months. ⁶² If the child was born exactly nine months after the death of the husband, then this would be 7 months and 10 days after the levir had intercourse with her. ⁶³ Certain regular pregnancies are terminated naturally during the seventh month; certain others only after 9 full months. ⁶⁴ The Babli, Niddah 27 ⁶⁵ Since the Mishnah excludes the possibility that, even if there were twins, they could come from both brothers as fathers. In that case, according to Rav there would be no reparation offering for a doubt. ⁶⁶ Midrash Ruth ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:2:5) מְנַיִין שְׁתֵּי יְצִירוֹת. רִבִי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוּנָא. וַיִיצֶר. יְצִירָה לְשִׁבְעָה וִיצִירָה לְתִשְׁעָה. נוֹצָר לְשִׁבְעָה וְנוֹלָד לִשְׁמוֹנָה חַיי. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לְתִשְׁעָה. נוֹצָר לְתִשְׁעָה וְנוֹלָד לִשְׁמוֹנָה אֵינוֹ חַיָיה. נוֹצָר לְתִשְׁעָה וְנוֹלָד לְשִׁבְעָה. אִיתָא חֲמִי. אִם לִשְׁמוֹנָה אֵינוֹ חַיָיה לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לְשִׁבְעָה. בָּעוּן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. מְנַיִין לְבֶן שִׁבְעָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיה. אָמַר לוֹן מִדִּידְכוֹן אֲנָא יְהִב לְכוֹן. זוטא אבטא זוטא אבטא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** From where the two creations? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Huna: “He created⁶⁸. 2:7. In the creation of Man, it is written וייצר, in that of the animals, 2:19, only ויצר. The two letters י symbolize the two creations. A more detailed exposition of this sermon is in *Gen. rabba* 14(2).”, a creation for seven and a creation for eight. If he was created for seven but born at eight, he lives; so much more if [born] by nine. If he was created for nine and born at eight, he does not live. If he was created for nine and born at seven? Come and see, if he does not live at eight, so much less at seven! They⁶⁹ asked before Rebbi Abbahu. From where that a seven-month baby lives? he said to them, from yours I am giving to you: ζῇ τὰ ἑπτὰ, ζῇ τὰ ἑπτὰ⁷⁰14(2), 20(13), *Tanḥuma Bemidbar* 18, *Tanḥuma Buber Bemidbar* 21, *Bemidbar rabba* 4(3), the reading seems to be זיטא אפטא איטא אוכטא for the interpretation of which S. Lieberman (יוונית ויוונות בארץ ישׂראל, Jerusalem 1962, p. 209) prefers the reading of A. Crusius: ζῇ τὰ ἑπτὰ μᾶλλον ἤ τὰ ὀκτώ “the life-expectancy of that of seven [is better than] that of eight,” a medical maxim. The formulation is a pun on the Hellenistic numeral values of letters, *zeta*ζʼ = 7, *eta* η’ = 8.. footnotes: ⁶⁸ Gen ⁶⁹ Some Greek speakers. ⁷⁰ “It lives at seven, it lives at seven”. In all other sources, Gen. rabba ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:2:6) בָּא הַסָּפֵק לִיטּוֹל אֶת חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְּאָבִיו. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. הַנֵּי אָבִיךָ. בָּא הַיָּבָם לִיטוֹל חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְּאָחִיו. אוֹמְרִים לֵיהּ. הַנֵּי בְּרֵיהּ. הָא כֵיצַד. עוֹשִׂין שִׁיפִיּוּת בֵּינֵיהֶן וּמְחַלְּקִין נִיכְסֵי הַמֵּת. נִמְצֵאת אוֹמֵר. שִׁיפִיּוּת לְאָחִיו הֶפְסֵד לָאַחִין. תַּחֲרוּת בָּאַחִין שֶׁבֶר בָּאַחִין. מֵת הַזָּקֵן הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּאִים בָּנִים בְּוַודַּאי וּבֶ(י)ן בֵּן בְּסָפֵק. מֵת הַסָּפֵק הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בֵּן אֲחִי אָב בְּוַודַּאי וְאֵם בְּסָפֵק. מֵת אֶחָד מַן הָאַחִין הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בֶּן בְּוַדַּאי וּבֵ(י)ן אָח בְּסָפֵק. מֵתָה אִמּוֹ שֶׁלְּסָפֵק הֲרֵי יֵשׁ כָּאן בֵּן בְּוַדַּאי וּבַעַל בְּסָפֵק. מֵת הַסָּפֵק וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵתָה אִמּוֹ הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בֶּן אֲחִי אֵם בְּוַדַּאי וּבַעַל בְּסָפֵק. מֵת הַיָּבָם וּבָא הַסָּפֵק לִיטּוֹל חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְּאָבִיו. אִי הֲוָה קַדְמַיָיא מִיסְכֵּן אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. הַנֵּי אָבוּךְ. אִין הֲוָה עָתִיר אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. כּוּלָּן אַחִין בְּנֵי אַחִין. בּוֹאוּ וְנִירַשׁ חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְּאָבִינוּ וְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלַּאֲחִי אָבִינוּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If the uncertain [son] comes to take his part in his father’s⁷¹ [inheritance]. one says to him, the other one is your father. If the levir comes to take his part in his brother’s [inheritance], one says to him, that one is his son. How is that? They compromise between themselves and split the property of the deceased⁷². One finds, compromise with his brother is loss to the brothers; competition between the brothers is catastrophy for the brothers⁷³ and levirate are spelled out in Mishnaiot 3–4. If there is no compromise, nobody gets anything.. If the old man dies, one finds that certain sons and an uncertain grandson come⁷⁴. If the grandson cannot prove who his father was, he cannot inherit in the presence of sons orgrandsons of known fathers.. If the uncertain [son] dies there exists a certain son of his father’s brother and an uncertain mother⁷⁵. If one of the brothers dies, there is a certain son and an uncertain son of a brother⁷⁶. If the mother of the uncertain [son] dies, there is a certain son and an uncertain husband⁷⁷. If first the uncertain [son] dies and after that his mother, a son of the mother’s brother is certain but the husband uncertain⁷⁷. If the levir dies and the uncertain [son] comes to take his part in his father’s inheritance, if the first one was poor, they tell him, that one is your father. If he was rich, the tell him, we all are brothers, sons of his brother. Come and let us inherit our father’s part and the part of our father’s brother⁷⁸. footnotes: ⁷¹ The putative father, his mother’s first husband. ⁷² The Babli, 37b, notes that the inheritance of the deceased brother is “money which is in doubt and money in doubt one splits in the middle”. The Yerushalmi has no explicit rule on how the compromise is reached. ⁷³ The compromise splits the inheritance between the uncertain son and his uncertain father; this excludes the other brothers from the inheritance of their childless brother The rules of inheritance in the cases of ḥalîṣah ⁷⁴ Inheritance of the grandfather goes to his children and grandchildren per stirpes ⁷⁵ The mother is certain but she does not inherit. The sons of the levir inherit either as brothers or as cousins of the deceased. The other sons of the mother could inherit his part from his mother’s estate only if there were no relatives from the family of the possible fathers. ⁷⁶ The uncertain son cannot claim a part in the inheritance of a childless uncle since he cannot prove whether he should get the full part of the first husband or a share with the other brothers of the levir. ⁷⁷ The levir cannot inherit since he cannot prove that the woman was his legal wife. ⁷⁷ The levir cannot inherit since he cannot prove that the woman was his legal wife. ⁷⁸ In the Babli, 37b, there is a serious disagreement whether the inheritance of the first husband remains separate after the levir and the uncertain son did compromise (Note 72). In practice, the Babli holds that the uncertain son cannot inherit more than what he got under the compromise since he cannot prove that he was the levir’s son. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:2:7) תַּנֵּי הָרִאשׁוֹן רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְהַשֵּׁינִי מַמְזֵר בְּסָפֵק. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. אֵין מַמְזֵר בְּסָפֵק. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב בִּסְפֵק כּוּתִים וּבִסְפֵק חַלָּלִים. כְּהַהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. עֲשָׂרָה יוּחֲסִין עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב שְׁמוֹנֶה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר תִּשְׁעָה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרִבָּנִן עֲשָׂרָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It was stated⁷⁹: “The first son could be High Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard⁸⁰. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.⁸¹ 4:3.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees in cases of doubt of Samaritans and desecrated persons⁸². This refers to what we have stated there: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia.⁸³ 4:1: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia, Cohanim, Levites, Israel, desecrated, proselytes, freed slaves, bastards, Gibeonites, people of unknown paternity, and foundlings. Cohanim, Levites, Israel may marry one another. Levites, Israel, desecrated, proselytes, and freed slaves, may marry one another. Proselytes, freed slaves, bastards, Gibeonites, people of unknown paternity, and foundlings, may marry one another.” For R. Eliezer ben Jacob, bastards, people of unknown paternity, and foundlings, all form one group. In Mishnah *Ketubot* 1:8, Rabban Gamliel and R. Eliezer hold that the unmarried mother of a child of unknown paternity is believed if she asserts that the father was one of the first six categories (or a Gentile). For them, the special category of “child of unknown paternity” does not exist since the child inherits the status of his mother.” In the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten. footnotes: ⁷⁹ Tosephta 6:2, quoted in Babli 37a. ⁸⁰ If the first child is the son of the first husband, he certainly is in order. If he is the son of the levir, the first husband died childless and the levirate was legitimate. But any second child is the issue of a union which possibly is incestuous and punishable by divine extirpation. ⁸¹ He is considered a bastard, permitted to marry a bastard partner, since he cannot marry a legitimate Israel partner; cf. Qiddushin ⁸² As noted before, Samaritans have different interpretations of incest and marriage laws; a child of a marriage with a Samaritan is not automatically excluded but subject to inquiry. The text speaks of Samaritans since in talmudic times they were the only remnants of Sadducee traditions. {Today, of the other tribes of Sadducee traditions, Ethiopians have accepted rabbinic rules and Karaites are legitimate marriage partners if they accept rabbinic rules.}“Desecrated” children are children of the marriage of a Cohen with a divorcee or a prostitute; such a marriage is not incestuous and stringent exclusionary rules do not apply. ⁸³ Mishnah Qiddushin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:3:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:3:1) **משנה:** שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים מוֹדִין בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁמּוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָים. מֵתָה מַה יֵעָשֶׂה בִּכְתוּבָתָהּ וּבִנְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִין וְהַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּהּ. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים יַחֲלוֹקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים הַנְּכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן. כְּתוּבָּה בְחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל. וּנְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִין וְהַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּהּ בְחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If property came to a woman waiting for her levir⁸⁴. In the meantime, the *ketubah*, the money due her at the dissolution of her marriage (her dowry and the capital due her from her husband) is not payable since concerning money matters levirate is considered as continuation of the first marriage. The capital due from the husband is at least 200 *zuz* for a virgin, defined in Mishnah *Peah* 8:8 as sufficient to disqualify her from public assistence., the House of Shammai agree with the House of Hillel that she may sell or give away and it is valid⁸⁵. If she dies, what does one do with her *ketubah* and property that enters and leaves with her⁸⁶ contract and whose value only has to be returned at the dissolution of the marriage, these remain her property and, during marriage, may be sold or mortgaged only by the common action of the wife as owner and the husband as administrator. These properties are called נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג (Accadic *mulūgu* “wife’s property”), cf. Mishnah 8:1.? The House of Shammai say, the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs. But the House of Hillel say that all property remains where it is; the *ketubah* in the hands of the husband’s heirs⁸⁷ and property that enters and leaves with her in the hands of her father’s heirs⁸⁸. footnotes: ⁸⁴ She waits to be married in levirate or to be freed by ḥalîṣah ⁸⁵ During the marriage, the husband has the administration and usufruct of her property. This power is not automatically transferred to the levir; it comes only with the actual levirate. Since the marriage with the first husband is now terminated, the administration of the properties is solely in her hands. ⁸⁶ Property she inherited or otherwise received during her marriage. In contrast to the dowry, for which the husband assumes responsibility in the ketubah ⁸⁷ Her dowry remains in the husband’s family. {This is a matter of civil law, not a religious precept. In the Middle Ages, many communities promulgated rules that returned all or part of the dowry of a childless marriage of short duration to the wife’s family.