## Yevamot Daf 15a

###### Yevamot 15a:1
[Yevamot 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:1)

שֶׁיְּהוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. לֹא הִסְפִּיקוּ לִגְמוֹר אֶת הַדָּבָר עַד שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה הַשָּׁעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that they **should perform *ḥalitza* and not enter into levirate marriage.** If they act in this manner, they will be permitted to marry others and the problem will be solved according to all opinions. **They were unable to finalize the matter** according to the proposition raised by Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri **before times of trouble** arrived. Due to the outbreak of war they were unable to gather together to vote and establish an accepted halakhic ruling.


###### Yevamot 15a:2
[Yevamot 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: מָה נַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם לַצָּרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת מֵעַתָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Sometime later, when they returned to discuss the issue, **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to** the other Sages: **What shall we do with those earlier rival wives from now** onward? Since in the meantime some rival wives had entered into levirate marriage, if we issue a collective ruling that rival wives may not do so, their children will be declared *mamzerim*. Therefore, it is better not to establish this *halakha* at all.


###### Yevamot 15a:3
[Yevamot 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:3)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא עָשׂוּ — הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר מָה נַעֲשֶׂה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לֹא עָשׂוּ, מַאי מָה נַעֲשֶׂה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this episode in relation to the matter at hand. **Granted, if you say** that Beit Shammai **did act** in accordance with their own opinion, **this is** the meaning of **what** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel **said: What shall we do?** Since these rival wives had already entered into levirate marriage, it was impossible to change the status of their children retroactively. **However, if you say** that **they did not act** in accordance with their opinion, **what is** the meaning of: **What shall we do?** If Beit Shammai did not act upon their ruling, they never actually permitted a *yavam* to take a rival wife in levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 15a:4
[Yevamot 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְצָרָה עַצְמָהּ, ״וּמָה נַעֲשֶׂה״ הָכִי קָאָמַר: הָנָךְ צָרוֹת דְּבֵית הִלֵּל, לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד לְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** This amendment was **necessary,** not for the benefit of the children of rival wives, as Beit Shammai never in fact acted on their ruling; **rather,** it was necessary **only for the rival wife herself.** If these rival wives married others, in the opinion of Beit Shammai their marriages were flawed, as they did not perform *ḥalitza*. And as for the question: **What shall we do, this is what** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel **is saying:** With regard to **those rival wives** who were entirely exempt according **to Beit Hillel, what** should **we do with them** according **to Beit Shammai,** as these rival wives had already married others without performing *ḥalitza*?


###### Yevamot 15a:5
[Yevamot 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:5)

לִיחְלְצוּ — מִימַּאֲסִי אַגַּבְרַיְיהוּ. וְכִי תֵּימָא לִימַּאֲסָן — ״דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי נוֹעַם וְכׇל נְתִיבוֹתֶיהָ שָׁלוֹם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: If you say **let them perform *ḥalitza*, they will be repulsive to their husbands,** as it will seem to the husband that the woman he has been living with for some time suddenly requires a permit for marriage. **And if you would say, let them be repulsive** to their husbands, as that is not our concern, this is not the case, as the Torah says: **“Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace”** (Proverbs 3:17).


###### Yevamot 15a:6
[Yevamot 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: תְּאֵבַנִי, מָתַי תָּבֹא צָרַת הַבַּת לְיָדִי וְאֶשָּׂאֶנָּה! אֵימָא וְאַשִּׂיאֶנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara suggests further: **Come** and **hear** another source, **as Rabbi Tarfon said: I yearn** for the following scenario: **When shall my daughter’s rival wife come before me and I will marry her?** In other words, in this hypothetical case I would act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and take her in levirate marriage. This statement indicates that those who held by the traditions of Beit Shammai did indeed act upon their opinion. The Gemara amends this statement. **Say: And I will marry her off,** i.e., I shall act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel and marry her off to others.


###### Yevamot 15a:7
[Yevamot 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:7)

וְהָא תְּאֵבַנִי קָאָמַר! לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But he said: I yearn,** and if he meant that he would follow the ruling of Beit Hillel, which is the common practice, what is the novelty of Rabbi Tarfon’s statement? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Tarfon comes **to exclude** the statement of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri,** who maintains that all rival wives perform *ḥalitza*. Rabbi Tarfon yearned for an opportunity to demonstrate that the *halakha* is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.


