Talmud for Yevamot 7:1
הכל מודין בצרה שהוא חייב. מה פליגין בחלוצה ר' יוחנן אמר הוא אינו חייב על החלוצה והאחין חייבין על החלוצה מיליהון דרבנין אמרי חליצה פטור שמעון בר בא בעא קומי רבי יוחנן מה בין חולץ ומה בין מגרש. א"ל את סבור חליצה קניין אינה אלא פטור אין האחין חייבין עליה משום אשתו של חולץ אבל חייבין עליה משום אשתו של מת ר' יודן בעא כמה דאמר בין הוא בין אחין אינן חייבין על החלוצה אבל חייבין על הצרה.
R. Aha said: It is written (in Gen. xliv. 3): "As soon as the morning was light." The Tori calls the light "morning." R. Ishmael taught: It is written "every morning," so as to give a limit for him who desires to know when the morning commences. R. Yosse bar R. Aboon said: If you think to call night, the time that the sun takes to traverse the heavens (from dawn to radiancy), it would be equivalent to saying that the day and the night do not resemble each other (the night would lengthen out to the morning by this addition; but we are taught that on the first day of the Equinox of Nissan ', and on the first day of the Equinox of Tissri, the day and the night are equal). R. Hoona says: One can accept the usual custom as a term of comparison. Thus, when the king starts to go out, he is said to be out; but when he commences to return, he is not said to be returned, until it is an accomplished fact (it is the same with the sun). In standing up to recite the Prayer ('Amida), the feet must be met. There are two opinions on this subject, viz. that of R. Levi, and that of R. Shimon. The one says: it is to imitate the angels; the other says: it is to imitate the priests. The latter opinion is founded on the verse, " Neither shalt thou go up by steps to mine altar" (Exod. xx. 2); for the priests had to go to the altar by placing the toe beside the heel, and the heel beside the toe (i.e. by taking very little steps). The former opinion is based on the verse, " And their feet were straight feet" (Ezek. i. 7). Now, II. Hanina bar-Andira, in the name of R. Samuel bar-Zootai, says : The angels have no knee-joint, according to (Dan. vii. 16), " I came near unto one of them, that stood (always) by.'" R. Hoona says: If one sees the priests in the Synagogue at the time of their first blessing of the people, one must say: «' Bless the Lord, ye his angels" (Ps. ciii. 20); if at the second benediction: "Bless ye the Lord, all ye his hosts" (Ps. ciii. 21); if at the third benediction: "Bless the Lord, all his works" (Ps. ciii. 22). For the Prayer of Mousaph (additional)
Jerusalem Talmud Sotah
There26Mishnah 4:4; a fuller text in Tosephta 5:4 and Babli 26a as the minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar; as an alternative explanation in Sifry Num. 19., we have stated: “A she-ram27A woman lacking secondary female sex characteristics, cf. Yebamot, Chapter 1, Note 65., an old woman28A post-menopausal woman., or a sterile one neither drinks nor collects her ketubah,” as it is said29Num. 5:28.: “She will be declared innocent and bear seed,” [this refers to] one able to bear seed; it excludes one who is unable to bear seed. They objected, is there not the widow [married to] the High Priest, is she not able to bear seed30Why is she excluded from drinking (Mishnah 2)?? There is a difference, since it is written31Lev. 21:15.: “He may not desecrate his seed among his people.31Lev. 21:15.” There32Since any child of the widow will be desecrated, it is not counted as the High Priest’s child. Therefore, as far as he is concerned, his wife is unable to bear children., we have stated: “A bastard disables and enables to eat. How is this?” And here he says so? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, there, “she has no issue” of any kind, but here33Mishnah Yebamot7:7. An Israel woman widowed from a Cohen may eat heave as long as any Jewish descendant of her husband’s is alive; a Cohen woman widowed from an Israel may not eat heave as long as any Jewish descendant of her husband’s is alive. one requires enabled seed, not disabled seed. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the water only serves to permit her to her house; but about this one one tells him to divorce once she went to a secluded place34He rejects the earlier attempt to find a biblical source to the rejection of the widow and explains Lev. 21:15 as: “He is forbidden to desecrate his seed.” The rule excluding the High Priest’s widow is rabbinical. If the Temple court refuses to administer the water, the widow remains permanently forbidden to her husband, who therefore is forced to divorce her..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
HALAKHAH: “A widow to the High Priest,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “Being” is mentioned here54Lev. 21:7: “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if a girl will be betrothed to a man55Deut. 22:23, a shortened quote..” Just as “being” there means betrothal, so “being” here means betrothal56The status of sanctity of a woman entering a Cohen’s house is determined by her betrothal. The argument follows R. Ismael’s rule, Note 45.. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon? “Being” is mentioned here54Lev. 21:7: “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s57Lev. 22:12.”. Just as “being” there means marriage, so “being” here means marriage. Rebbi Yosa said, from where do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon know that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave58In Mishnah 7:4 it is stated without opposition that betrothal of a Cohen’s daughter to an Israel disables her from eating have (but does not enable a daughter of an Israel engaged to a Cohen to eat heave).? Not from that verse, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”? Here they make it betrothal, there they make it marriage!59The question remains unanswered, the arguments presented up to here are inconsistent. What is the reason of the rabbis? “A man’s”, the man who enables to eat60Sifra Emor Parashah5(7): “ ‘If the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s’, this includes not only a bastard, from where even to a Levi or an Israel? The verse says, ‘an outside man’s’. From where a widow to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah to a private Cohen? The verse says ‘a man’s’, a man’s who enables to eat.”