} ⁸⁸ They never were the husband’s property. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:3:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:3:2) **הלכה:** שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים כול׳. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָים. מֵתָה מַה יֵעָשֶׂה בִּכְתוּבָתָהּ. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. יַחֲלֹקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. הֵן דְּאַתְּ אָמַר מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָים. כְּשֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. וְהָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר יַחֲלֹקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. בְּשֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשֵׂית שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. נָפְלוּ לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֵׂית שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם וְעָשׂוּ פֵירוֹת מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשֵׂית שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם כְּמִי שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשֵׂית שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הָהֵן יָבָם דְּהָכָא צְרִיכָא דְבֵית שַׁמַּי כְּבַעַל הוּא אוֹ אֵינוֹ כְבַעַל. אִין כְּבַעַל הוּא יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַכֹּל. אִם אֵינוֹ כְבַעַל לֹא יוֹרֵשׁ כְּלוּם. מִסָּפֵק יַחֲלוֹקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. בֵּית הִלֵּל פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ כְבַעַל. וְיוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַכֹּל. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ אָחִיו אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אֲכִילַת פִּירוֹת בִּלְבַד. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid. If she dies, what does one do with her *ketubah*?” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!”⁸⁹ Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said⁹⁰, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, [that revenue is as if] they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rebbi Ze‘ira⁹¹ makes the unencumbered woman a wife in criminal but not in civil matters. said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct⁹².). footnotes: ⁸⁹ If she can dispose of the property without the consent of the husband’s family, the property belongs to her family. Why, according to the House of Shammai, should the late husband’s family get anything of the widow’s separate property? ⁹⁰ In the Babli, 38b, this is quoted as the opinion of Abbai (middle 4th Cent.), with a belated acknowledgment (39a) of the priority of R. Yose ben Ḥanina (middle 3rd Cent.). As Levy Ginzburg has pointed out, in the Babylonian Talmud the Babylonian authors are always mentioned before the Galileans; chronological order is followed within each group separately.The wife of a childless man who has a brother becomes “a woman waiting for her levir” at the moment she is widowed. ⁹¹ This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. There, the opinion opposed to that of Abbai is that of Rava, who holds that the widow can only dispose of her property before “bespeaking”. For him, “bespeaking” for the House of Shammai makes the widow a wife in civil but not in criminal matters, while qiddushin ⁹² This sentence is the answer to an unasked question: If the husband inherits from his wife, why does the widow’s separate property return to her family? The answer is that this property, in contrast to the dowry, never was the husband’s. He only was the administrator and had the usufruct during her lifetime. The levir’s hand cannot be stronger than the husband’s. (The husband received the usufruct since he was under the obligation to provide for his wife a lifestyle appropriate to her social standing. This is one of the major topics of Tractate Ketubot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:3:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:3:3) תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. יִירְשׁוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין אֶת כְּתוּבָתָהּ חַיָיבִין בִּקְבוּרָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אִילוּלֵי דְתַנִּיתָהּ רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה הֲוָות צְרִיכָה לַן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין לָהּ כְְּתוּבָּה אֵין לָהּ קְבוּרָה. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִילּוּ אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה שֶׁמָּא אֵין לָהּ קְבוּרָה. אִשָּׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה יֵשׁ לָהּ קְבוּרָה. בְּרָם הָכָא אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה יֵשׁ לָהּ קְבוּרָה. אִם אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה אֵין לָהּ קְבוּרָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The heirs of her *ketubah* are obliged to bury her⁹³ 81a. The discussion there is irrelevant for the Yerushalmi. The heirs of the *ketubah* are the heirs of the husband since her death terminates the obligation of *ketubah*. Since the husband is freed from the obligation of paying the *ketubah*, he has to pay all costs connected with her funeral.. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no *ketubah*, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no *ketubah*, does she not have to be buried⁹⁴ in case of dissolution of the marriage to her husband for current cash, nevertheless the husband is required to bear the expenses of her funeral. She must have had a *ketubah* to be married.? A wife, even if she has a *ketubah*, must be buried. This one, if she has a *ketubah*, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a *ketubah*, she is not entitled to burial costs⁹⁵. footnotes: ⁹³ This is also quoted in Babli Ketubot ⁹⁴ For example, if she sold her right to ketubah ⁹⁵ In this case, the expenses have to be covered from her estate, and if she leaves no estate, from her family. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:4:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:4:1) **משנה:** כְּנָסָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא כְאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If he married her, she is his wife in every respect except that her *ketubah* is a lien on the property of her first husband⁹⁶ Therefore, he did not mortgage his own property to her.. footnotes: ⁹⁶ If the levir married his sister-in-law he does not write her a new ketubah. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:4:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:4:2) **הלכה:** כְּנָסָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא כְאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר כול׳. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. כּוֹנֵס וּמְגָרֵשׁ וּמַחֲזִיר וְהִיא [שׁוֹבֶרֶת] לוֹ עַל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אוֹ [שׁוֹבֶרֶת] לוֹ עַל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב הַמְנוּנָא. כְּנָסָהּ וְגֵירְשָׁהּ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ. אִם חִידֵּשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נְכָסָיו. וְאִם לָאו כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִיכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן שֶׁהַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ. עַל מְנָת כְּתוּבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה הֶחֱזִירָהּ. סוֹף עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיס וִיגָרֵשׁ וְיַחֲזִיר. דְּרוּבָּא אָתָא מֵימָר לָךְ. אֲפִילוּ כְּנָסָהּ וְגֵירְשָׁהּ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ. אִם חִידֵּשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה עַל נְכָסָיו. וְאִם לָאו כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִיכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If he married her, she is his wife in every respect”, etc. What does he do? “He marries her, he may divorce her and take her back, and she writes him a receipt for her *ketubah*.”⁹¹ makes the unencumbered woman a wife in criminal but not in civil matters. Rebbi Yose said, the *baraita* has two possibilities. “Or she writes him a receipt for her *ketubah*.”⁹⁸, she obviously does not write a receipt. R. Yose wants to point out that the *baraita* quoted here is *not* the Tosephta *Ketubot* 9:1: “If somebody died and left his widow waiting for the levir, even if his estate is a hundred minas and her *ketubah* only one mina, the heirs cannot sell anything since her *ketubah* is a lien on the entire estate. What can he do? He marries her, divorces her, and she writes a receipt for her *ketubah*.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: If he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new *ketubah*, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband. Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, a Mishnah said so: “For he who takes back his wife, takes her back under the terms of her first *ketubah*⁹⁹ 9:9..” At the end, if he married her, divorced her, and took her back? He tells you something new. Even if he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new *ketubah*¹⁰⁰, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband. footnotes: ⁹¹ This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. There, the opinion opposed to that of Abbai is that of Rava, who holds that the widow can only dispose of her property before “bespeaking”. For him, “bespeaking” for the House of Shammai makes the widow a wife in civil but not in criminal matters, while qiddushin ⁹⁸ If he takes her back before she received the payment of her ketubah ⁹⁹ Mishnah Ketubot ¹⁰⁰ If she refuses to come back under the old terms, her lien extends to the entire property of the levir. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:4:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:4:3) רִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר. אֲרוּסָה שֶׁמֵּתָה אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. שֶׁלֹֹּא הוּתְּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא לַשּׁוּק. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. יֵעָשֶׂה כְמִי שֶׁגֵּירַשּׁ וִיהֵא לֵיהּ כְּתוּבָּה. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימַר אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna said¹⁰¹; it has no bearing on the rules of levirate since it was noted in Halakha 1:4 that women between *qiddushin* and marriage are not subject to levirate. The material is inserted here because this is the only other case where Rebbi Ze‘ira quotes Rav Hamnuna (of the students of Rav).: A betrothed woman who died does not have a *ketubah* since she was not permitted to marry outside¹⁰² 29b, 43; *Ketubot*53, 89; *Baba meṣi‘a* 18a; *Sanhedrin* 28a) quotes a *baraita* to the effect that if she dies, the husband does not inherit but if he dies, she collects her *ketubah*. Since a *ketubah* is not necessary for *qiddushin* but only for *nissuin*, the actual marriage, there is a problem only if the *ketubah* was already written at the time of *qiddushin*, which also implies that the dowry was determined or even delivered at that time. Then it is clear that at the groom’s death the betrothed woman can recover the dowry recorded in the *ketubah*. For the amount due from the husband, even though they disagree in the case of *ketubah* written at the betrothal, both Talmudim [*Ketubot*, Yerushalmi 5:1 (fol. 29c), Babli 56a] agree that any sum agreed to above the statutory minimum can be collected only after the consummation of the marriage.. That you should not say [the case] should be considered as if he divorced her and she should have a *ketubah*; therefore it was necessary to say that she does not have a *ketubah*. footnotes: ¹⁰¹ This paragraph belongs to the material of Ketubot ¹⁰² This is a matter of great controversy in the Babli, which frequently (Yebamot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:5:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:5:1) **משנה:** מִצְוָה בַּגָּדוֹל לְיַיבֵּם לֹא רָצָה מְהַלְּכִין עַל כָּל הָאַחִין. לֹא רָצוּ חוֹזְרִין אֵצֶל הַגָּדוֹל וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ עָלֶיךָ מִצְוָה אוֹ חֲלֹץ אוֹ יַבֵּם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** The obligation of levirate is on the oldest [brother]¹⁰³. If he refuses, one¹⁰⁴ 2:7. goes to all the other brothers. If they refuse, one returns to the oldest and tells him, the obligation is yours, either give *ḥalîṣah* or marry in levirate. footnotes: ¹⁰³ Already stated in Mishnah 2:8. ¹⁰⁴ The local rabbinic court whose obligation it is to enforce the rules; cf. Maimonides, Hilkhot Yibum ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:6:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:6:1) **משנה:** תָּלָה בַקָּטָן עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וּבַגָּדוֹל עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וּבַחֵרֵשׁ וּבַשּׁוֹטֶה אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לוֹ עָלֶיךָ מִצְוָה אוֹ חֲלוֹץ אוֹ יַיבֵּם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If he¹⁰⁵ made it dependent on a minor until he grows up, or on the oldest when he returns from overseas, or on a deaf-mute or on an insane [brother], one does not listen to him but tells him, the obligation is yours, either give *ḥalîṣah* or marry in levirate. footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ The brother available at the place of the widow. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:7:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:7:1) **משנה:** הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְאֶחָד מִכָּל הָאַחִין לַנַּחֲלָה. וְאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם אָב הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁלָּאָב. הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ זָכָה בְנִיכְסֵי אָחִיו. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם אָב הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁלָּאָב. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** He who performs *ḥalîṣah* with his sister-in-law is like any of the other brothers for the inheritance and, if there is a father, the property goes to the father¹⁰⁶. 27:6–11) but since the paternal uncles are mentioned it is clear that one assumes that the father died before his son. Since the rules imply that thedescendants of the son rank before all other relatives, it is logical to assume that the father ranks before all his descendants and other relatives; *Baba batra* 8:2.. He who marries his sister-in-law acquires his brother’s property. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case if there is a father, the property goes to the father¹⁰⁷. The problem does not appear in the case of *ḥalîṣah* since the widow has to be paid in full before the inheritance is distributed. In the Tosephta, 6:3, R. Jehudah also denies that the levir gets all the inheritance if there is no father.. footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ The father is not mentioned in the biblical rules of inheritance (Num ¹⁰⁷ Subject to the lien of the widow’s ketubah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:7:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:7:2) **הלכה:** הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְאֶחָד מִכָּל הָאַחִין לַנַּחֲלָה כול׳. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. חֲלִיצָה פְטוֹר וּבִיאָה פְטוֹר. כְּמָה דְתֵימַר הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ זָכָה בְנִיכְסֵי אָחִיו. וְדִכְוָותָהּ הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ זָכָה בְנִיכְסֵי אָחִיו. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימָר הֲרֵי הוּא כְאֶחָד מִכָּל הָאַחִין לַנַּחֲלָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “He who performs *ḥalîṣah* with his sister-in-law is like any of the other brothers for the inheritance,” etc. That one should not say, *ḥalîṣah* is freeing, intercourse is freeing¹⁰⁸; just as you say, “he who marries his sister-in-law acquires his brother’s property,” so he who performs *ḥalîṣah* with his sister-in-law acquires his brother’s property. Therefore, it is necessary to say “he is like any of the other brothers for the inheritance”. footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ Chapter 1, Note 104. The argument is quoted in Babli, 40a, and refuted. The accepted argument is that one might think that the levir who refuses to honor his duty of levirate should be punished by being excluded from inheriting his part, but this is not so. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:7:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:7:3) רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר בְּשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. הָעוֹשֶׂה מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ לֹא זָכָה בְנִיכְסֵי אָחִיו. וְאַף בֵּית שַׁמַּי מוֹדֵיי בָהּ. וְאַף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֵיי בָהּ. וְלֹא כְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ. דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ אוֹמֵר. הַמַּאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִינְיָין גָּמוּר בִּיבָמָה. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. עָשָׂה מַאֲמָר בְּזוֹ וּבָעַל לְזוֹ. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. אִם בְּמַאֲמָר יִזְכֶּה אִם בְּבִיאָה יִזְכֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְקַיֵים אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן לֹא זָכָה בְנִיכְסֵי אָחִיו. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rav Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: He who “bespeaks” his sister-in-law does not acquire his brother’s property¹⁰⁹ do not give the husband any property rights, the weaker “bespeaking” cannot do it either.. Even the House of Shammai agree to that¹¹⁰. The same argument is good for R. Simeon who only allows for the possibility that “bespeaking” might be like *qiddushin*(Chapter 2, Note 16).; even Rebbi Simeon agrees to that, but not Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. As Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh said, “bespeaking” acquires the sister-in-law totally. If there were two sisters-in-law, he “bespoke” one and came to the other. As you take it, either by “bespeaking” he acquires or by intercourse he acquires. Rebbi Yose said, since he cannot keep either one¹¹¹, he did not acquire his brother’s property. footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Since qiddushin ¹¹⁰ They hold that “bespeaking” is a biblical requirement for levirate. Still they cannot hold that “bespeaking” is stronger than qiddushin ¹¹¹ The second one is forbidden to him rabbinically for the House of Hillel, biblically for the House of Shammai. The first one is forbidden to him biblically for the House of Hillel. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:7:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:7:4) רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר טֵבֶלֵיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד. מַקִּישׁוֹ לַבְּכוֹר. מַה הַבְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ בְּחַיֵי אָבִיו אַף זֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ בְּחַיֵי אָבִיו. אִי מַה בְּכוֹר יוֹרֵשׁ לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אַף זֶה יוֹרֵשׁ לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. מִינָהּ. מַה הַבְּכוֹר לֹא יוֹרֵשׁ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֵירֵשׁ אַף זֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֵירֵשּׁ. עוֹד אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זִימְנִין סַגִּין יָתְבִית קוֹמֵי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה וְלֹא שָׁמְעִית מִינֵּיהּ הָדָא מִילְתָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְלֵית בַּר נַשׁ דּוּ שָׁמֵע מִילָּה וְלֵית חַבְרֵיהּ שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Isaac ben Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: “¹¹². 25:6. The verse connects the birth of a first-born with the inheritance of the dead brother. The first-born whom she will bear shall be”; He compared it to a first-born. Since the first-born does not inherit during his father’s lifetime, so this one does not inherit during his father’s lifetime. But since the first-born inherits after his father’s death, does this one inherit after his father’s death¹¹³? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, since the first-born does not inherit when it was time to inherit, so this one does not inherit when it was time to inherit¹¹⁴. 21:17) to “all that is found of his property.” This is interpreted as excluding claims that are not yet collected; cf., e. g., Babli *Baba batra* 55a. Since the inheritance of the dead brother is under his wife’s lien for her *ketubah*, it is not considered as “found of his property”.. Afterwards he cannot inherit. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, practice follows Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, many times I sat before Rebbi Hoshaia and never heard that from him. He said to him, does nobody exist who heard something his partner did not hear¹¹⁵? footnotes: ¹¹² Deut ¹¹³ Since the first-born inherits an extra portion from the estate, does the levir inherit the separate inheritance of his wife’s first husband separately? ¹¹⁴ The separatee inheritance of the first-born is restricted (Deut ¹¹⁵ The Babli, 40a, strongly disagrees since practice follows the anonymous majority. This is the position of R. Joḥanan’s teacher R. Yannai. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:8:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:8:1) **משנה:** הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ הוּא אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה בִקְרוֹבָיו. הוּא אָסוּר בְּאִמָּהּ וּבְאֵם אִמָּהּ וּבְאֵם אָבִיהָ בְּבִתָּהּ בְּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבְבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַאֲחוֹתָהּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא קַיֶימֶת. הָאַחִין מוּתָּרִין. הִיא אֲסוּרָה בְאַבִיו בַּאֲבִי אָבִיו בִּבְנוֹ וּבְבֶן בְּנוֹ בְּאָחִיו וּבְבֶן אָחִיו. מוּתָּר אָדָם בִּקְרוֹבַת צָרַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ וְאָסוּר בְּצָרַת קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** He who performs *ḥalîṣah* with his sister-in-law is forbidden her relatives and his relatives are forbidden to her¹¹⁶; cf. also Mishnah 4:13.. Forbidden to him are her mother and her mother’s mother, her father’s mother, her daughter, her daughter’s daughter and her son’s daughter, and her sister as long as she is alive. The brothers are permitted. Forbidden to her are his father, his father’s father, his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son. The relative of a co-wife of a person who had *ḥalîṣah* with him is permitted to him, but the co-wife of a relative of a person who had *ḥalîṣah* with him is forbidden¹¹⁷. footnotes: ¹¹⁶ All relatives forbidden after a divorce (biblical or rabbinic) are rabbinically forbidden after ḥalîṣah ¹¹⁷ Mishnah 1:1. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:8:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:8:2) **הלכה:** הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ כול׳. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחָלַץ לָהּ. הָא לֹא חָלַץ לָהּ וּמֵתָה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אֲבִינָא. הָדָא הִיא דָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁמֵּתָה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. זִיקָה הָּיְתָה לוֹ בָהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּתָה בָטְלָה לוֹ זִיקָתָהּ. וְהָכָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת בָּטְלָה זִיקָתוֹ. רִבִּי אָבוּן שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן דְּבַתְרָה. וּבַאֲחוֹתָהּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא קַיֶימֶת וְהָאַחִין מוּתָּרִין. וַאֲחוֹתָהּ אֵצֶל הָאַחִין לֹא כְמֵתָה הִיא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “He who performs *ḥalîṣah* with his sister-in-law,” etc. Because he performed *ḥalîṣah* with her. Therefore, if he did not perform *ḥalîṣah* with her but she died, her mother is permitted to him. ¹¹⁸ That is what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him. He had in her an interest of candidacy. When she died, the candidacy was eliminated. And here, when he died, the candidacy was eliminated. Rebbi Abun understood it from what follows: “And her sister as long as she is alive, but the brothers are permitted.” Is her sister’s position relative to the brothers not as if¹¹⁹. she herself had died? footnotes: ¹¹⁸ Chapter 2, Notes 28–29. ¹¹⁹ Relative to the brother chosen to perform ḥalîṣah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:8:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:8:3) אֲסוּרָה בְאַבִיו וּבַאֲבִי אָבִיו בִּבְנוֹ וּבְבֶן בְּנוֹ וּבְאָחִיו וּבְבֶן אָחִיו. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנוּ שְׁנִיּוֹת לַחוֹלֵץ. וְהַיְידָא אָמְרָה דָא. בִּבְנוֹ וּבְבֶן בְּנוֹ בְּאָחִיו וּבְבֶן אָחִיו. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנוּ שְׁנִיּוֹת לַחוֹלֵץ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Forbidden to her are his father, his father’s father, his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son.” Does this imply that secondary prohibitions are imposed on the one performing *ḥalîṣah*? That says it, “his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son.” That implies that secondary prohibitions are imposed on the one performing *ḥalîṣah*¹²⁰ since that grandfather was forbidden to her from the moment she married her husband. But the son’s and the brother’s sons are secondary prohibitions. This is also the conclusion of the Babli which, however, restricts secondary prohibitions arising from *ḥalîṣah* strictly to those enumerated in the Mishnah.. footnotes: ¹²⁰ It seems that the first quote is too long and should only refer to his father’s father. The Babli, 40b, also raises the question why the paternal grandfather is forbidden and answers that the prohibition has nothing to do with ḥalîṣah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:8:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:8:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:8:4) כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. מוּתָּר הוּא אָדָם בִּקְרוֹבַת צָרַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ וְאָסוּר בְּצָרַת קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְהַהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲבִינָא. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אֲחוֹת חֲלוּצָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן נָתְנוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים צָרָה. כָּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן אִיסּוּר אָחִיו לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** So is the Mishnah: “The relative of a co-wife of a person who had *ḥalîṣah* with him is permitted to him, but the co-wife of a relative of a person who had *ḥalîṣah* with him is forbidden¹²¹”. ¹²² Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference *de minore ad majus*. