## Yevamot Daf 14b

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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּמוֹדְעִי לְהוּ — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא נִמְנְעוּ, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּלָא מוֹדְעִי לְהוּ, בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִבֵּית הִלֵּל לֹא נִמְנְעוּ — דִּטְמָאוֹת דְּבֵית הִלֵּל, לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי טְהָרוֹת נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say that they notified them,** it is **due to that** reason that **they did not** need to **refrain** from using their objects. **However, if you say** that **they did not notify them, granted,** it is logical that **Beit Shammai did not refrain from** handling items belonging to **Beit Hillel, as ritually impure** objects **for Beit Hillel are ritually pure for Beit Shammai,** and therefore no special care is necessary.


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

אֶלָּא בֵּית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי לָמָּה לֹא נִמְנְעוּ? טְהָרוֹת דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, לְבֵית הִלֵּל טְמָאוֹת נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּמוֹדְעִי לְהוּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, why didn’t Beit Hillel refrain from** touching articles that belonged to **Beit Shammai?** After all, **ritually pure** objects **for Beit Shammai are ritually impure for Beit Hillel. Rather, is it not** the case that Beit Shammai **notified** Beit Hillel that these items were ritually pure only in their own opinion, and Beit Hillel separated themselves from them? The Gemara summarizes the discussion: **Conclude from** here that this is the correct interpretation.


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

וּמַאי אוּלְמֵיהּ דְּהָךְ מֵהָךְ? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא צָרָה קָלָא אִית לַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In what** way **is this** case **stronger than that** case? In other words, why is the statement with regard to ritual purity and impurity more conclusive than the one that deals with marriage? Since the practice of notification was not explicitly stated in the case of ritual purity but was merely inferred logically, the same reasoning applies equally to the case of marriage. The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that since it is so unusual, a marriage to **a rival wife** generates **publicity** and is so widely known that no special notification is required, therefore, the Gemara **teaches us** that even in this case notification is required.


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

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּצָרוֹת, מוֹדִים שֶׁאֵין מַמְזֵר אֶלָּא מִמִּי שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. מַאן מוֹדִים? אִילֵּימָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל — פְּשִׁיטָא! בְּנֵי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, כְּשֵׁרִים נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Since the statement of Rabbi Elazar was mentioned, the Gemara turns to discuss **the** matter **itself. Rabbi Elazar said: 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*.** The Gemara asks: **Who concedes** to whom? **If we say** that **Beit Shammai** concede **to Beit Hillel,** this is **obvious,** since if they acted in accordance with their own opinion that rival wives who married others without *ḥalitza* **are liable** only **for** violating a regular **prohibition,** their **children are** therefore **fit** and are not *mamzerim* at all.


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

אֶלָּא בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי — הִיא גּוּפַהּ חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one could say that **Beit Hillel** concede **to Beit Shammai.** But in that case **she herself,** the rival wife of a forbidden relative who married one of the *yevamin*, **is liable to** receive ***karet*** in the opinion of Beit Hillel, and the child is a *mamzer*, whereas Rabbi Elazar’s statement indicates that they concede with regard to a different case.


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

לְעוֹלָם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Actually, Beit Shammai** concede **to Beit Hillel,** and this is not a novelty with regard to their basic dispute. Instead, the statement comes **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva, who said:** The offspring **from** forbidden relations for which one is **liable for** violating **a prohibition is a *mamzer*.** Rabbi Elazar **teaches us** that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that the offspring **from** forbidden relations for which one is **liable for** violating **a prohibition is not a *mamzer*;** rather, one is a *mamzer* only if he is born of a union punishable by *karet*.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּצָרוֹת וּבַאֲחָיוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the initial question of whether or not Beit Shammai acted in accordance with their own opinion. The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear: Although Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed** with regard **to** several cases, nevertheless, they did not refrain from marrying women from each other’s communities. The cases with regard to which they disagreed include **rival wives, and sisters,** i.e., if two sisters had been married to two brothers and simultaneously became obligated in levirate marriage, Beit Hillel prohibit both in levirate marriage, and if they violated the prohibition and married regardless, they require a divorce. By contrast, Beit Shammai permit them to remain married.


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

בְּגֵט יָשָׁן, וּבִסְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וּבִמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְּפוּנְדָּק,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed with regard **to an outdated bill of divorce** that had been written but not delivered. Beit Shammai maintain that if the husband and wife continued to live together after the writing of the bill of divorce, the same bill of divorce can still be used later, whereas Beit Hillel dispute this. **And** they likewise **disagreed** with regard **to an uncertain married woman,** i.e., whether a minor who was actually married, and not merely betrothed, may perform refusal. **And** they also **disagreed** with regard **to one who divorces his wife and** later **she lodged** together **with him at an inn,** as to whether or not this is sufficient grounds for assuming that they remarried.


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

בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף, בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Additionally, they disagreed with regard to the issue of betrothal **by money and with** the equivalent **value of money,** and **by a *peruta* or with** the equivalent **value of a *peruta*.** According to Beit Shammai, the minimal amount of money effective for betrothal is a dinar or the equivalent of a dinar, whereas Beit Hillel maintain that even the less valuable *peruta* or its equivalent is sufficient.


