## Yevamot Daf 14a

###### Yevamot 14a:1
[Yevamot 14a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:1)

מִי סָבְרַתְּ עָשׂוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם? לֹא עָשׂוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: עָשׂוּ וְעָשׂוּ. וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא [דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל]. דְּרַב אוֹמֵר: לֹא עָשׂוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אֹמֵר: עָשׂוּ וְעָשׂוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish said to him: **Do you hold** that **Beit Shammai** actually **acted in accordance with their** own **statement? Beit Shammai did not** in fact **act in accordance with their** own **statement,** as the dispute was merely theoretical. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** Beit Shammai **certainly did act** in accordance with their opinion. The Gemara comments: **And** this is also reflected **in the dispute between Rav and Shmuel, as Rav says: Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their** own **statement, and Shmuel said: They certainly did act** in that manner.


###### Yevamot 14a:2
[Yevamot 14a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:2)

אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל — מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא עָשׂוּ? וְאֶלָּא לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל — מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר עָשׂוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **When** does this question apply? **If we say** that it is referring to the period **prior to** the **Divine Voice** that declared that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, then **what is the rationale of the one who said that** Beit Shammai **did not act** in accordance with their opinion? **But rather,** if one would say it is referring to **after** the **Divine Voice, what is the reason for the one who said** that **they did act** in accordance with their opinion? After all, the Divine Voice established that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


###### Yevamot 14a:3
[Yevamot 14a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:3)

אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל, וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל, וּכְגוֹן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל רוּבָּא, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא עָשׂוּ — דְּהָא בֵּית הִלֵּל רוּבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Neither of these options poses a difficulty. **If you wish, say** that it is referring to the period **prior to** the **Divine Voice, and if you wish, say** instead that it is **after** the **Divine Voice.** The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, say** it is **prior to** the **Divine Voice, and** it is referring to the period **when Beit Hillel** formed **the majority** of the Sages. Therefore, **according to the one who said** that Beit Shammai **did not act** in accordance with their opinion, the reason is **that Beit Hillel** was **the majority,** and the *halakha* is in accordance with the majority.


###### Yevamot 14a:4
[Yevamot 14a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:4)

וּמַאן דְּאָמַר עָשׂוּ, כִּי אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא — הֵיכָא דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ. הָכָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְחַדְּדִי טְפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the one who said** that **they did act** in accordance with their opinion maintains that **when do we follow the majority?** It is in a case **where** the disputing parties **are equal** in wisdom **to one another. Here,** however, **Beit Shammai are sharper** than Beit Hillel, and therefore they acted in accordance with their own opinion despite the fact that they were in the minority.


###### Yevamot 14a:5
[Yevamot 14a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:5)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל, מַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא עָשׂוּ — דְּהָא נְפַקָא בַּת קוֹל, וּמַאן דַּאֲמַר עָשׂוּ — רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that it was **after** the **Divine Voice. The one who said** that Beit Shammai **did not act** in accordance with their opinion would say **that** this was due to the **pronouncement** of the **Divine Voice. And the one who said** that **they did do so, this is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, who said,** with regard to the Divine Voice that emerged and proclaimed that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the oven of *akhnai* (*Bava Metzia* 59b), that **one disregards a Heavenly Voice.** Just as he disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


###### Yevamot 14a:6
[Yevamot 14a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:6)

וּמַאן דַּאֲמַר עָשׂוּ, קָרֵינַן כָּאן ״לֹא תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ״ — לֹא תֵּעָשׂוּ אֲגוּדּוֹת אֲגוּדּוֹת! אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי אָמְרִינַן ״לֹא תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ״ — כְּגוֹן שְׁתֵּי בָּתֵּי דִינִים בְּעִיר אַחַת, הַלָּלוּ מוֹרִים כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְהַלָּלוּ מוֹרִים כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. אֲבָל שְׁתֵּי בָּתֵּי דִינִים בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲיָירוֹת — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** yet the question remains: According to **the one who said** that Beit Shammai **acted** in accordance with their opinion, **we** should **read here: “You shall not cut yourselves”** (Deuteronomy 14:1), which is interpreted to mean: **Do not become numerous factions. Abaye said: When we say** that the prohibition: **“You shall not cut yourselves”** applies, we are referring to a case **where two courts** are located **in one city,** and **these rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai and those rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. However,** with regard to **two courts** located **in two** different **cities, we have no** problem **with it.**