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman for whom he performed *ḥalîṣah*, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more? footnotes: ¹²¹ This is the text of the Mishnah. It seems that the intent of this note is not to correct the text but to reject the formulation “the sister of a co-wife …”, quoted in Chapter 3 (Note 50). ¹²² The text is from Chapter 3; explained there in Notes 24, 25. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:9:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:9:1) **משנה:** הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ וְנָשָׂא אָחִיו אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ וָמֵת חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. וְכֵן הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנָשָׂא אָחִיו אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ וָמֵת הֲרֵי זוֹ פְטוּרָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If somebody performs *ḥalîṣah* with his sister-in-law while his brother had married her sister and then died, she must perform *ḥalîṣah* but not levirate¹²³.. Similarly, if somebody divorces his wife while his brother had married her sister and then died, she is free¹²⁴.. footnotes: ¹²³ She is prohibited to the levir by Mishnah 8. But these prohibitions are rabbinical. Since by biblical standards she could have been married in levirate, she needs ḥalîṣah ¹²⁴ The widow of the brother is forbidden to the levir by biblical standards, there can be no levirate and, therefore, no ḥalîṣah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:9:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:9:2) **הלכה:** וְכֵן הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ כול׳. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה בֵין חוֹלֵץ מַה בֵין מְגָרֵשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָה אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְיָין. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּחוֹלֵץ. אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּמֵּת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “Similarly, if somebody divorces his wife,” etc. ¹²⁵ Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having *ḥalîṣah* and divorcing⁹⁰? He said to him: You think that *ḥalîṣah* is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty⁹¹ makes the unencumbered woman a wife in criminal but not in civil matters. 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: ¹²⁵ Chapter 1, Notes 90, 91. ⁹⁰ In the Babli, 38b, this is quoted as the opinion of Abbai (middle 4th Cent.), with a belated acknowledgment (39a) of the priority of R. Yose ben Ḥanina (middle 3rd Cent.). As Levy Ginzburg has pointed out, in the Babylonian Talmud the Babylonian authors are always mentioned before the Galileans; chronological order is followed within each group separately.The wife of a childless man who has a brother becomes “a woman waiting for her levir” at the moment she is widowed. ⁹¹ This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. There, the opinion opposed to that of Abbai is that of Rava, who holds that the widow can only dispose of her property before “bespeaking”. For him, “bespeaking” for the House of Shammai makes the widow a wife in civil but not in criminal matters, while qiddushin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:10:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:10:1) **משנה:** שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ אָחִיו אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ. מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּתֵירָה אָמְרוּ. אוֹמֵר לוֹ הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אָחִיךָ הַגָּדוֹל מַעֲשֶׂה. חָלְצוּ לָהּ אַחִין אוֹ כָּנְסוּ יִכְנוֹס אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מֵתֶה הַיְּבָמָה יִכְנוֹס. מֵת הַיָּבָם מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If a brother gave *qiddushin* to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him wait until your older brother has acted. If [one of the] brothers performed *ḥalîṣah* or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry. If the levir died, he has to remove himself from his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by *ḥalîṣah*. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:10:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:10:2) **הלכה:** שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם כול׳. לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא מֵתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אָסוּר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זוֹ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים מֵתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתָּר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטַל הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטַל הָאִיסּוּר. וְדִבְרֵי רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבַּטַּל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** It says only: If the sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him. But if his wife died, his sister-in-law is forbidden to him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages hold that for anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for Rebbi Eliezer, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains¹²⁶. footnotes: ¹²⁶ Text and explanation in Chapter 3, Notes 6–11. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:11:1) **משנה:** הַיְּבָמָה לֹא תַחֲלוֹץ וְלֹא תְיַיבֵּם עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. וְכֵן כָּל שְׁאָר הַנָּשִׁים לֹא יִנָּשְׂאוּ וְלֹא יִתְאָרְסוּ עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ לָהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. אַחַת בְּתוּלוֹת וְאַחַת בְּעוּלוֹת אַחַת אַלְמָנוֹת וְאַחַת גְרוּשׁוֹת אַחַת נְשׂוּאוֹת וְאַחַת אֲרוּסוֹת. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הַנְּשׂוּאוֹת יִתְאָרְסוּ וְהָאֲרוּסוֹת יִנָּשְׂאוּ. חוּץ מִן הָאֲרוּסוֹת שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ גַס בָּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר כָּל הַנָּשִׁים יִתְאָרְסוּ חוּץ מִן הָאַלְמָנָה מִפְּנֵי הָאִיבּוּל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** No sister-in-law should be a party to *ḥalîṣah* or levirate until after three months. Similarly, no woman¹²⁷ should be married or receive *qiddushin* until after three months, whether virgin or not virgin, widow or divorcee, married or betrothed. Rebbi Jehudah says, those that had been married may receive *qiddushin*¹²⁸ and those that had received *qiddushin* can be married except those that had received *qiddushin* in Judea because he is familiar with her¹²⁹ 1:5 that in Judea one permitted the betrothed couple to be together unchaperoned. Therefore, one may assume that they slept together.. Rebbi Yose said, any woman may receive *qiddushin* except a widow because of her mourning. footnotes: ¹²⁷ Who had been married. Included are preliminarily married women either as a matter of discipline or because of women betrothed in Judea (Note 129). ¹²⁸ Since they cannot actually be married until 90 days after the death of the first husband, there is no danger that she will bear a child of undetermined paternity. ¹²⁹ It is explained in Mishnah Ketubot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:11:2) **הלכה:** הַיְּבָמָה לֹא תַחֲלוֹץ כול׳. עַד כַּמָּה הַכָּרַת הָעוּבָּר. סוּמֲכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאַיָיה לַדָּבָר זֵיכֶר לַדָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיְהִי כְּמִשְׁלֹשׁ חֳדָשִׁים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. אֲפִילוּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת רוּחַ. הָרִינוּ חַלְנוּ כְּמוֹ יָלַדְנוּ רוּחַ. תַּהֲרוּ חֲשַׁשׁ תֵּלְדוּ קַשׁ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זוּטְרָא אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה רַבָּה. אֲפִילוּ רוּבּוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן וְרוּבּוֹ שֶׁלָּאַחֲרוֹן וְהָאֶמְצָעִי שָׁלֵם. רִבִּי אַסִי אָמַר. תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם שְׁלֵימִין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר הֵן עִיבּוּרֵיהֶן. אָתָא עוֹבְדָה קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן דְּלָא יָדְעִין אִם שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וְשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן. [אוֹ שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן.] וַחֲמִשָּׁה שְׁלֵימִין בָּאֶמְצַע. וּבִיקְשׁוּ לִיגַּע בַּוְולָד מִשּׁוֹם סָפֵק מַמְזֵירוּת. אָמַר לוֹן רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. בְּהָהֵין עוֹבְדָא אָתָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּה בַּר בָּא וְאַכְשְׁרוֹ. אַבָּא בַר וָוא פַּלִּיג עַל שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ. אָמַר רַבָּא. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא הַכָּרַת הָעוּבָּר שַׁנְיָיה הִיא לֵידָתוֹ. הַכָּרַת הָעוּבָּר לַחֳדָשִׁים שְׁלֵימִין וְלֵידָתוֹ לַחֳדָשִׁים מְקוּטָעִין. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. וְכַמָּה הִיא קִישּׁוּיָּהּ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ אַרְבָּעִים חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. דַּיָיהּ חָדְשָׁהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים. אֵין קִישּׁוּי יוֹתֵר מִשְׁתֵּי שַׁבָּתוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי וָוא. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת לַחֳדָשִׁים מְקוּטָעִין. דִּלֹכֵן נִיתְנֵי שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. רִבִי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי וָוא זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת לַחֳדָשִּׁים שְׁלֵימִין. דְּתַנִינָן דַּיָיהּ חוֹדְשָׁהּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “No sister-in-law should be a party to *ḥalîṣah*,” etc. ¹³¹ 8b, but the meaning is different there. In the Babli, the discussion is not about recognizing a pregnancy for the question of remarriage; that question is settled by the proviso that a woman must wait 90 days after her husband’s death (as explained in the Mishnah here) and, if she turns out to be pregnant, she cannot remarry as long as the child is not weaned (*Ketubot* 5:6, *Sotah* 4:4; Babli *Ketubot* 60a/b). The statement there is to the effect that if a woman has missed her period three times and is visibly pregnant, then, starting three months after her last period, any bleeding does not follow the general rules of menstrual flow but the special rules of pregnant women. There is no discussion of the rule and it is not claimed that the rule represents any medical validity. But in the Yerushalmi it appears from the sequel that one sees in the rule a statement of biological fact. The Halakhah, up to Note 155, is copied in *Niddah* 1:4. How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? ¹³² 1:7, including the statement attributed here to Rebbi Yudan. Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meїr: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months.¹³³. 38:24.” Rebbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind,¹³⁴. 26:18; as the Babli points out, this statement is addressed to males and therefore not a good support. In the interpretation of the Babli (Note 131), a fake delivery (“delivery of wind”) after recognition of the pregnancy does not change the status of the woman in matters of impurity.” “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw¹³⁵. 33:11..” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete¹³⁶. Rav Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness¹³⁷. A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy¹³⁸ and her actual marriage, which would make the child a bastard.. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba¹³⁹ and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated¹⁴⁰ 4:5.: “How long can labor be¹⁴¹ (*Lev.* 15:25). The disagreement is on how long the exemption from impurity can be claimed.? Rebbi Meїr said, even 40 to 50 days. Rebbi Jehudah said, her month is sufficient. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, no labor is longer than two weeks”. “Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months¹⁴². Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.” footnotes: ¹³¹ The text of Symmachos is also in Babli Niddah ¹³² Tosephta Niddah ¹³³ Gen ¹³⁴ Is ¹³⁵ Is ¹³⁶ If the pregnancy is recognizable, the rules of pregnancy are applicable after 61 days. ¹³⁷ Samuel says the same of Rav Assi, three full (i. e., 30days long) months. ¹³⁸ A woman gave birth to a live baby exactly 180 days after her marriage. The rabbis wondered whether such a short pregnancy was possible for a live baby or whether the short time was proof that the woman had committed adultery in the time between qiddushin ¹³⁹ The most famous of Jewish medical men of his age. Presumably Samuel, also a doctor by profession, learned most of his medical knowledge from his father. ¹⁴⁰ Mishnah Niddah ¹⁴¹ As a matter of principle, blood lost during labor is neither menstrual nor of the impure type known as zivah ¹⁴² See above, Note 63, and in the next paragraph. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:11:3) רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. סוֹף דָּבָר עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. לֹא אֲפִילוּ הִפִּילָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yudan asked: Does this hold until she gives birth? No, even if she had a miscarriage¹⁴³ blood which requires a purification offering? The Babli declares that miscarriages and stillborn babies make their mother impure retroactively (*Niddah* 38b).. footnotes: ¹⁴³ If the woman has a miscarriage, is her blood retroactively classified as zivah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:11:4) אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. שְׁמָעִית בְּשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. הִיא הַכָּרַת הָעוּבָּר הִיא לֵידָתוֹ. וְלֵית אֲנָא יְדַע מִן מַה שְׁמָעִת. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כֹּהֵן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמְרָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. לֹא אָמְרָהּ רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וְאִיקְפִּד רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְקִיבְּלֵיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁהָיָה [קָשּׁוּר] לְמֹשֶּׁה לֹא אָמַר כֵּן. וְאַתְּ אוֹמְרָהּ כֵּן. חָזַר וְאָמַר. אִין דְּאָמְרָהּ אֶלָּא כְאִינֶּשׁ דְּשָׁמַע מִילָּה וּמַקְשֵׁי עָלֶיהָ. וְאַבָּא בַּר וָוא פַלִּיג עַל שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ. רִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הָאִשָּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת אוֹ לְמָאתַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד אוֹ לְמָאתַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹ לְמָאתַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ לְמָאתַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא. מְנָן שָׁמַע רִבִּי הָדָא מִילְתָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִן רִבִּי בָּא. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי בָּא. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. שַׁנְיָיא הוּא הַכָּרַת הָעוּבָּר שַׁנְיָיא הוּא לֵידָתוֹ. וְהָכָא אָמַר הָכֵין. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זוּטְרָא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. {כָּל שֶׁהוּא בְהֵ׳י רַבָּה. בְאַלֶ׳ף רָבָא.} [כָּל שֶׁהוּא בְהַרְבֶּה הֲרֵי הוּא בְאַרְבֶּה.] **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Mana said, I heard in the name of Samuel that there is no difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth, but I do not remember from whom I heard this. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah said this. Rebbi Ḥizqyah said to him, Rebbi Jeremiah did not say this; Rebbi Yose was offended by him. He said to him: Even Joshua who was bound to Moses would not have said so, but you said so¹⁴⁴! He checked himself and said, it is true that he said that but as a person who quotes something and questions it; does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Samuel: A woman gives birth only either after 271, 272, 273, or 274, days¹⁴⁵ 38b, Mar Zuṭra is quoted that a 9 months pregnancy is 271 days, the numerical value of הריון “pregnancy” in the Alexandrian system.. Rebbi Mana said to him, from whom did the rabbi hear this? He said to him, from Rebbi Abba. The position of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There, he says, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth¹⁴⁶, and here, he says so? Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra in the name of Samuel: {If with ה Rabba, with א Rava.}¹⁴⁷; it is a gloss from a student of the Babli to distinguish between quotes of Rabba רבה (Rav Abba bar Naḥmani) and Rava רבא (Rav Abba bar Rav Joseph bar Ḥama), assuming the copyists made no mistakes. Everything which is “many” is 208¹⁴⁸ and it makes sense, that if in the Pentateuch there is a promise of הרבה ארבה (cf. *Gen*. 16:10, 22:17) it implies a seven month birth after א + ר + ב + ה = 1+200+2+5 days. In Babli *Niddah* 38b, Mar Zuṭra reads *1S*. 1:20 that Hanna gave birth to Samuel after 2 seasons (of 91¼ days each) and two days, or 184.5 days, barely more than 6 full months.. footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ To claim that he knew absolutely everything his teacher ever said. ¹⁴⁵ After her last period. In the Babli, Niddah ¹⁴⁶ That the length of a pregnancy is not counted in full months, and here he even counts them in full months of 30 days each. ¹⁴⁷ The text in braces is the text from Yebamot ¹⁴⁸ This is the text from Niddah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:11:5) רַב חִיָיה בַּר אַשִּׁי הֲוָה יְתִיב קוֹמֵי דְרַב. חֲמִיתֵיהּ מַבְעִת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַהוּ כֵן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חֲמָרְתִּי מְעַבְּרָה וְהִיא בְּעָיָא מֵילַד וַאֲנָא בָּעֵי מִרְבַּעְתָּהּ עַד דְּלָא תְצַנֵּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵימָתַי עָלָה עָלֶיהָ הַזָּכָר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּיוֹם פַּלָּן. וְחָשַׁב אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּעָיָא הִיא עַד כְּדוֹן. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. חֲמָרְתָה פּוֹחֶתֶת אֵינָהּ פּוֹחֶתֶת מִימוֹת הַלְּבָנָה וְהַמּוֹסֶפֶת אֵינָהּ מוֹסֶפֶת עַל יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי פְלִיגָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. בָּקוֹרֶת מִשֶּׁלַּמַּלְכוּת עִיבְּרָה וְהִרְבִּיעֵי שֶׁלְּבֵית רִבִּי מִמֶּנָּה שְּׁוָורִים. וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן שֶׁיָּלְדוּ עַכְשָׁיו וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן שֶׁיָּלְדוּ לְאַחַר זְמָן. כָּאן בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה כָּאן בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵיאָה. וְהָא כְתִיב הֲיָדַעְתָּ עֵת לֶדֶת יַעֲלֶי סָלַע וגו׳. תִּסְפּוֹר יְרָחִים תְּמַלֶּאנָה וְיָדַעְתָּ עֵת לִדְתָּנָה. הֲיָדַעְתָּ עֵת לֶדֶת. חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה כִבְהֵמֶה טְמֵאָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rab Ḥiyya bar Ashi was sitting before Rav who saw him disturbed. He said to him, what is the matter? He said to him, my female donkey is pregnant and will give birth; then I have to get her to copulate before she is out of heat. He said to him, when did the male mount her? He said, on day X. He calculated and said, she still has some time until then. It was stated so: A quick female donkey does not need less than the days of the moon¹⁵⁰ and one who is late is not later than the days of the sun¹⁵¹ 8a, simply states that impure domestic animals have a gestation period of 12 months.. The words of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi disagree, since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the cattle herd of the government¹⁵² 1:4: “of Antoninus”; cf. *Kilaim,* Chapter 9, Note 79. was there for copulating and those of the house of Rebbi took bulls from them to copulate. Some of them gave birth soon and some of them later¹⁵³. Here it is about a pure animal, there about an impure animal. But is it not written, “do you know the time the mountain goats will give birth, etc.” “Count months, make them complete, you will know the time of their giving birth.¹⁵⁴ 39:1–2.” “Do you know the time of giving birth?” A pure wild animal is like a domestic impure animal¹⁵⁵ 16a/b, uses *Job* 39:1 to prove that the time of birth of wild animals is unpredictable. Elsewhere, *Bekhorot* 8a, the gestation period of great predators (lions, wolves, bears, panthers) as well as apes and marmosets is given as three years.. footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ 354 days in a lunar year. ¹⁵¹ 365 days in a solar year. The Babli, Bekhorot ¹⁵² In Niddah ¹⁵³ It seems, later than the 11 days‘ difference allowed by Rav. ¹⁵⁴ Job ¹⁵⁵ This supports the prior assertion of Rav and excludes only domestic pure animals from predicting the exact time of gestation. The Babli, Baba batra ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:11:6) רִבִּי מֵאִיר חָשַׁשׁ לְגִיטִּין. רִבִּי יוּדָה חָשַׁשׁ לִוְולָד. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי חָשַׁשׁ לַגִּיטִּין וְלִוְולָד. אִין תֵּימַר דְּלֵית רִבִּי מֵאִיר. חוֹשֵׁשׁ לַגִּטִּין. דִּתְנָן. אֲרוּסוֹת יְנָשְׂאוּ מִיָּד. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי גְּדוּלָה. מְמָאֶנֶת אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. [הָיוֹצְאָה בְגֵט צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים.] הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר חָשַׁשׁ לְגִיטִּין. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵּׁם רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יִרְמְיָה. אֲנוּסָה אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי חָשַׁשׁ לַגִּיטִּין וְלִוְולָד. תַּנֵּי הַגִּיּוֹרֶת וְהַשְּׁבוּיָה וְהַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַיְירוּ וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ צְרִיכוֹת לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אֵינָן צְרִיכוֹת לְהַמְתִּין. וּבְדָמִים. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מְטַמֵּא מֵעֵת לָעֵת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. דַּיָיה שַׁעְתָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי. נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה בְדָמִים וְדִבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בִוְולָד. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אַבָּא הֲוָה לֵיהּ עוֹבְדָא וְשָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי חִיָיה וּלְרִבִּי יוֹסָה וּלְרִבִּי אִמִּי וְהוֹרוּן לֵיהּ כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בִּוְלָד. דִלֹא כֵן מַה אֲנָן אָמְרִין. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּאָמַר רִבִּי. נִרְאִין. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רִבִּי. נִרְאִין. עֲדַיִין הַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ חוּץ מֵעִיגּוּל שֶׁלַּדְּבֵילָה. דְּדֵין מוֹדֵי לְדִין וְדֵין מוֹדֵי לְדִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. קַשְׁיָיתָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִי אַבָּהוּ. אֲפִילוּ דָבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁנִּבְעֲלוּ. אָמַר לוֹ. וּסְתָם גּוֹיוֹת לֹא כִבְּעוּלּוֹת הֵן. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא אָמַר. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהוֹרֵי כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וַהֲוָה רִבִּי לָעְזָר מִצְטָעֵר. אָמַר. שָׁבְקִין סְתָמָא וְעָבְדִין כִּיחִידָיָיא. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵי לָהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. כְּרִבִי שִׁמְעוֹן שָׁמַע לָהּ דְּתַנֵּי לָהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. יְאוּת סַבָּא יְדֵע פִּירְקֵי גִיטָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Meїr¹⁵⁸ 47a (Note כ) indicates that the Soncino edition, in the quote of the Mishnah here, has “the words of Rebbi Meїr”, a reading rejected by Rashi *ad* *loc*. It seems that the Soncino text is the correct quote of a parallel Mishnah. is suspicious about bills of divorce¹⁵⁹. Rebbi Jehudah is suspicious about a child¹⁶⁰. Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child¹⁶¹ paternity.. Could you say that Rebbi Meїr is not suspicious about bills of divorce, as we have stated¹⁶²: “Those that had received *qiddushin* can be married.¹⁶³” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Gedula¹⁶⁴: The one who repudiates does not have to wait three months; the one who leaves by a bill of divorce needs to wait three months¹⁶⁵. This supports Rebbi Me‘ir since Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months¹⁶⁶. This supports Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. It was stated¹⁶⁷: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood¹⁶⁸ 1:3, the attributions are switched, and this seems to be the background both for the remark of Rebbi (not in the Tosephta) and the later discussion since in a switched version, Rebbi seems to prefer the stringency of R. Judah in the matter of remarriage. But it is difficult to change the text against the testimony of both mss. (which, however, represent the same *Vorlage*.) The Babli has no possible interest in this discussion since it holds (*Avodah zarah* 36b) that all Gentile women are rabbinically permanently menstruating {and biblically married, since in talmudic theory, *Sanhedrin* 58b, a Gentile is married to the first partner he or she is copulating with, without possibility of divorce (a position which seems to be adopted by the Apostle Paul).}, Rebbi Jehudah says, makes impure 24 hours retroactively; Rebbi Yose says, from its moment onwards. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Judah are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Yose for the child. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case and he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him following Rebbi Yose for the child. For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose¹⁶⁹ 3:1, Notes 20–26; Babli *Erubin* 46b).? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”¹⁷⁰. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument¹⁷¹ Halakhah 4:10, Tosephta 5:11. In neither source is there a reference to the position taken by Rebbi.. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex? Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, one disregards the anonymous [Mishnah] and follows an isolated opinion! He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya¹⁷² stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He understood that following Rebbi Simeon¹⁷³, he found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He said, the old man¹⁷⁴ certainly understands the chapters about bills of divorce. footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ He is the author of the anonymous opinion in the Mishnah, as asserted by R. Simeon ben Laqish in the paragraph after the next. N. Rabbinovicz in Diqduqe Soferim Erubin ¹⁵⁹ He is afraid that a man who had divorced his childless wife would notice too late that she was pregnant and say that, if he had known this, he never would have divorced her. This could invalidate the bill of divorce and make the divorcee and the second husband adulterers and the child a bastard. {Therefore, in modern divorce proceedings, one lets the husband state three times before witnesses that any later action to invalidate the bill will be null and void.