## Yevamot Daf 9a

###### Yevamot 9a:1
[Yevamot 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:1)

וְלֹא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. וּתְנַן נָמֵי: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת, יָחִיד — מֵבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, נָשִׂיא — מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר, מָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין — מְבִיאִין פַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** a community brings a bull for an unwitting communal sin **for idolatrous worship only** if the act of idolatry involved **a matter that for its intentional** violation **one is liable to** receive ***karet* and for its unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering. And we also learned** in a mishna: With regard to **any mitzva in the Torah for whose intentional** violation **one is liable to** receive ***karet* and for its unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering,** if a private **individual** sinned unwittingly, he **brings a ewe or a she-goat.** If it was **a *Nasi*, he brings a goat** for a sin of this kind, and if the sinner was **an anointed** High Priest **or the court, they bring a bull.**


###### Yevamot 9a:2
[Yevamot 9a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:2)

וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, יָחִיד נָשִׂיא וּמָשִׁיחַ — מְבִיאִין שְׂעִירָה, צִבּוּר — מְבִיאִים פַּר וְשָׂעִיר, פַּר לְעוֹלָה וְשָׂעִיר לְחַטָּאת. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if they unwittingly sinned in a matter **involving idolatrous worship,** a private **individual, a *Nasi*, and an anointed** High Priest **bring a she-goat,** whereas **a community brings a bull and a goat,** the **bull as a burnt-offering and** the **goat as a sin-offering.** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters,** that one must bring a sin-offering for this transgression, derived?


###### Yevamot 9a:3
[Yevamot 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:3)

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ עָלֶיהָ״, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עָלֶיהָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עָלֶיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִים עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת, אַף כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **As the Sages taught** with regard to an unwitting communal sin offering: **“And the sin by which they have sinned is known”** (Leviticus 4:14). **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: It is stated here,** with regard to a sin-offering: **“By which [*aleha*],” and it is stated there,** with regard to the prohibition with regard to a wife’s sister: **“Unto [*aleha*].”** This teaches by verbal analogy: **Just as there,** in the case of a wife’s sister, it is **a matter that for its intentional** violation **one is liable to** receive ***karet* and for its unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering, so too here,** the offering is brought for **a matter that for its intentional** violation **one is liable to** receive ***karet* and for its unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Yevamot 9a:4
[Yevamot 9a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:4)

אַשְׁכְּחַן צִבּוּר, מָשִׁיחַ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב בְּמָשִׁיחַ: ״לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״, הֲרֵי מָשִׁיחַ כְּצִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **We found** a source for the *halakha* that the offering brought by the community is a sin-offering; **from where do we** derive that **an anointed** High Priest also brings a sin-offering for this transgression? **As it is written** with regard **to an anointed** High Priest: “If the anointed priest shall sin **so as to bring guilt on the people”** (Leviticus 4:3), which indicates that **an anointed** High Priest brings an offering **like the community.**


###### Yevamot 9a:5
[Yevamot 9a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:5)

יָחִיד וְנָשִׂיא — אָתְיָא ״מִצְוֹת״ ״מִצְוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that a private **individual and a *Nasi*** bring sin-offerings only for a severe transgression of this kind? **This is derived** by verbal analogy between the words **“mitzvot”** and **“mitzvot”** that are stated three times, with regard to the community’s sin-offering, a private individual’s sin-offering, and the sin-offering of a *Nasi*: “Any of the mitzvot of the Lord that He has commanded not to be done” (Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22).


###### Yevamot 9a:6
[Yevamot 9a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:6)

וְלֹא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. צִבּוּר בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה יָלֵיף מֵ״עֵינֵי״ ״מֵעֵינֵי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it was stated above that this *halakha* applies to **idolatrous worship only** if it involved **a matter that for its intentional** violation **one is liable to** receive ***karet* and for its unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering.** The *halakha* of **a community** that was guilty **of idolatrous worship is derived** by a verbal analogy between the phrases **“from the eyes”** and **“from the eyes.”** With regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, the verse states: “From the eyes of the assembly” (Leviticus 4:13), while concerning an unwitting sin of idol worship, it says: “From the eyes of the congregation” (Numbers 15:24). This verbal analogy teaches that a congregation brings a sin-offering for idolatrous worship only if it involved a transgression that incurs *karet* when performed intentionally.


