Commentary for Yevamot 28:14

לא תימא מן הספק אלא אימא מן הסתם דמודעי להו ופרשי

acted [in accordance with their own views] one can well understand why they abstained. If, however, you assume that they did not so act, why did they abstain? — And how do you understand this? Even if it be granted that they did act (in accordance with their own views], one can only understand why Beth Hillel abstained from intermarrying with Beth Shammai, because the latter, in the opinion of Beth Hillel, were guilty of offences involving <i>kareth</i> and their descendants were consequently bastards; as to Beth Shammai, however, why did they abstain from intermarrying with Beth Hillel, when they were [even in the opinion of Beth Shammai] only guilty of the infringement of a negative precept and [their descendants] were consequently legitimate? — As R. Nahman said elsewhere that the statement was required only for the case of the rival herself, so here also the Statement is required for the case of the rival herself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom Beth Shammai abstained from marrying before she performed the halizah. ');">²⁴</span> Why is a doubtful case different from a case of a certainty? Obviously because it is forbidden. Is not a doubtful case also forbidden? — Do not read, 'from a doubtful case', but 'from a case unknown', since when they received the information they kept away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So long, therefore, as no report had been received the unknown case was assumed to belong to the pure families. ');">²⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 28:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.