###### Yevamot 14a:7
[Yevamot 14a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל כִּשְׁתֵּי בָּתֵּי דִינִים בְּעִיר אַחַת דָּמֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כִּי אָמְרִינַן ״לֹא תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ״ — כְּגוֹן בֵּית דִּין בְּעִיר אַחַת, פְּלַג מוֹרִין כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וּפְלַג מוֹרִין כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. אֲבָל שְׁתֵּי בָּתֵּי דִינִין בְּעִיר אַחַת — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: But** the dispute between **Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is considered like** a case of **two courts in one city,** as these two schools of thought were found everywhere, not in any specific place. **Rather, Rava said: When we say** that the prohibition: **“You shall not cut yourselves”** applies, we are referring to a case **where** there is **a court in one city, a section** of which **rules in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai and** another **section rules in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. However,** with regard to **two courts** located **in one city, we have no** problem **with it.**


###### Yevamot 14a:8
[Yevamot 14a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָיוּ כּוֹרְתִים עֵצִים לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּחָמִים בְּשַׁבָּת לַעֲשׂוֹת בַּרְזֶל. בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הָיוּ אוֹכְלִים בְּשַׂר עוֹף בְּחָלָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites other relevant sources. **Come** and **hear: In the locale of Rabbi Eliezer,** where his ruling was followed, **they would cut down trees** on Shabbat **to prepare charcoal** from them **to fashion iron** tools with which to circumcise a child **on Shabbat.** In Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, not only does the mitzva of circumcision override Shabbat, but also any action required for the preparation of the tools necessary for the circumcision likewise overrides Shabbat. The *baraita* adds: **In the locale of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they would eat poultry meat in milk,** as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili held that the prohibition of meat in milk does not include poultry.


###### Yevamot 14a:9
[Yevamot 14a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:9)

בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — אִין, בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — לָא. דְּתַנְיָא, כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — אֵין דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **In the locale of Rabbi Eliezer, yes,** they would act in this manner, whereas **in the locale of Rabbi Akiva,** for instance, **no,** they would not do so, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **a principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat** even if it involves a mitzva. A mitzva whose proper time is on Shabbat overrides Shabbat only if its performance was impossible earlier, e.g., the act of circumcision itself, which cannot be performed earlier.


###### Yevamot 14a:10
[Yevamot 14a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:10)

וְהַאי מַאי תְּיוּבְתָּא? מְקוֹמוֹת מְקוֹמוֹת שָׁאנֵי! וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ — מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is this refutation?** As stated above, **it is different** when dealing **with numerous places,** and the *baraita* explicitly states that this practice was followed in Rabbi Eliezer’s locale. Consequently, there is no violation of the prohibition against splitting into factions. The Gemara asks: **He who asked it, why did he ask it,** i.e., what is the basis for the question in the first place? It is obvious that the *baraita* is referring to a specific place.


###### Yevamot 14a:11
[Yevamot 14a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:11)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא דְשַׁבָּת — כְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It might **enter your mind to say** that **due to the severity of Shabbat, it,** i.e., the world, **is considered like a single locale.** In other words, one might have thought that the permission to tolerate diverse customs in different places applies only to other prohibitions, whereas the prohibition of Shabbat is so severe that it is unacceptable to allow different customs, as this might lead people to disrespect Shabbat. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that even in the case of Shabbat there can be different customs in various locales.


###### Yevamot 14a:12
[Yevamot 14a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ כִּי אִיקְּלַע לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הֲוָה מְטַלְטֵל שְׁרָגָא. וְכִי אִיקְּלַע לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, לָא הֲוָה מְטַלְטֵל שְׁרָגָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another relevant case involving Shabbat: **Come** and **hear that Rabbi Abbahu, when he happened** to come **to the place of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, would move** an oil **lamp [*sheraga*]** after the flame that had been lit for that Shabbat had burned out, as Rabbi Yehoshua accepted the ruling that it is permitted to carry items of this sort that had been set aside. **But when he happened** to come **to the place of Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who prohibited carrying items of this kind that had been set aside on Shabbat, **he would not move** an oil **lamp.** This indicates that divergent customs are followed in different places.


###### Yevamot 14a:13
[Yevamot 14a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:13)

וְהַאי מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? וְלָא אָמְרִינַן מְקוֹמוֹת שָׁאנֵי? אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכָא הָכִי, וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכָא הָכִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Again, the Gemara asks: **And what is this difficulty? Didn’t we say** that **it is different** when dealing **with numerous places?** The Gemara explains that **this is what we are saying:** With regard to **Rabbi Abbahu** himself, **how could he act in this manner here and how could he act in that manner there?**


###### Yevamot 14a:14
[Yevamot 14a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:14)

רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְכִי מִקְּלַע לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא הֲוָה מְטַלְטֵל מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְהָאִיכָּא שַׁמָּעָא! דְּמוֹדַע לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Abbahu holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi** that it is permitted to carry this item. **And when he happened** to come **to the place of Rabbi Yoḥanan he would not carry it, in deference to Rabbi Yoḥanan,** so as not to act contrary to his ruling in the place where he was the authority. The Gemara asks: **But there was a servant** accompanying Rabbi Abbahu who would see him carrying these types of articles that had been set aside. Wasn’t Rabbi Abbahu concerned that the servant might carry them in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s locale? The Gemara explains **that he would inform the servant** and explain to him the reason for his change in behavior.