} ¹⁶⁰ He requires waiting only in cases where there could be a question of the paternity of a child. Since bills of divorce should be handled only by a competent authority, he is confident that the case behind R. Meїr‘s restrictions is not justified. ¹⁶¹ The “and” is taken in the strict sense: Only if there is a simultaneous question about a bill of divorce and ¹⁶² תנן is an error of the corrector under the influence of the Babli instead of תנינן. ¹⁶³ Since this is stated as R. Jehudah’s opinion, it follows that R. Meїr objects. To dissolve a preliminary marriage, a bill of divorce is needed even though there normally should not be any chance of pregnancy. ¹⁶⁴ Usually, he is called Rav Gidul; a Babylonian of the second generation, student of Rav, who immigrated into Galilee. ¹⁶⁵ Both statements are about underage girls, too young to have children. If the girl had been married off by her father, she cannot repudiate her husband but needs a bill of divorce. R. Meїr requires a waiting period for all divorcees even if there is no question of a possible pregnancy. In the Babli, 34b, this is a statement of Samuel. ¹⁶⁶ In the Babli, 35a, this is a tannaitic statement attributed to R. Yose, whose opinion is interpreted to assume that she will know how to rid herself of the unwanted semen. R. Jehudah is quoted as requiring her to wait three months; his opinion is interpreted as questioning the efficacy of means to rid herself of the unwanted semen. ¹⁶⁷ In the parallels, only the first part, dealing with waiting before marriage, is quoted. A shortened version is in Tosephta 6:6. The text quoted here is in the Babli, 35a, with the same lack of coordination between nouns and verbs. ¹⁶⁸ Their menstrual blood which is an original source of impurity. Gentiles cannot impart impurity by biblical standards; the impurity of menstruation certainly is not applicable to Gentiles. Therefore, a Gentile who converts to Judaism (or becomes fully Jewish in the case of the manumitted slave) really should not be a retroactive source of impurity. In the Tosephta, Niddah ¹⁶⁹ In the practical rules of preference, Rebbi Yose ranks over all other students and colleagues of Rebbi Aqiba (Yerushalmi Terumot ¹⁷⁰ This question makes sense only if Rebbi’s preference is formulated so it endorses R. Jehudah for the rules of remarriage. ¹⁷¹ This seems to refer to the disagreement between rabbis Eliezer and Joshua over pressed figs among which some heave was lost; Terumot ¹⁷² The Great R. Ḥiyya, not R. Ḥiyya bar Abba mentioned earlier in this paragraph. ¹⁷³ R. Simeon ben Laqish, cf. Note 158. The question mark put in the text by the editor of the ms. is unnecessary. ¹⁷⁴ R. Joḥanan. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:11:7) רִבִּי מָנָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רִבִּי מַחֲלוֹקֶת וְחָזַר וְשָׁנָה סְתָם הֲלָכָה כִסְתָם מִשְׁנָה. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא רִבִּי דִּילְמָא חוֹרָן אָמַר. מִן מַה הֵן דְּשָׁנָה רִבִּי מַתְנִיתִין מַחֲלוֹקֶת וְחָזַר וְשָׁנָה סְתָם הֲלָכָה כִסְתָם. אַתַאי דְּלָא אַשְׁכַּח רִבִּי מַתְנִיתִין מַחֲלוֹקֶת אֶלָּא אֲחֵרִים שָׁנוּ מַחֲלוֹקֶת וְרִבִּי שָׁנָה סְתָם לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן תְּהֵא הֲלָכָה כִסְתָם. אָתָא רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה וְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וַאֲפִילוּ שָׁנוּ אֲחֵרִים מַחֲלוֹקֶת וְרִבִּי שָׁנָה סְתָם הֲלָכָה כִסְתָם. וְלָמָּה הוּא מוֹרֵי לֵיהּ כִּיחִידָיָיא. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אִינָיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁאֵין מַחֲלוֹקֶת אֶצֵל סְתָם. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ מַחֲלוֹקֶת אֶצֵל סְתָם לֹא בְדָא הֲלָכָה כִסְתָם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּיָחִיד אֵצֶל יָחִיד. אֲבָל בְּיָחִיד אֵצֶל חֲכָמִים לֹא בְדָא הֲלָכָה כִסְתָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: There Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu, said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous Mishnah¹⁷⁵ 42b, *Baba* *qama* 102a, *Avodah zarah* 7a, *Niddah* 11b, quotes the corresponding statement (in the name of R. Joḥanan) in a very succinct way: Disagreement followed by anonymous statement implies practice follows the anonymous statement; anonymous statement followed by disagreement implies practice does not follow the anonymous statement. Therefore, the Babli has no problem to follow R. Yose in this Halakhah. The same conclusion is reached here in the last sentence of the paragraph.. And here, you say so? He said to him, if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else said it? Since when Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous [text]. It must be that Rebbi did not find a disagreement in the Mishnah; but if others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice follows the anonymous [text]. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Abba and Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even if others taught a disagreement but Rebbi taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous [text]. Why does he agree here with a dissenting opinion? Rebbi Samuel ben Inaya in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. That means, if no diagreement is stated together with the anonymous [text], but if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous [text], practice does not follow the anonymous [opinion]. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. That is, if individual disagrees with individual. But if an individual disagrees next to¹⁷⁶ the [anonymous] Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous [text]. footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ The Babli, Yebamot ¹⁷⁶ Meaning “after”. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:11:8) אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה סְתָם מִשְׁנָיוֹת דְּרַבָּנָן עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ לוֹ רַבּוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר. כָּל סְתָם מִשְׁנָיוֹת דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ לוֹ רַבּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסָה לֹא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ פַּלִּיג אֶלָּא דוּ חֲמֵי רוֹב סְתָם מִשְׁנָיוֹת דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. הֵידֵינוֹ רַבָּה. רַבָּה דְמַתְנִיתָא רַבָּה דְאוּלְפָּנָא. לֵית מִילְתָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמְרָה רַבָּה דְמַתְנִיתָה. כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּתַנֵּי לָהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. יְאוּת סַבָּא יְדֵע פִּירִקֵי גַרְמָה. נֹאמַר אוּלְפָּן קְבִיל מִן רַבָּה דְמַתְנִיתָה. כַּד שָׁמַע דְּתַנֵּי לָהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Joḥanan said, everywhere one taught anonymous Mishnaiot, it follows the rabbis unless one’s teacher explains it [differently]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, all anonymous Mishnaiot follow Rebbi Meїr unless one’s teacher explains it [differently]¹⁷⁷ 43a), the formulation usually is due to R. Meїr (*Sanhedrin* 86a). The attributions of texts in other tannaitic works stated in the latter source have no parallels in Yerushalmi sources.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he saw that most anonymous Mishnaiot follow Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What kind of teacher? The teacher of the *baraita* or the teacher of study¹⁷⁸? Does not the story of Rebbi Eleazar imply, the teacher of the *baraita*? “Following Rebbi Simeon¹⁷³, he found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He said, the old man¹⁷⁴ certainly understands his chapters.” We have to say that he received instruction from the teacher of the *baraita*¹⁷⁹ to be discovered by independent research. when he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. footnotes: ¹⁷⁷ In the Babli, both statements are attributed to R. Joḥanan: Practice follows the anonymous Mishnah as consensus of the majority (Hulin ¹⁷⁸ A tannaitic source or the Amora, his personal teacher? ¹⁷³ R. Simeon ben Laqish, cf. Note 158. The question mark put in the text by the editor of the ms. is unnecessary. ¹⁷⁴ R. Joḥanan. ¹⁷⁹ When R. Eleazar questioned the decision of his teacher R. Joḥanan, he certainly did not get his information from the latter. So the “teacher” must be the author of a baraita ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:9 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:11:9) הַחוֹלֶצֶת מוֹנָה מִשְּׁעַת מִיתָה. הַיּוֹצְאָה בְגֵט מוֹנָה מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינַת גִּיטָּהּ. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אָמַר. מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינַת גִּיטָּהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. רַב כְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָתִיב שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה. מִשּׁוּם מָה אַתְּ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנִּתְיָיחְדָה בֵּנְתַיִים. וְנִיחוּשׁ לָהּ לְגֵט יָשָׁן. מָתִיב רִבִּי חֲנִינָה לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה. הָיוּ שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין. אֶחָד נִכְתָּב עַכְשָׁיו וְאֶחָד נִכְתָּב לְאַחַר זְמָן וְנִיתְּנוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. לַזּוֹ אַתְּ אוֹסֵר וְלַזּוֹ אַתְּ מַתִּיר. מִן דַהֲוָה מוֹתְבָה רַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל הָתִיב רִבִּי חֲנִינָה לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִן דַהֲוָה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מוֹתְבָא לְרִבִּי חֲנִינָה הָתִיב שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב. וַהֲלָכָה מוֹנֶה לְגֵט מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה אִם לֹא נִתְיָיחֵד עִמָּהּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** The woman who performs *ḥalîṣah* counts from the moment of death¹⁸¹ The Babli, 42a, follows the Tosephta, 6:7, that a sister-in-law who performed *ḥalîṣah* within the first three months must wait another three months.. The one who leaves by a bill of divorce counts from the moment of delivery of her bill. Rebbi Ḥanina said, from the moment of delivery of her bill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the moment of writing. Rav and Samuel, Rav like Rebbi Ḥanina, Samuel like Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁸². Samuel objected to Rav: According to you, since you say from the moment of delivery, about what are you suspicious? Because in the meantime she was alone with him! Then one should worry about an old bill of divorce¹⁸³ 8:4). According to Samuel, Rav should not permit the delivery of a bill of divorce if husband and wife are at the same place and the bill was not delivered on the day it was written and signed.! Rebbi Ḥanina objected to Rebbi Joḥanan: According to you, since you say from the moment of writing, if there were two bills of divorce, one written now and one later, and both delivered on the same day. This one you prohibit and that one you permit!¹⁸⁴ 18a. What Rav objected to Samuel, Rebbi Ḥanina objected to Rebbi Joḥanan. What Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Ḥanina, Samuel objected to Rav. Practice: She counts from the time of writing if he never was alone with her¹⁸⁵18a.. footnotes: ¹⁸¹ Since she cannot be freed before three months, she may remarry immediately after ḥalîṣah. ¹⁸² Babli 42a. ¹⁸³ An bill of divorce is old at the moment of delivery if husband and wife were alone together at a place where they could have intercourse. For the House of Hillel, the bill is invalid and the woman is not divorced (Mishnah Giṭṭin ¹⁸⁴ The same argument in Babli Giṭṭin ¹⁸⁵ The Babli agrees, 42a; Giṭṭin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:10 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:11:10) חוּץ מִן הָאַלְמָנָה מִפְּנֵי הָאִיבּוּל. וְכַמָּה הוּא הָאִיבּוּל. שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בַּנָּשִׁים. אֲבָל בָּאֲנָשִׁים שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים. בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָנִים. אֲבָל אִם אֵין לוֹ בָנִים מִיָּד. בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִי שֶׁיְּשַׁמְּשֶׁנּוּ. אֲבָל אִם אֵין לוֹ מִי שֶׁיְּשַׁמְּשֶׁנּוּ מִיָּד. בְּשֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָנָיו קְטַנִּים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ בָנָיו קְטַנִּים מִיַּד. כְּהָדָא. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. עַד כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת אָמַר לַאֲחוֹתָהּ. הִיכָּנְסִי וְגַדְּלִי אֶת בְּנֵי אֲחוֹתֵיךְ. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן כְּנָסָהּ וְלֹא הִכִּירָהּ עַד שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Except the widow because of her mourning.” How much does mourning last? Thirty days¹⁸⁶. That is, for women. But for men¹⁸⁷ 23a. (Except when he has nobody to serve him; current practice follows the Yerushalmi.), three holidays. If he has children; but if he does not have children immediately. If he has somebody to serve him; but if he has nobody to serve him, immediately. If he does not have small children; but if he has small children, immediately, as in the following: It happened that Rebbi Ṭarphon’s wife died. While he still was in the cemetery, he said to her sister: Come into my house and raise your sister’s children. Even though he married her, he did not know her until 30 days had passed. footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ The same in Babli, 43b. ¹⁸⁷ All this, including the story (attributed to Joseph the Cohen), in Babli Mo‘ed. Qaṭan ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:12:1) **משנה:** אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין נְשׂוּאִין לְאַרְבַּע נָשִׁים וָמֵתוּ אִם רָצָה הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶם לְיַיבֶּם אֶת כּוּלָּן הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. מִי שֶּׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי לִשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וָמֵת בִּיאָתָהּ אוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ שֶׁל אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. הָיְתָה אַחַת כְּשֵׁירָה וְאַחַת פְּסוּלָה אִם הָיָה חוֹלֵץ חוֹלֵץ לַפְּסוּלָה וְאִם הָיָה מְיַיבֵּם מְיַיבֵּם לַכְּשֵׁירָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If four brothers¹⁸⁸ were married to four women and died, if their oldest [brother] wants to marry all of them in levirate, he is permitted to do so. If somebody was married to two women and he died, intercourse or *ḥalîṣah* with one of them frees the co-wife. If one was acceptable and the other blemished¹⁸⁹ is considered a divorcee for a Cohen, the chances of remarriage of the acceptable one should not be diminished. For levirate, he may take either one., if he performs *ḥalîṣah*, he performs it with the blemished; if he takes in levirate, he takes the acceptable one. footnotes: ¹⁸⁸ The text in the Halakhah, “four of the brothers”, is a better formulation since one speaks of a large group of brothers. ¹⁸⁹ One was eligible to marry a Cohen; the other (e. g., a divorcee) was blemished in this respect. Since a woman freed by ḥalîṣah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:12:2) **הלכה:** אַרְבָּעָה מֵאַחִין כול׳. דֶּלֹמָא. תְּלַת עָשָׂר אַחִין הַוְיָין וּמֵתִין תְּרֵין עָשָׂר דְּלָא בְּנִין. אַתְיוּן בְעַיּוּן מִתְיַיבְּמָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי. אֵיזִיל יַיבֶּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית בְּחֵיילִי. וְהֵם אוֹמְרוֹת. כָּל חָדָא וְחָדָא אֲנָא מְזַיְינְנָא יַרְחִי. אֲמַר. וּמָאן זַיֵין הַהוּא יַרְחָא דְעִיבּוּרָא. אֲמַר רִבִּי. אֲנָא זַיְינְנָא יַרְחָא דְעִיבּוּרָא. וְצַלִּי עֲלֵיהוֹן וְאָזְלוּן לְהוֹן. בְּתָר תְּלַת שְׁנִין אָתוּן טְעִינִין תַּלְתִּין וְשִׁיתָא מֵיְינוּקִין. אָתוּן וְקַמְנוּ לָהֶן קוֹמֵי דָרְתָה דְרִבִּי. סָלְקִין וְאָמְרִין לֵיהּ. לְרַע קַרְיָיא דְמֵיינוּקִין בְּעַיָין מִישְׁאוֹל בִּשְׁלָמָךְ. אוֹדִיק רִבִּי מַן כִּוְותָּא וְחַמְתּוֹן. אֲמַר לוֹן. מַה עִיסְקֵיכוֹן. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. אֲנָן בְּעַיָין תֵּיתִין לָן הַהוּא יַרְחָא דְעִיבּוּרָא. וִיהִיב לְהוֹן הַהוּא יַרְחָא דְעִיבּוּרָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “Four of the brothers,” etc. Explanation: There were thirteen brothers, of whom twelve died childless. They [the widows] came and wanted to be married in levirate before Rebbi. He said to him, go and take in levirate. He said to him, it overtaxes my means. But each one of them said, I will support during my month. He said, and who will support during that intercalary month? Rebbi said, I shall support during that intercalary month. He prayed for them and they went from him. After three years they came, carrying 36 toddlers. They came and stood in front of Rebbi’s dwelling. [People] went in and told [Rebbi], outside are rural toddlers who want to greet you. Rebbi looked down from the window and saw them. He asked them, for what are you here? They said to him, we beg that you give us [support for] that intercalary month; he gave them [support for] that intercalary month. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:12:3) כְּתִיב וַיֵּשֶׁב אֲרוֹן יי עִם עוֹבֵד אֱדוֹם בְּבֵיתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וַיְבָרֶךְ יי וגו׳. בְּמָה בֵּירְכוֹ. בְּבָנִים. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב כֵּל אֵלֶּה מִבְּנֵי עוֹבֵד אֱדוֹם הֵמָּה וּבְנֵיהֶם וַאֲחֵיהֶם אִישׁ חַיִל בַּכֹּחַ לַעֲבוֹדָה שִׁשִּׁים וגו׳. דַּהֲוָות כָּל חָדָא מִינְּהֶן יָלְדָה תְּרֵיי בְכָל יַרְחָא. הָא כֵיצַד. טְמֵאָה שִׁבְעָה וּטְהֹרָה שִׁבְעָה וִילֵדַת. טְמֵאָה שִׁבְעָה וּטְהֹרָה שִׁבְעָה וִילֵדַת. שִׁית עָשָׂר לְכָל יֶרַח. לִתְלָתָא יַרְחִין הָא אַרְבָּעִין וּתְמַנְיָיא. וְהוּא אֲשִׁתִּין. הָא חַמְשִׁין וְאַרְבָּעָה. וְתַמְנוֹתֵיהוֹן. הָא אֶשְׁתִּין וּתְרֵיי. הָדָא הִיא דִכְתִיב שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם לְעוֹבֵד אֱדוֹם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It is written: “¹⁹⁰. 13:14, *2S*. 6:10. The ark of the Eternal dwelt in the house of Obed Edom for three months, and the Eternal blessed,” etc. By what did he bless him? With sons. That is what is written: “¹⁹¹. 26:8. All these were from the sons of Obed Edom, they, their sons and relatives, strong men for the service, sixty” etc., because each one of them gave birth to two every month. How was that? She was impure for seven days¹⁹² 12:2., pure for seven days, and gave birth, was impure for seven days, pure for seven days, and gave birth. Sixteen every month¹⁹³ 26:4–5)., in three months 48. And he, six¹⁹⁴63b/64a, the wife and all her daughters-in-law each had one birth of sextuplets.. This makes 54 together. And those eight, sum total 62. That is what was written: “¹⁹¹. 26:8.62 for Obed Edom”. footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ An inexact quote of 1Chr ¹⁹¹ 1Chr ¹⁹² Since all children were males, Lev. ¹⁹³ 16 grandchildren since Obed Edom had 8 sons (1Chr. ¹⁹⁴ His own wife bore him six more sons. Together with the original 8, that makes 62 in all. In the Babli, Berakhot ¹⁹¹ 1Chr ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:12:4) אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא. כְּתִיב וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בְיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל. בַּיִת שֶׁהוּא נִיתָּר בַּחֲלִיצָה אַחַת. אַף בְּבִיאָה כֵן. חֲלִיצָה פוֹטֵר וּבִיאָה פוֹטֵר. [כְּמָה] דְאַתְּ אָמַר בַּחֲלִיצָה כֵּן אַתְּ אָמַר בְּבִיאָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, it is written: “His house should be called in Israel the house of the shoe-stripped.” A house which was permitted by one stripping. The same is true for intercourse. Stripping frees and intercourse frees. What you say about stripping you say about intercourse¹⁹⁵. footnotes: ¹⁹⁵ This refers to the sentence in the Mishnah that action by one of the widows frees the others without more ceremony. The argument is based on the singular describing the shoe which was stripped from the levir. A similar but more involved argument in Babli 44b, based on the same verse. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:12:5) וּמַהוּ לְהַעֲרִים. וְכִי רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁלְּכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא הֶעֱרִים. קִידֵּשׁ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת נָשִׁים בִּימֵי רַעֲבוֹן עַל מְנָת לְהַאֲכִילָן בִּתְרוּמָה. תַּמָּן אֵין כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת רְאוּיָה לוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. בְּרָם הָכָא כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד רָאוּי לְיַיבֵּם. רִבִּי יוּדָן בֵּירִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל עָבְדִין לֵיהּ כֵּן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** May one apply a trick¹⁹⁶ the one who cannot marry a Cohen should perform *ḥalîṣah*. If the older brother insists on having *ḥalîṣah* with the other widow, may one intervene to direct another brother to consent to the more desirable *ḥalîṣah*?? Did Rebbi Ṭarphon, the father of all of Israel, not apply a trick? He gave *qiddushin* to 300 women in times of famine to let them eat heave¹⁹⁷ 5:3) and R. Ṭarphon formally acquired all 300 women but married none of them.! There, every one of them was able to eat heave. But here, is each one able to perform levirate? Rebbi Yudan the son of Rebbi Ismael: One deals with him is such a way¹⁹⁷ 5:3) and R. Ṭarphon formally acquired all 300 women but married none of them.. footnotes: ¹⁹⁶ It is not clear what kind of trick is intended. From the context, it seems that the reference is to the last clause in the Mishnah, that in case of ḥalîṣah ¹⁹⁷ This must have been during the time of the Temple since later generations forbade any non-priestly woman marrying a Cohen to eat sacred food before the actual marriage (Mishnah Ketubot ¹⁹⁷ This must have been during the time of the Temple since later generations forbade any non-priestly woman marrying a Cohen to eat sacred food before the actual marriage (Mishnah Ketubot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:13:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:13:1) **משנה:** הַמַּחֲזִיר אֶת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת חֲלוּצָתוֹ וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ יוֹצִיא וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר דִבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵין הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. וּמוֹדִים בְּנוֹשֵׂא אֶת קְרוֹבַת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ שֶׁהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** He who takes back his divorcee¹⁹⁹. 24:4. This is a simple prohibition., or marries the woman with whom he performed *ḥalîṣah*²⁰⁰. 25:9 that he is a man “who will not build his brother’s house.” This excludes any belated levirate with a woman with whom he performed *ḥalîṣah* as a simple prohibition., or marries a relative of the woman with whom he performed *ḥalîṣah*²⁰¹, has to divorce her²⁰² and any child is a bastard, the words of Rebbi Aqiba²⁰³ is biblical.. But the Sages say, it is not a bastard. But they agree that the child of one who marries a relative of his divorcee²⁰⁴ is a bastard. footnotes: ¹⁹⁹ After she had married another man, Deut ²⁰⁰ Since she was a candidate for levirate, the incest prohibition of a sister-in-law does not apply. She is only forbidden because of the implication of Deut ²⁰¹ She is only forbidden by rabbinic decree according to most authorities. ²⁰² This is accepted universally. ²⁰³ R. Aqiba holds that any child of a prohibited union is a bastard, irrespective of the severity of the prohibition, and that the prohibition of the relatives of a woman with whom he performed ḥalîṣah ²⁰⁴ All relatives of a wife that are forbidden are also forbidden of an ex-wife. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:13:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:13:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:13:2) **הלכה:** הַמַּחֲזִיר אֶת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ כול׳. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמַּחֲזִיר אֶת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. בְּלֹא כָךְ אֵינָהּ פְּסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. אֶלָּא פְּסוּלָה מִלּוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. רִבִי זְעִירָה רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמַּחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת בִּתָּהּ כְּשֵׁירָה לִכְהוּנָּה. וּמַאי טַעֲמָא. כִּי תוֹעֵבָה הִיא. הִיא תוֹעֵבָה הִיא וְאֵין הַוְולָד תּוֹעֵבָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “He who takes back his divorcee,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who takes back his divorcee after she had remarried makes her blemished for the priesthood. Without that, is she not blemished for the priesthood²⁰⁵? But, she is blemished in that she cannot eat heave²⁰⁶. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughet of a man who takes back his divorcee after she had remarried is acceptable for the priesthood. What is the reason? “She is an abomination²⁰⁷. 24:4. The parallel to this paragraph is in Babli 11b, where the first statement of R. Ḥiyya is quoted as tannaitic and a disagreement is noted whether *qiddushin* or marriage with another man triggers the prohibition.”. She is an abomination, the child is not an abomination. footnotes: ²⁰⁵ Any divorcee is barred from marrying a Cohen. ²⁰⁶ A childless daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel can return to her parent’s house and partake of their sacred food if she is not in any way desecrated. ²⁰⁷ Deut ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:14:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:14:1) **משנה:** וְאֵי זֶהוּ מַמְזֵר כָּל שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר שֶׁהוּא בְלֹא יָבוֹא דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָא. שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁחַיָיבִים עָלָיו כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם וַהֲלָכָה כִדְבָרָיו. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁחַיָיבִים עָלָיו מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** And what is a bastard? Any [child of a] blood-relation to whom he is forbidden to come, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Simeon from Timna²⁰⁸ says, any [child of a relation] for which one is subject to extirpation by heaven’s action²⁰⁹. 