###### Yevamot 9a:7
[Yevamot 9a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:7)

יָחִיד, נָשִׂיא וּמָשִׁיחַ מִ״וְּאִם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת״ — אֶחָד יָחִיד וְאֶחָד נָשִׂיא וְאֶחָד מָשִׁיחַ בַּמַּשְׁמָע. וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The cases of a private **individual, a *Nasi*, and an anointed** High Priest are derived **from** a verse that deals with an unwitting sin of idolatry: **“And if one person** sin” (Numbers 15:27). **All** of these, a private **individual, a *Nasi*, and an anointed** High Priest, **are included** in this verse. In this case the principle: The letter ***vav* adds to the previous matter,** applies. When a phrase begins with the conjunction *vav*, meaning: And, it is a continuation of the previous matter rather than a new topic. Based on this principle, these two *halakhot* are connected with one another.


###### Yevamot 9a:8
[Yevamot 9a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:8)

וְיִלְמַד תַּחְתּוֹן מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** therefore **let the lower,** i.e., the second, subject, a private individual, **be derived from the upper** issue, the community. Just as a community brings this offering only for a transgression whose intentional violation incurs *karet*, the same is true of a private individual. The verbal analogy stated in this *baraita* is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s inference from the phrase “with her.”


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

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי סְבָרָא מְנָא לְהוּ? נָפְקָא לְהוּ, מִדְּמַקְרֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לִבְרֵיהּ: ״תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה״, ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיָד רָמָה״ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **the Rabbis,** who interpret “with her” with regard to rival wives, **from where do they derive this conclusion** that one is liable to bring the offering for idolatrous worship only for a transgression whose intentional violation incurs *karet*? The Gemara answers: **They derive it from that which Rabbi Yehoshua** ben Levi **read out to his son** to teach him the verses that summarize the case of unwitting idol worship: **“You shall have one law [*Torah*] for him that does unwittingly. But the soul that does with a high hand,** whether he be home born or a stranger, he blasphemes the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people” (Numbers 15:29–30).


###### Yevamot 9a:10
[Yevamot 9a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:10)

הוּקְּשָׁה כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה: מָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In this manner, **the entire Torah is juxtaposed with idolatrous worship. Just as** in the case of **idolatrous worship** there is no obligation to bring an offering unless it is **a matter that for its intentional** violation **one is liable to** receive ***karet* and for its unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering,** as indicated by the verse: “That soul shall be cut off from among his people,” **so too,** the same applies to **any matter that for its intentional** violation **one is liable to** receive ***karet* and for its unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Yevamot 9a:11
[Yevamot 9a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:11)

אַשְׁכְּחַן יָחִיד וְנָשִׂיא וּמָשִׁיחַ, בֵּין בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּבֵין בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת. צִבּוּר בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִנַּיִן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ״, וְיִלְמַד עֶלְיוֹן מִתַּחְתּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **We found** a source for a private **individual, a *Nasi*, and an anointed** High Priest, **whether** with regard **to idolatrous worship or** with regard **to** the **other mitzvot. From where** is it derived that **a community** is liable only for an unwitting transgression **of idolatrous worship** of this kind? **The verse states: “And if one person** sin” **(**Numbers 15:27). Once again, the letter *vav* teaches that these two cases are connected, **and let the upper,** the first, issue of a community, **be derived from the lower** case, that of a private individual.


###### Yevamot 9a:12
[Yevamot 9a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:12)

אֶלָּא, צִבּוּר בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת מְנָלַן? יָלֵיף ״מֵעֵינֵי״ ״מֵעֵינֵי״. וְרַבִּי, הַאי ״תּוֹרָה אַחַת״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין יְחִידִים לִמְרוּבִּים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, from where do we** derive that **a community** brings an offering **for other mitzvot** only if the intentional violation of the prohibition incurs *karet*? The Gemara responds: **He derives** it from the aforementioned verbal analogy between **“from the eyes”** and **“from the eyes.”** The Gemara asks: **And what does Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **do with this** verse: **“One law”?** The Gemara answers: **He requires it for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **Since we find that the Torah differentiates between** private **individuals** who sinned **and the many** who sinned in idol worship.