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

לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּישָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל, וְלֹא בֵּית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁחִיבָּה וְרֵיעוּת נוֹהֲגִים זֶה בָּזֶה, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֱהָבוּ״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נִמְנְעוּ הֵן מִן הַוַּדַּאי, וְלֹא נִמְנְעוּ מִן הַסָּפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Despite the fact that these *halakhot* entail important ramifications depending on whether or not these women were married or fit for marriage, or whether their offspring are fit for marriage, **Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel** refrain from marrying women **from Beit Shammai.** This serves **to teach you that** they **practiced affection and camaraderie between them, to fulfill that which is stated: “Love truth and peace”** (Zechariah 8:19). **Rabbi Shimon says: They did refrain in the certain** cases, **but they did not refrain in the uncertain** cases. In other words, Beit Hillel were not worried that any ordinary woman from Beit Shammai might be one of those of uncertain status.


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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא עָשׂוּ — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי נִמְנְעוּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לֹא עָשׂוּ, אַמַּאי נִמְנְעוּ? וְתִסְבְּרָא? נְהִי נָמֵי דְּעָשׂוּ, בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּית הִלֵּל — נִמְנְעוּ מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי, דְּחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת נִינְהוּ, וּמַמְזֵרִים הֵם לְבֵית הִלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: **Granted, if you say** that Beit Shammai **did act** in accordance with their opinion, it is **due to that** reason that **they refrained** in the certain cases. **However, if you say** that **they did not act** in accordance with their opinion, **why did they refrain** from marriage? The Gemara replies: **And** how can **you understand** it that way, that Beit Shammai acted in accordance with their opinion? **Even if they acted** in accordance with their opinion, **granted** that **Beit Hillel refrained from** marrying into **Beit Shammai,** as **those** rival wives who entered into levirate marriage **are liable to** receive ***karet* and** their children **are *mamzerim* according to** the opinion of **Beit Hillel.**


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

אֶלָּא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי — אַמַּאי נִמְנְעוּ מִבֵּית הִלֵּל? בְּנֵי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין נִינְהוּ, וּכְשֵׁרִים נִינְהוּ! כִּדְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לַצָּרָה עַצְמָהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי: לָא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לַצָּרָה עַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, why did Beit Shammai refrain from** marrying the offspring of rival wives of **Beit Hillel?** The parents are **liable for** violating a regular **prohibition, and** therefore their children **are fit.** The Gemara answers **as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** with regard to a different matter: **This** *halakha* **was necessary** not for the children of the rival wife, but **only for the rival wife herself. Here too, it was necessary only for the rival wife herself.** The *halakha* was not taught with regard to the children of the rival wives; rather, it is referring only to the rival wives.


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

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִן הַוַּדַּאי — דְּאִיסּוּרָא הוּא, סָפֵק נָמֵי אִיסּוּרָא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **And in what** way are uncertain cases **different from the certain** cases, such as forbidden rival wives? If you say **that** certain cases are undoubtedly **prohibited** in the opinion of Beit Hillel, the cases involving **uncertain** circumstances, e.g., one who divorced his wife and then stayed with her in the same inn, **are also prohibited.** Even if Beit Hillel render these cases prohibited only due to some uncertainty, the ruling is the same.


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

לָא תֵּימָא: מִן הַסָּפֵק, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מִן הַסְּתָם, דְּמוֹדְעִי לְהוּ וּפָרְשִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Do not say: In the uncertain** cases, i.e., that the *halakha* involved doubtful circumstances. **Rather, say: From the unspecified** case. In other words, barring clear knowledge of an uncertain betrothal within a specific family, they would take women from that family in marriage. The reason is **that** Beit Shammai **would notify** Beit Hillel of the prohibition according to their opinion, **and** they would **refrain** from the marriage. If there was no notification, this was a clear sign that no doubt was involved in this case at all.


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

וּמַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאַהֲבָה וְרֵיעוּת נוֹהֲגִים זֶה בָּזֶה? הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּכוּלַּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **what** does **this** come to **teach us?** Is it **that** they had **relations of affection and camaraderie between them,** i.e., that each trusted that the other side would never cause them to err with regard to something they held to be prohibited? **This is** the same as the **first clause** of the *baraita*. What is Rabbi Shimon adding by his statement? The Gemara answers: This comes to **teach us that the entire** *baraita* **is** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.** This is not a dispute between two Sages. Rather, Rabbi Shimon’s opinion elucidates the earlier statement.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: הֵיאַךְ הֲלָכָה זוֹ רוֹוַחַת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל? נַעֲשֶׂה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר לְדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, נַעֲשֶׂה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל — הַוָּלָד פָּגוּם לְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. בּוֹאוּ וּנְתַקֵּן לָהֶן לַצָּרוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara offers an alternative resolution: **Come** and **hear, as Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: How should** one act with regard to **this *halakha*** of rival wives? In what form should it **become widespread among the Jewish people?** If **we act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai** and permit a rival wife in levirate marriage, **the offspring** will be **a *mamzer* according to the statement of Beit Hillel.** If **we act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel** and grant full exemption to the rival wives, **the offspring will** be of **flawed** lineage **according to** the opinion of **Beit Shammai,** as he is the child of a woman prohibited in marriage by a regular prohibition. Although he is not a *mamzer*, his lineage is nevertheless defective. Instead, **let us enact** a general decree **for rival wives**