20, also including capital crimes., and practice follows him. Rebbi Joshua said, any [child of a relation] which is a capital crime. footnotes: ²⁰⁸ One of the youngest members of the Academy at Jabne. ²⁰⁹ As detailed in Lev ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:15:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:15:1) **משנה:** אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי מָצָאתִי מְגִילַּת יוֹחֲסִין בִּירוּשָׁלֵם וְכָתוּב בָּהּ אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מַמְזֵר מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ לְקַיֵים דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Rebbi Simeon ben Azai said, I found a genealogical list in Jerusalem and it was written in it: The man X is a bastard from a²¹⁰ married woman, to support the words of Rebbi Joshua. footnotes: ²¹⁰ From the adultery of a married woman. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:15:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:15:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:15:2) **הלכה:** אֵי זֶהוּ מַמְזֵר כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן חֲנִינָה אוֹמֵר. וְכוּלְּהָם מֵאֵשֶׁת אָב לָמְדוּ. לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דוֹרֵשׁ. מַה אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא בְּלֹא יָבוֹא הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. אַף כָּל שֶׁהוּא בְּלֹא יָבוֹא הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁפֵּירַשּׁ בָּהּ חָלָל. שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי דָרַשׁ. מַה אֵשֶׁת אָב מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. אַף כָּל שֶׁחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי נִידָּה. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁאֵין כָּתוֹב בָּהּ שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דָּרַשׁ. מַה אֵשֶׁת אָב מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. אַף כָּל שֶׁחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “What is a bastard,” etc; “Rebbi Simeon ben Azai said,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, all of them learned from the father’s wife. “A man shall not take his father’s wife and not uncover his father’s garment’s wing.²¹¹. 23:1. This is only half the basis of the arguments. The other is verse 3: No bastard shall come into the community of the Eternal. Since v. 2 speaks of men who cannot have children, v. 3 is taken to refer to v. 1, that the child of a man and his stepmother is a bastard. This is spelled out in detail in the Babli, 49a.” Rebbi Aqiba explains: Just as his father’s wife is special in that she is a forbidden relation from which the child is a bastard, so in any case there is a forbidden relation, the child is a bastard. They objected, is there not a widow for the High Priest²¹². 21:14. Everybody agrees that the child is not a bastard from any of the priestly prohibitions since it is spelled out in v. 15 that the children would be desecrated, barred from the priesthood. This case is not discussed in the Babli.? There is a difference, since desecration is spelled out. Simeon from Timna explained: Just as his father’s wife is special in that one is subject to extirpation for her²¹³, the child is a bastard, so in any case that one is subject to extirpation for her, the child is a bastard. They objected, is there not the menstruating woman²¹⁴. 20:18. In the Babli, this refers to an amoraic statement.? There is a difference, since “blood-relation” is not written in reference to her. Rebbi Joshua explained: Just as his father’s wife is special in that one is subject to the death penalty for her, the child is a bastard, so in any case that one is subject to the death penalty for her, the child is a bastard. footnotes: ²¹¹ Deut ²¹² Lev ²¹³ In case there are no eye witnesses for the forbidden sex act, when there can be no criminal prosecution. ²¹⁴ Lev ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:15:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:15:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:15:3) אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ הַוְולָד כָּשֵׁר. מוֹדֶה שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה הַוְולָד נְקֵיבָה שֶׁהִיא פְסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַוְולָד כָּשֵׁר. מוֹדֵי שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה נְקֵיבָה שֶׁהִיא פְסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אָתָא לְגַבַּת רַב אָמַר. בְּנִין דִּילֵידַת אִמָּה דְהַהוּא גַבְרָא אֲרָמַאי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָמָא בַר גּוּרְיָא. הֵן דְּעַיְימָךְ רַגְלֵיךְ עַד דְּלָא יֵיתֵי שְׁמוּאֵל וִיפְסָלִינָךְ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרַב אָמַר. גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַוְולָד כָּשֵׁר. מוֹדֵי שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה נְקֵיבָה שֶׁהִיא פְסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Even though Rebbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister²¹⁶ is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female that she is blemished for the priesthood²¹⁷. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah [says] in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes²¹⁸ and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. footnotes: ²¹⁶ A paradigm for all relations punishable by divine extirpation but not capital crimes. ²¹⁷ By rabbinic standards. ²¹⁸ In the Babli, 45a, Samuel agrees with Rav that the child is acceptable. The opinion expressed here, that the child is permitted only to marry outside the priesthood is attributed in the Babli to R. Joshua ben Levi. The Yerushalmi decides here against its own masters, R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar, who hold in Halakhah 7:6 that the child is a bastard. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:15:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:15:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:15:4) וּמַה רָאוּ לוֹמֵר. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָא. מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְלְלוּ כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת לְהִיכָּרֵת. יָצָאת אֵשֶׁת אָב לְלַמְּדָךְ עַל הַמַּמְזֵר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. תַּמָּן הוּא יְלִיף לֵיהּ מִכְּלָלָא וְהָכָא הוּא יְלִיף לֵיהּ מִפְּרָטָה. דְּתַנֵּי מִצְוֹת יי. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אַף אוֹכְלֵי שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים בִּכְלָל. הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן לוֹמַר. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן מֵעֵינֵי וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מֵעֵינֵי. מַה עֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת וְעַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת. אַף מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן חַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. אִי מַה עֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין אַף מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּצָאת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לְלַמֵּד עַל מְחוּיָיבִין כְּרִיתוּת לֹא יָצָא עִמָּם כָּרֵת אֶלָּא כָּרֵת בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל מִיתָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר בָּאת. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. תַּמָּן הוּא יְלִיף לֵהּ מִכְּלָלָא וְהָכָא הוּא יְלִיף לֵהּ מִפְּרָטָא. תַּמָּן נִכְלְלוּ כָל הָעֲרָיוֹת לְקָרְבָּן. יָצָאת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לְלַמֵּד עַל מְחוּיָיבֵי קָרְבָּנוֹת. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. הָכָא נִכְלְלוּ כָל הָעֲרָיוֹת לְמַמְזֵר. יָצָאת אֵשֶׁת אָב לְלַמֵּד עַל הַמַּמְזֵר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Why did they say, practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Timna? ²¹⁹ 2:4; much more truncated in Babli *Horaiot* 8a. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard²²⁰ Chapter 18 are punishable by divine extirpation as made clear in Chapter 20. The verses about the connection between the father’s wife and the bastard are in *Deut.* 23. The father’s wife represents a single element of the set of incest prohibitions. *Deut.* 23 has no penalties spelled out. It is presumed that the penalty common to all sins mentioned in *Lev.* 18 is also understood in *Deut.*23. Cf. Chapter 11, Note 63.. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here²²¹ 2:4, for which transgressions a purification sacrifice is due, *viz*., those under penalty of divine extirpation. [Simple transgressions are expiated either by the punishment imposed by the court or by sincere repentance and the Day of Atonement (Mishnah *Yoma* 8:7)]. he infers from one of its members. As we have stated: “The commandments of the Eternal,²²² 4:2, the introduction to the laws of the purifying sacrifice: “If a person sins inadvertently *against any of the Eternal*’*s commandments* about what should not be done, but he did one of these.” I could think that this includes also those who eat abominations and crawling things²²³ 11; these are simple prohibitions, at most punishable by whipping.. You argue, saying that here it says “from the eyes²²⁴ 4:13) “if the entire congregation of Israel errs and something is hidden *from the eyes* of the community and they do one of the actions which by the commandments of the Eternal should not be done, and they do damage.” This is part of a series of 5 different statements on purification offerings. “There” is the isolated statement about the particular purification offering due for the sin of apostasy (i. e., idolatry, *Num.* 15:22–28). *Num.* 15:24 reads: “If *from the eyes* of the congregation it was done in error.” By the hermeneutic rule of גזירה שוה “equal cut”, parallel expressions imply parallel meanings.” and there it says “from the eyes”. Just as “from the eyes” mentioned there means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin, also “from the eyes” mentioned here means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin. But since “from the eyes” mentioned there is a case²²⁵ involving the death penalty, does “from the eyes” mentioned here involve the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation, there was no mention of anything but extirpation²²⁶ 15:30 for the blasphemer and idolator, offenses which at other places are classified as capital crimes.. But the death penalty is written elsewhere. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members! There, all incest prohibitions were taken together as to the duty of sacrifice. Idolatry was singled out to teach who is obligated for a sacrifice²²⁷. What can you say? Here, all incest prohibitions were taken together concerning of bastards. The father’s wife was singled out to teach about the bastard. footnotes: ²¹⁹ A very shortened version is in Horaiot ²²⁰ All incest prohibitions (including adultery) promulgated under one heading, as one set, in Lev. ²²¹ The topic of Horaiot ²²² Lev. ²²³ Forbidden in Lev. ²²⁴ “Here” is the purification offering of the congregation due (Lev. ²²⁵ Idolatry. ²²⁶ The only penalty mentioned is extirpation in Num. ²²⁷ Since for idolatry the sacrifices are different from those for all other sins, it is necessary to treat this separately. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:16:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:16:1) **משנה:** אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. גֵּירְשָׁהּ וָמֵתָה מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וָמֵתָה מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. יְבִמְתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. חָלַץ לָהּ וָמֵתָה מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If his wife died, her sister is permitted to him. If he divorced her and she died, her sister is permitted to him²²⁸ 18:18. If she was his wife for one minute, her sister is forbidden to him during her lifetime, by biblical standards. The same holds for the sister-in-law from a childless brother by rabbinic standards.. If she had married another man and died, her sister is permitted to him. If his sister-in-law died, her sister is permitted to him. If he performed *ḥalîṣah* with her and she died, her sister is permitted to him. footnotes: ²²⁸ Lev. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:16:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:16:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/4:16:2) **הלכה:** אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ כול׳. הָא בְאִמָּהּ אָסוּר. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁמֵּתָה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנִּינָן. חָלַץ לָהּ וָמֵתָה מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. הָא בְאִמָּהּ אָסוּר. לְפוּם כֵּן תַּנָּא אֲחוֹתָהּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If his wife died, her sister is permitted to him,” etc. That means, her mother is forbidden to him²²⁹. Did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him²³⁰2:5.. But since we stated: “If he performed *ḥalîṣah* with her and she died, her sister is permitted to him,” therefore he stated “her sister²³¹.” footnotes: ²²⁹ The prohibition of the sister is the only incest prohibition lifted after the death of the wife. ²³⁰ Since there was only candidacy and that becomes void with the death of the sister-in-law; Halakhot 2:1, 4:8, Soṭa ²³¹ Since rabbinically, all close relatives of the sister-in-law except the sister remain forbidden.