The rather cryptic argument here and in Sifra makes reference to the rule (Mishnah 7:3) that only a man can enable a (non-priestly) woman to eat heave, not a fetus. An Israel woman married to a Cohen eats heave as long as her husband is alive or after his death if she has children, but not if she is the pregnant widow of an otherwise childless man. She will only regain her status as member of the priestly clan after she has given birth. This explains the emphasis of the verse which is formulated לאיש זר and not simply לזר.
For the rabbis, the entire verse refers to betrothal.. Is it not an argument de minore ad majus61Sifra Emor Parashah 5(8). The Babli, 56b, tries an equally invalid argument.? Since an Israel, whose intercourse does not disable her62A (widowed) daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel may return to her priestly status if she becomes a childless widow. from the priesthood, by intercourse will disable her from eating heave63Once she is married to an Israel by intercourse, she is barred from eating heave., the High Priest, whose intercourse does disable her from the priesthood64He desecrates any widow by his intercourse., it should be logical that his intercourse will disable her from eating heave. No. If you argue about an Israel who cannot enable others to eat, what can you say about the High Priest who can enable others to eat? Since he can enable others to eat, his intercourse should not disable her from eating heave. The argument de minore ad majus is broken, and one has to return to the verse. Therefore, it must say “a man’s”; viz., the man who enables her to eat. 53Text from ms. A.
Ms. L and editio princeps: מַה טַעֲמָא לֹא אָֽמְרוּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִישּׂוּאִין פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִלּוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לוֹכַל אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא אִם לֹא יְדָעָהּ מִשּׁוּם מַה נַעֲשֶׂה פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הֲרֵי יֹאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. הָדָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲכִיל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין פְּסוּלוֹת. לֹא נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין .מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין כְּשֵׁירוֹת.
What is the reason that Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon did not say that marriage disables them from eating heave? What do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon in this case? Because he may eat or because he is not fit to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her why his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he enables to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only from marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled.
The text is seen to be corrupt. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon65Interpreting the same verse as do the majority rabbis., because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following66Mishnah 8:1. Since men with injured testicles or torn-off penis cannot marry (Deut. 23:2), if they are Cohanim their intercourse desecrates. They themselves are also barred from eating sanctified food. If they were healthy when they married, their wives retain their priestly status even if the priest who brought them into the priesthood loses his.: “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon67The Amora R. Eleazar holds that the rabbis, who exclude the betrothed in a forbidden union from eating heave even though betrothal is an acquisition, must also exclude the wife of a man whose intercourse will disable her. The statement is quoted in the Babli, 75a, and contrasted (as in the Yerushalmi, Halakhah 8:1) with the opinion of R. Joḥanan that the rabbis can agree because she started to eat with permission; that permission cannot disappear without anything happening involving her person. According to R. Joḥanan, nothing is proven here.. You have to say, here it is because he68The Cohen before his accident. enables to eat, there69The High Priest who never could enable a widow. because he cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not really from betrothal or marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled70In the Babli, 57b, this is the opinion of Samuel, interpreting the position of the rabbis (against the authoritative opinion of Rav)..
The rather cryptic argument here and in Sifra makes reference to the rule (Mishnah 7:3) that only a man can enable a (non-priestly) woman to eat heave, not a fetus. An Israel woman married to a Cohen eats heave as long as her husband is alive or after his death if she has children, but not if she is the pregnant widow of an otherwise childless man. She will only regain her status as member of the priestly clan after she has given birth. This explains the emphasis of the verse which is formulated לאיש זר and not simply לזר.