###### Yevamot 15a:8
[Yevamot 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבִתּוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיְתָה נְשׂוּאָה לְאַבָּא אָחִיו, וּמֵת בְּלֹא בָּנִים, וְיִיבֵּם רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֶת צָרָתָהּ. וְתִסְבְּרָא, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִתַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear an incident involving Rabban Gamliel’s daughter, who was married to Abba, his brother, and** Abba **died childless, and Rabban Gamliel entered into levirate marriage with her rival wife.** This is apparently conclusive proof that the rival wife of a daughter may enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: **And** how can **you understand it** that way? Was **Rabban Gamliel among the disciples of Beit Shammai?** In fact, Rabban Gamliel, who was a descendant of Hillel himself, certainly followed the opinion of Beit Hillel.


###### Yevamot 15a:9
[Yevamot 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:9)

אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאַיְלוֹנִית הֲוַאי. הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַיְלוֹנִית הָיְתָה, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לָאו אַיְלוֹנִית הָיְתָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the case of **Rabban Gamliel’s daughter is different, as she was a sexually underdeveloped woman [*aylonit*],** and therefore the prohibition against marrying her rival wife does not apply, as explicitly stated in the mishna. The Gemara asks: But **from** the fact **that it is taught** in **the latter clause** of the same *baraita*: **Others say** that **Rabban Gamliel’s daughter was an *aylonit*,** it can be derived **by inference that the first *tanna* holds** that **she was not an *aylonit*.**


###### Yevamot 15a:10
[Yevamot 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:10)

הִכִּיר בָּהּ וְלֹא הִכִּיר בָּהּ, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The dispute between the *tanna’im* was not about whether or not she was an *aylonit*, as she certainly was. Rather, the practical difference **between them** is whether **he knew** that **she** was an *aylonit* at the time of marriage and decided to marry her regardless. Some maintain in general that if the husband was aware of her condition prior to marriage, her rival wife is forbidden, **but** if **he did not know about her** status, the rival wife is permitted.


###### Yevamot 15a:11
[Yevamot 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:11)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כָּנַס וּלְבַסּוֹף גֵּירַשׁ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that the practical difference **between them** concerns a different case, that of one who **married and ultimately divorced.** This is referring to an issue discussed above of whether a woman is considered the rival wife of a forbidden relation simply by virtue of her marriage to the specific man or whether she must be married to him at the time when the mitzva of levirate obligation takes effect, i.e., at the time of the brother’s death.


###### Yevamot 15a:12
[Yevamot 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:12)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: יֵשׁ תְּנַאי בְּבִיאָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that the practical difference **between them** concerns a case where **there is a condition in sexual relations.** In other words, the first *tanna* holds that Rabban Gamliel’s daughter was married only conditionally, and since the condition was never fulfilled the marriage was nullified. Consequently, Rabban Gamliel could marry the other wife regardless of his daughter’s status as an *aylonit*, as she was never married to his brother at all. However, according to the other *tanna*, even if the marriage was dependent upon a condition that was not fulfilled, because the man engaged in sexual relations with her the act of intercourse itself serves to nullify the condition. Accordingly, he maintains that the only reason Rabban Gamliel could enter into levirate marriage with his daughter’s rival wife was not because of the condition, but due to the fact that his daughter was an *aylonit*. Whichever explanation is accepted, this case provides no proof with regard to the issue of whether or not Beit Shammai acted in accordance with their ruling.


###### Yevamot 15a:13
[Yevamot 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:13)

מֵתִיב רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁלִּיקֵּט אֶתְרוֹג בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט, וְנָהַג בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עִשּׂוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection** against those who claim that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their opinion. It is taught in a mishna: There was **an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who collected an *etrog* on the first of** the month of **Shevat and performed with it two tenths.** In other words, he separated two tithes from the fruit, as though it belonged to two different tithing years. He removed both the second tithe and the poor man’s tithe at the same time, two tithes that should not be separated in the same year.