###### Yevamot 14a:15
[Yevamot 14a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ אוֹסְרִים וְאֵלּוּ מַתִּירִים — לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּישָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל, וְלֹא בֵּית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לֹא עָשׂוּ, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא נִמְנְעוּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ עָשׂוּ, אַמַּאי לֹא נִמְנְעוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the question of whether Beit Shammai followed their own rulings. **Come** and **hear** that which is taught in the mishna: **Although** Beit Hillel **prohibit and** Beit Shammai **permit,** and these disqualify the women and those deem them fit, **Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel** refrain from marrying women **from Beit Shammai. Granted, if you say** that Beit Shammai **did not act** in accordance with their opinion, it is **due to that** reason that **they did not** have to **refrain** from marrying women from Beit Hillel. **However, if you say** that **they did act** in accordance with their opinion, **why didn’t they refrain** from marrying one another?


###### Yevamot 14a:16
[Yevamot 14a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:16)

בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִבֵּית הִלֵּל לֹא נִמְנְעוּ, דִּבְנֵי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Granted, Beit Shammai did not refrain** from marrying into **Beit Hillel,** as even if Beit Shammai maintain in a certain case that a rival wife required levirate marriage or *ḥalitza*, if she went ahead and married another man their **children are** born to a union whose partners are **liable by** a regular **prohibition:** “The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside” (Deuteronomy 25:5). Since this transgression does not entail *karet*, the children of this relationship are not *mamzerim*.


###### Yevamot 14a:17
[Yevamot 14a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:17)

אֶלָּא בֵּית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אַמַּאי לֹא נִמְנְעוּ? בְּנֵי חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת — מַמְזֵרִים נִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, why did Beit Hillel not refrain** from marrying into **Beit Shammai?** In the opinion of Beit Hillel the **children** of these rival wives who entered into levirate marriage are born of a union whose partners are **liable to** receive ***karet*,** as the prohibition of a brother’s wife was never nullified in this case, which means that the children **are *mamzerim*.** If so, how could Beit Hillel allow these marriages?


###### Yevamot 14a:18
[Yevamot 14a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:18)

וְכִי תֵּימָא קָסָבְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל דְּאֵין מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת — וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּצָרוֹת, מוֹדִים שֶׁאֵין מַמְזֵר אֶלָּא מִמִּי שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, לֹא עָשׂוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **Beit Hillel maintain that** the child of a union whose partners are **liable to** receive ***karet* is not a *mamzer*,** as a *mamzer* is only one whose parents violated a prohibition that entails the death penalty, **didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: Although Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed** with regard **to rival wives, they concede that a *mamzer* is only from** a union **whose prohibition** is **a prohibition of forbidden relations punishable by *karet*?** Consequently, the children of rival wives are *mamzerim* according to Beit Hillel. **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** here that Beit Shammai **did not act** in accordance with their own opinion?


###### Yevamot 14a:19
[Yevamot 14a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:19)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם עָשׂוּ, דְּמוֹדְעִי לְהוּ וּפָרְשִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **No; actually,** Beit Shammai **did act** in accordance with their opinion. As for the problem with these marriages, the answer is **that they would inform** Beit Hillel **and** Beit Hillel would **withdraw** from the match. When those who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel would come to marry women from those who followed the rulings of Beit Shammai, they would be notified that certain children were born of rival wives and that those people were considered *mamzerim* in the opinion of Beit Hillel, who therefore declared them forbidden in marriage.


###### Yevamot 14a:20
[Yevamot 14a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/14a:20)

וְהָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כָּל הַטְּהָרוֹת וְכׇל הַטְּמָאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אֵלּוּ מְטַהֲרִין וְאֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין — לֹא נִמְנְעוּ עוֹשִׂים טְהָרוֹת אֵלּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי אֵלּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And so too, it is reasonable** that this is the case, **as** the mishna **teaches** in **the latter clause:** With regard to **all of the** disputes concerning the *halakhot* of **ritual purity and impurity, where those,** Beit Hillel, rule an article **ritually pure and these,** Beit Shammai, rule it **ritually impure, they did not refrain from handling ritually pure** objects **each with the other.**