Talmud for Yevamot 6:1

It turns out that Rebbi Ḥuna follows Abba Shaul, as we have stated²⁷A different formulation, stressing the opposition of the anonymous majority, in Babli 39b.: “Abba Shaul says, one who brings his sister-in-law into his house because of beauty or another reason²⁸Other than fulfilling the biblical commandment. commits intercourse of prostitution and the child is close to be a bastard²⁹Who is forbidden to marry a Jewish partner, Deut. 23:3..”

⁶³This paragraph is missing in ms. A and in the text reproduced by Rashba (Note 55). A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: ⁶⁴Mishnah 4:7.“If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.⁶⁵All relatives of his wife forbidden to a husband are forbidden to the levir who performs ḥalîṣah. Therefore, it seems that ḥalîṣah turns the widow into an ex-wife.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her⁶⁶This sentence is unintelligible and none of the commentators has an acceptable explanation. The only sensible way is to translate שכבר נראה not in the singular, “since he already is available”, but “since they (both brothers) are available” and neither has an advantage over the other as participant in ḥalîṣah. The question raised by the text is not answered since the prohibition is clearly rabbinic and independent of the nature of ḥalîṣah.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁶⁷Mishnah 4:8. The widow is biblically permitted to her levir but rabbinically forbidden; therefore, she needs ḥalîṣah. If ḥalîṣah were acquisition, she would be freed without ceremony.“If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together⁶⁸Since everybody knows that one cannot be married to two sisters simultaneously.? Explain it, after her⁶⁹If the first sister died, the second one is permited. Then one does not understand why she cannot have levirate. death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains⁷⁰If the first widow was alive when the second husband died, the second widow cannot have levirate. If then the first widow died, the situation is not changed for R. Eleazar.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁷¹Mishnah 3:5.“Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him⁷²The House of Shammai hold that “bespeaking” acquires like a betrothal; parallel the opinion of R. Eleazar ben Arakh (Halakhah 5, cf. Halakhah 1). Therefore, the first widow is his wife; the second is forbidden to him biblically and leaves the family without formality. and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah⁷³The House of Hillel hold that “bespeaking” is purely rabbinical and that the only legal consequence of “bespeaking” is to forbid the sister-in-law to the other brothers. Therefore, now the “bespoken” and the new widow have conflicting claims on him; he has to give ḥalîṣah to both of them and in addition a rabbinic bill of divorce for the rabbinic betrothal to the first widow.. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]⁶²It is clear that one must read פטור instead of קיניין. The next sentence is missing in ms. L; it is clear that the scribe of ms. L already had the error before him since ms. A also reproduces it. The sentence in brackets is only in ms. A, it is missing in ms. L since its scribe left out a sentence from קיניין to קיניין. It is unlikely that the insertion in A is a deliberate correction.. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁷⁴Mishnah 4:9, explained in Notes 7–9.“If a brother gives 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 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 his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁷⁵Mishnah 6:4. The High Priest may marry only a virgin. The verse (Lev. 21:14) reads: “A widow, a divorcee, a harlot, and a desecrated one he shall not acquire …”. Since marriage is formulated in terms of acquisition, if ḥalîṣah were acquisition, the widow of the High Priest’s brother either should be free without ḥalîṣah or never could be freed.“If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? ⁷⁶Mishnah 3:4. The second widow has to have ḥalîṣah if the first widow did. If the first was married in levirate, the second goes free without ceremony.“Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

Example. The elder Rebbi Hoshaia and Rebbi Judah Neśia were sitting together. Rebbi Joḥanan ran und whispered into Rebbi Hoshaia the elder’s ear: May a Cohen who is injured in his testicles marry the daughter of converts? He¹⁵⁶R. Jehudah Neśia. asked him, what did he tell you? He answered, a question which a carpenter, son of carpenters¹⁵⁷A Sage, son of Sages., cannot resolve. He did not ask me about a convert, since she is like a whore for him¹⁵⁸Mishnah 6:5.. He did not ask about an Israelite daughter, for she will be desecrated¹⁵⁹Since he remains a Cohen, he desecrates any woman forbidden to him.. He asked only about the daughter of converts! Is the daughter of converts not an Israel¹⁶⁰Mishnah Qiddushin 4:6. If she was conceived after conversion, she is an Israel for everybody except R. Jehudah who excludes descendants of converts from the priesthood on basis of Ez. 44:22. Cf. Bikkurim, Chapter 1, Notes 96, 104.? You have to explain it following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says, the daughter of a male convert has the status of a desecrated male¹⁶¹Since R. Jehudah is not followed in practice, R. Joḥanan’s question is answered in the negative even by a minor capacity such as R. Jehudah Neśia..