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

אֶחָד כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְאֶחָד כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ עָשׂוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna explains: **One** tithe he removed **in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai,** who hold that the new year for trees occurs on the first of Shevat, which means that the *etrog* required tithing according to the regulations of the upcoming year. **And one** tithe was **in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel,** who hold the new year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat, and therefore the *etrog* required tithing in accordance with the previous year. The Gemara infers: **Conclude from here** that Beit Shammai **did act** in accordance with their opinion, as Rabbi Akiva took care to act in accordance with the ruling of Beit Shammai.


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא גְּמָרֵיהּ אִסְתַּפַּק לֵיהּ, וְלָא יְדַע אִי בֵּית הִלֵּל בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט אֲמוּר, אוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט אֲמוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Akiva was uncertain as to his tradition, and he did not know if Beit Hillel said** that the New Year for trees occurs **on the first of Shevat or if they said** it is **on the fifteenth of Shevat.** He did not act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai at all; rather, he sought to act in accordance with the ruling of Beit Hillel but was uncertain about their opinion on this matter.


###### Yevamot 15a:16
[Yevamot 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:16)

מֵתִיב מָר זוּטְרָא: מַעֲשֶׂה וְיָלְדָה כַּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל שַׁמַּאי הַזָּקֵן, וּפִיחֵת אֶת הַמַּעֲזִיבָה, וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה בִּשְׁבִיל קָטָן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ עָשׂוּ! הָתָם, הָרוֹאֶה אוֹמֵר לְאַפּוֹשֵׁי אֲוִיר קָעָבֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Mar Zutra raised an objection** to this issue from a different source: There was **an incident in which the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth** to a son. In Shammai’s opinion this newborn baby is immediately obligated in the mitzva to sit in a *sukka*, **and he** therefore **removed the mortar [*ma’aziva*]** covering the ceiling **and he placed** *sukka* **covering over the bed for the minor. Conclude from here** that Beit Shammai **did act** in accordance with their opinions. The Gemara answers: There is no proof from **there,** as anyone **watching** would **say** that **he did it** merely **to increase** the **air.** Since people would not necessarily think that he removed the mortar as a ruling of *halakha*, this behavior is not considered the formation of a faction.


###### Yevamot 15a:17
[Yevamot 15a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:17)

מֵתִיב מָר זוּטְרָא: מַעֲשֵׂה בְּשׁוֹקֶת יֵהוּא שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְהָיְתָה נְקוּבָה לַמִּקְוֶה, וְכׇל טְהָרוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם נַעֲשִׂים עַל גַּבָּהּ. וְשָׁלְחוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְהִרְחִיבוּהָ, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁתִּיפָּחֵת בְּרוּבָּהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra raised** a further **objection:** There was **an incident involving the Yehu water trough in Jerusalem, which had a hole** that connected it **to a ritual bath, and all the ritual purifications in Jerusalem were performed in it,** i.e., people immersed their utensils in this trough. **And Beit Shammai sent** messengers **and they widened** the opening in the water trough, as in the opinion of Beit Shammai the hole was not large enough for the trough to be considered connected to the adjacent ritual bath **as Beit Shammai say:** The two areas are not connected **unless the majority of it is opened.** In other words, they require the major portion of the barrier between the ritual bath and the nearby trough to be open.


###### Yevamot 15a:18
[Yevamot 15a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/15a:18)

וּתְנַן: עֵירוּב מִקְוָאוֹת, כִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת הַנּוֹד בְּעוֹבְיָיהּ וּבַחֲלָלָהּ, כִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת חוֹזְרוֹת לִמְקוֹמָן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ עָשׂוּ! הָתָם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we learned** in a mishna: Beit Hillel hold that **a joining of ritual baths** is effective if the hole has the **width of the tube** used to pour water in and out **of a wineskin, and in its** open **space** there is enough room for **about two fingers that can return to their place.** In other words, if it is possible to insert into the hole two fingers that can move around on all sides, the cavity is sufficiently large to be considered a connection. According to Beit Shammai, however, the hole must open up the majority of the barrier between the two areas. If so, **conclude from this** that Beit Shammai **did act** in accordance with their opinions. The Gemara rejects this contention: **There,**