###### Yevamot 9a:13
[Yevamot 9a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:13)

יְחִידִים בִּסְקִילָה — לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָן פָּלֵט, מְרוּבִּין בְּסַיִיף — לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָן אָבֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elaborates: Private **individuals** who worshipped idols are sentenced **to stoning,** and **therefore their money is spared** from destruction. Although the sinner is put to death, his possessions are not destroyed. By contrast, the **many** are condemned to the lighter death penalty of decapitation **by sword,** the punishment for those who worshipped idols in an idolatrous city, and **therefore their money is forfeited,** as by Torah law all possessions belonging to the residents of an idolatrous city must be burned.


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

יָכוֹל נַחְלוֹק בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Due to this difference, one **might** have thought that **we** should likewise **differentiate between their offerings,** i.e., if an individual and a community unwittingly practiced idolatrous worship, different offerings are brought in the two cases. Therefore, **the verse states: “One law for you.”** The word: “you” is in the plural, which indicates that an individual and a community that worshipped idols are subject to the same *halakha*.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חִלְקִיָּה מֵהַגְרוֹנְיָא: טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״, הָא לָאו הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא נַחְלֹק. מַאי לַיְיתוֹ? לַיְיתוֹ פַּר — צִבּוּר בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת הוּא דְּמַיְיתוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥilkiya from** the city of **Hagronya strongly objects to this: The reason** for this ruling is **that the Merciful One** specifically **writes: “One law for you,”** from which it may be inferred that **if that were not so, I would say** that **we** should **differentiate** between the offerings of an individual and a community. If so, it is appropriate to ask: **What** offering **would they bring** if we were to differentiate? You cannot say **they would bring a bull,** as **it is a community** that sinned unwittingly **in** transgressing **other mitzvot who bring** a bull, and as this case is written separately, clearly its *halakha* is different.


###### Yevamot 9a:16
[Yevamot 9a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:16)

כִּשְׂבָּה — יָחִיד בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת הוּא דְּמַיְיתֵי, שְׂעִיר — נָשִׂיא בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת הוּא דְּמַיְיתֵי. פַּר לְעוֹלָה וְשָׂעִיר לְחַטָּאת — צִבּוּר בָּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא דְּמַיְיתוּ, וְאֶלָּא מַאי, שְׂעִירָה — יָחִיד נָמֵי הַיְינוּ קׇרְבָּנוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, you cannot say that they should bring **a ewe,** as **it is an individual** who sinned **in** transgressing **the other mitzvot who brings** a ewe. Nor can you say that they bring a **goat,** as **it is a *Nasi*** who sinned **in** transgressing **the other mitzvot who brings** a goat. And you cannot say that they would bring **a bull as a burnt-offering and a goat as a sin-offering,** as **it is the community,** i.e., the majority of Jews, who sinned **in** performing **idolatrous worship who bring** these. **Rather, what** might they bring? If one were to suggest **a she-goat,** that would not be appropriate, because **this is the offering** of a private **individual as well,** since an individual brings a ewe or a she-goat as a sin-offering. Apparently there is no need for a special inference in this case, as there are no other possibilities.


###### Yevamot 9a:17
[Yevamot 9a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:17)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְצִבּוּר בְּהוֹרָאָה מַיְיתוּ פַּר לְעוֹלָה וְשָׂעִיר לְחַטָּאת, אִינְהוּ נָמֵי נַיְתוֹ אִיפְּכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **is necessary** for a verse to teach that there is no difference between the offerings of an individual and a community, as it might **enter your mind to say: Since a community** that sinned **by** the erroneous **instruction** of the court that it is permitted to practice idolatry **brings a bull as a burnt-offering and a goat as a sin-offering,** then, when a community sins of its own accord **they too** should **bring** these animals, but **the opposite,** i.e., a bull as a sin-offering and a goat as a burnt-offering.


