Commentary for Yevamot 13:15

לפי שיצא אשם מצורע לידון בדבר החדש בבהן יד ובהן רגל הימנית יכול לא יהא טעון מתן דמים ואימורים לגבי מזבח

Similarly here it might have been argued:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reading with BaH [H]. Cur. edd. retain [H] with no sign of abbreviation. ');">²⁸</span> Since a brother's wife was included among all the other forbidden relatives, why was she singled out? In order that [the others] may be compared to her, and in order to tell you that as a brother's wife is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be married to the levir if her husband died childless. ');">²⁹</span> so also are all the other forbidden relatives permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note. A text was consequently needed to intimate that the law was not so, ');">³⁰</span> Are these, however, similar? There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of consecrated objects. ');">³¹</span> both the general proposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 3. ');">³²</span> and the particular specification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 20. ');">²⁴</span> relate to a prohibition, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levirate marriage and forbidden relatives. ');">³³</span> the general proposition relates to a prohibition while the particular specification relates to something which is permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, could the two be compared? ');">³⁴</span> This, surely, is rather to be compared to an object that was included in a general proposition and was subsequently singled out in order to be made the subject of a fresh statement, which you cannot restore to the restrictions of the general proposition unless Scripture specifically restores it; for it was taught: Anything which was included in a general proposition and was subsequently excluded in order to be made the subject of a fresh statement, cannot be restored to the restrictions of the general proposition unless Scripture has explicitly restored it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, as the case of a brother's wife has not been restored to the general proposition, what need was there for the specific text of Lev. XVIII, 18? ');">³⁵</span> How<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the continuation of the quotation. ');">³⁶</span> [may this principle be illustrated]? And he shall kill the he-lamb in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the burnt-offering in the place of the Sanctuary; for as the sin-offering is the priest's so is the guilt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 13, dealing with the leper's guilt-offering. ');">³⁷</span> Now since there was no need to state, 'As the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the place of killing was indicated at the beginning of the verse while the other regulations concerning this sacrifice are found in the laws of the guilt-offering in Lev. VII, 1ff. ');">³⁸</span> why did Scripture explicitly state. As the sin-offering so the guilt-offering? Because seeing that the guilt-offering of the leper was singled out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the laws relating to other guilt-offerings. ');">³⁹</span> in order to impart a new law concerning the thumb of the right hand and the great toe of the right foot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIV, 14. ');">⁴⁰</span> it might have been assumed that it required no application of blood to, and no burning of the prescribed portions of the sacrifice upon the altar;

Explore commentary for Yevamot 13:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.