תלמוד על יבמות 1:2

What if there is a co-wife²³Since none of the sisters can be married (Mishnah 3:1), could any co-wife of one of them be married?? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman with whom one performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic²⁴The imputation of the status of divorcee to any woman having performed ḥalîṣah is purely rabbinic. Therefore, the prohibition of the sister of a woman with whom he had performed ḥalîṣah and her co-wives is not biblical., here, where there is the prohibition of sisters²⁵Lev. 18:18., not so much more? It is obvious that the rule of co-wives applies to his daughter²⁶Since this is a case of Mishnah 1:1, the sentence is superfluous. It is missing in ms. A.. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Avina: One has stated there²⁷A baraita referring to the case of Mishnah 3:1, partially quoted in Babli, 27a., “if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed; if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives were not freed.” But as you say, if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, so it should be that even if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives should be freed²⁸Since the House of Hillel hold that a woman forbidden for levirate gives the same status to her co-wives, it seems illogical to give the co-wives a status different from that of the sisters.. But it must follow Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah without being admitted to levirate²⁹Chapter 1, Notes 200–204.. Did they institute that? Was it not stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. But it must follow the House of Shammai³⁰Same conclusion in Babli, 27a. since the House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. Rebbi Phineas said to Rebbi Yose: If it follows the House of Shammai, even if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sistersshould not be freed³¹If ḥalîṣah of the sisters is worthless for the co-wives then ḥalîṣah of the co-wives should be worthless for the sisters since the House of Shammai validate a marriage of the sisters.! But we have stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce. There are two Tannaïm interpreting the House of Shammai, one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, the other one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were not freed.

Why are Samaritans disqualified¹²⁰Why does one not intermarry with Samaritans?? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are lions’ proselytes¹²¹The originally Gentile part of the population of Samaria adopted the worship “of the local god” because they were attacked by lions, 2K. 17:24–41. In the Babli, Qiddušin 75b, this is identified as the teaching of R. Ismael.. But if somebody converted not for Heaven’s sake and then converted for Heaven’s sake, does one not accept him¹²²That argument may have had validity in the first few generations after the destruction of Samaria, but in talmudic times the Samaritans had been monotheists for at least 700 years.? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Eleazar¹²³In Jebamot 7:6 (Note 129), “R. Ismael”. In the Babli, loc.cit., identified as teaching of R. Aqiba.: Because the child is a bastard if a Gentile or a slave have intercourse with a Jewish woman¹²⁴Assuming that the deportees from Cutha and Media who were resettled in Samaria were mostly male. When they intermarried with local Jewish women, in this opinion the children were all bastards.. But did not Rebbi Aqiba say, they are genuine proselytes¹²⁵Even if the preceding opinion were generally accepted, which it is not, it would be irrelevant concerning Samaritans. Agreed to in the Babli, loc.cit.? Because they require levirate marriage from the preliminarily married and free the definitively married¹²⁶Jebamot 1, Notes 192–196. Pharisaic tradition frees the preliminarily married woman and obligates the definitively married one. The Samaritan ruling had its partisans among the rabbinic school of Shammai (Jebamot 1:6, Note 193.). But do not the rabbis say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law¹²⁷Even if a childless widow flouts the rules and marries an unrelated man without ḥalîṣah, the child is not a bastard and can marry in the congregation (Mishnah Jebamot 4:15). Therefore even a Samaritan who is the offspring of a rabbinically forbidden marriage should be an acceptable marriage partner.? Because they are not conversant with the fine points in writing bills of divorce¹²⁸There could be women divorced according to Samaritan rules who would not be considered divorced by rabbinic rules and, therefore, their children in a second marriage would be bastards not eligible for marriage with Jews.. But does not Rabban Gamliel accept their bills of divorce¹⁰⁶Kafr ‘Uthnay, a village near Megiddo on the Southern border of Jewish Galilee (Mishnah 7:7). While the Mishnah speaks only of a Samaritan witness, Rabban Gamliel accepted two Samaritans.? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they intermingled with the priests of the High Places: “He chose priests from the borderline of the people,¹²⁹1K. 12:31. The root קצה “to be distant, of the elite” of מקצת is identified with קוץ, קצץ “to cut, to chop off”, one of whose derivatives is קוֹץ “thorn”. (The same explanation is in the Babli, loc.cit., of R. Joḥanan following R. Ismael.) In any case, there is no reason to exclude marriages with Samaritans other than general convention; but cf. Demay 3:4, Note 98.”. Rebbi Ila said, from the “thorns” of the people, i. e., from the disqualified of the people.