###### Yevamot 9a:18
[Yevamot 9a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:18)

אִי נָמֵי, צָרִיךְ וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** it could be argued: Theoretically a community **must** bring a different form of atonement from that of an individual, yet **they have no remedy,** as the Torah did not specify which offering is brought for a sin of the many. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** by means of the phrase “one law for you” that there is indeed an offering for the many who practiced idol worship.


###### Yevamot 9a:19
[Yevamot 9a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֵוִי לְרַבִּי: מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה? לִיתְנֵי שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּמְדוּמֶּה לִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מוֹחַ בְּקׇדְקֳדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ After discussing different interpretations of the relevant verses, the Gemara addresses the details of the *halakhot* of the mishna. It first considers the numbers that comprise the structure of the mishna as a whole. The Sage **Levi said to Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: **Why does** the *tanna* **specifically teach** the cases of **fifteen women? Let him teach** the cases of **sixteen** women, including the case of a rival wife of a forbidden relation. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to him:** Judging by his question, **it seems to me that** this Sage **has no brain in his head.**


###### Yevamot 9a:20
[Yevamot 9a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:20)

מַאי דַּעְתָּךְ, אִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi proceeded to explain the question and the answer himself: **What is your thinking?** Is it that the *tanna* should have included the case of **his mother** who had been **raped by his father?** In the opinion of the Rabbis, a woman raped by one’s father is permitted in marriage to another of his sons. Consequently, it is possible that she might give birth to a son and later marry one of the other sons of the rapist. If her husband subsequently died childless, this woman would come before the brother of the deceased for levirate marriage, who is in this case her son. If so, there are in fact sixteen women with whom relations are forbidden.


###### Yevamot 9a:21
[Yevamot 9a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:21)

אִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו — פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן הִיא, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא לָא קָא מַיְירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, continued Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this is incorrect, as the case of **his mother raped by his father is** a matter of **dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.** According to Rabbi Yehuda, a woman raped by one’s father could never come before him for levirate marriage, as it is prohibited for her to marry his brothers. **And** the *tanna* of this mishna **does not deal with disputed** cases. The mishna enumerates only those cases that are accepted by all opinions, not those that are a matter of dispute.


###### Yevamot 9a:22
[Yevamot 9a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:22)

וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה וְאִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** does the *tanna* really **not** mention disputed cases? **But** there are the cases of **a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva** of the Sages, **and a prohibition** stemming from **sanctity.** In other words, the *tanna* does refer to the cases of a woman who one is prohibited to marry by decree of the Sages, e.g., a distant secondary forbidden relation, and one who is prohibited due to a regular prohibition that preserves the sanctity of the Jewish people or the priesthood.


###### Yevamot 9a:23
[Yevamot 9a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:23)

דִּפְלִיגִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבָּנַן — וְקָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
These are cases concerning **which Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree** whether these women are entirely exempt from both levirate marriage and *ḥalitza* like a forbidden relation, or whether the mitzva of levirate marriage does in fact apply but since the *yavam* may not marry her in practice, she must be released by *ḥalitza*. **And** yet these disputed cases **are taught** in the mishna.


###### Yevamot 9a:24
[Yevamot 9a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:24)

בְּפִרְקִין קָא אָמְרִינַן. וְהָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַתִּירִין אֶת הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: When **we say** that only accepted *halakhot* are included in the mishna, we are referring only to **our** present **chapter,** whereas the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis is stated in the second chapter. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** in this chapter it is stated that **Beit Shammai permit rival wives to the brothers,** as they hold that there is no prohibition against rival wives of those with whom relations are forbidden, **and Beit Hillel prohibit** this. Evidently, the first chapter does deal with disputed cases.


###### Yevamot 9a:25
[Yevamot 9a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/9a:25)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי בִּמְקוֹם בֵּית הִלֵּל אֵינָהּ מִשְׁנָה. וַהֲרֵי אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: When **Beit Shammai** express an opinion **where Beit Hillel** disagree, their opinion is considered as if it were **not** in the **mishna,** i.e., it is completely disregarded, as it is commonly accepted that the opinion of Beit Shammai is rejected and not ruled as *halakha*. Therefore, this cannot be considered a true dispute. The Gemara raises a further difficulty: **But** there is the case of **a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist,** i.e., the *yavam* was not alive at the time of his brother’s death.