For the rabbis, the entire verse refers to betrothal.. Is it not an argument de minore ad majus61Sifra Emor Parashah 5(8). The Babli, 56b, tries an equally invalid argument.? Since an Israel, whose intercourse does not disable her62A (widowed) daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel may return to her priestly status if she becomes a childless widow. from the priesthood, by intercourse will disable her from eating heave63Once she is married to an Israel by intercourse, she is barred from eating heave., the High Priest, whose intercourse does disable her from the priesthood64He desecrates any widow by his intercourse., it should be logical that his intercourse will disable her from eating heave. No. If you argue about an Israel who cannot enable others to eat, what can you say about the High Priest who can enable others to eat? Since he can enable others to eat, his intercourse should not disable her from eating heave. The argument de minore ad majus is broken, and one has to return to the verse. Therefore, it must say “a man’s”; viz., the man who enables her to eat. 53Text from ms. A.
Ms. L and editio princeps: מַה טַעֲמָא לֹא אָֽמְרוּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִישּׂוּאִין פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִלּוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לוֹכַל אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא אִם לֹא יְדָעָהּ מִשּׁוּם מַה נַעֲשֶׂה פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הֲרֵי יֹאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. הָדָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲכִיל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין פְּסוּלוֹת. לֹא נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין .מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין כְּשֵׁירוֹת.
What is the reason that Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon did not say that marriage disables them from eating heave? What do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon in this case? Because he may eat or because he is not fit to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her why his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he enables to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only from marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled.
The text is seen to be corrupt. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon65Interpreting the same verse as do the majority rabbis., because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following66Mishnah 8:1. Since men with injured testicles or torn-off penis cannot marry (Deut. 23:2), if they are Cohanim their intercourse desecrates. They themselves are also barred from eating sanctified food. If they were healthy when they married, their wives retain their priestly status even if the priest who brought them into the priesthood loses his.: “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon67The Amora R. Eleazar holds that the rabbis, who exclude the betrothed in a forbidden union from eating heave even though betrothal is an acquisition, must also exclude the wife of a man whose intercourse will disable her. The statement is quoted in the Babli, 75a, and contrasted (as in the Yerushalmi, Halakhah 8:1) with the opinion of R. Joḥanan that the rabbis can agree because she started to eat with permission; that permission cannot disappear without anything happening involving her person. According to R. Joḥanan, nothing is proven here.. You have to say, here it is because he68The Cohen before his accident. enables to eat, there69The High Priest who never could enable a widow. because he cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not really from betrothal or marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled70In the Babli, 57b, this is the opinion of Samuel, interpreting the position of the rabbis (against the authoritative opinion of Rav)..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
“If they are unable to marry in Israel they disable.” These are111Babli 68a, Tosephta Yebamot8:1, Niddah 6:1.: “A child of nine years and one day112Mishnah 4., an Ammonite, Moabite, or Egyptian113Mishnah Yadaim 4:4 notes that modern Ammonites, Moabites, and Egyptians are no longer the peoples living in these places at the time of the Exodus; therefore, the prohibitions ofDeut. 23:4–9 are no longer operative. All arguments based on these rules are theoretical exercises of retrospection. proselyte, or a bastard, desecrated, Gibeonite114Cf. Chapter 2, Note 72., Samaritan115Their problems are discussed in the next Halakhah., and Gentile who had intercourse with the daughter of an Israel, a Cohen, or a Levite, disqualified her for the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified; his intercourse does not disqualify those whose descendant would not be disqualified. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in all cases, if his daughter is permitted to you, so is his widow116For a Cohen, not necessarily for anybody else.; if his daughter is not permitted to you, neither is his widow.” In what do they differ? Rebbi Joḥanan says, an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte117A female Moabite or Ammonite was never prohibited from marrying a Jew (Mishnah 8:3; Sifry Deut. 249.). The same argument in Babli 69a. is between them. For him who says, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified, here since his descendant118If he is a male (Mishnah 8:3). would be disqualified, his intercourse disqualifies. For him who says, if you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow, here since you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of [the rabbis], Rebbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian119Any third generation Egyptian, male or female, is permitted; Deut. 23:9; Mishnah 8:3., even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. Rebbi Zakkai: Rebbi Alexander sent to ask [about] the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte and the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian. Rebbi Yose said to him, did you not hear that Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of the rabbis, Rebbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. And everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified. Do we not need it when her mother was from Israel? That you should not say that since her mother was desecrated so her daughter was desecrated. In addition, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed, the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian120From a Jewish mother., Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are disqualified. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, they disagree about the old women121The mother, the wife of an Ammonite or second generation Egyptian.: Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable122He follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Alexander’s question is not answered since it is moot anyhow., Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are disqualified.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy