Yevamot 14

תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יד, יג) כי כחטאת האשם הוא מה חטאת טעונה מתן דמים ואימורים לגבי מזבח אף אשם טעון מתן דמים ואימורים לגבי מזבח

hence it was explicitly stated, 'As the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering': As the sin-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a leper. ');">¹</span> requires application of the blood to, and burning of the prescribed portions upon the altar, so does the guilt-offering also require application of the blood to, and burning of the prescribed portions upon the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 49a. ');">²</span> Had Scripture not restored it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The leper's guilt-offering and brought it into line with other guilt-offerings. ');">³</span> however, it would have been assumed that it was singled out only in respect of what was explicitly specified but not in any other respect;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to what it went out, it went out; and to what it did not go out, it did not go out'. ');">⁴</span>

ואי לא אהדריה קרא ה"א למאי דנפק נפק ולמאי דלא נפק לא נפק ה"נ ה"א אשת אח דאישתרא אישתראי שאר עריות לא

so also here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the levirate marriage. ');">⁵</span> I would assume, only a brother's wife who was explicitly mentioned [can be said] to be permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that was permitted is permitted'. ');">⁶</span> but not any of the other forbidden relatives!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question consequently arises again: What need was there for ''aleha' in Lev. XVIII, 18. (Cf. supra p. 30, n. s). ');">⁷</span> But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why a superfluous text (v. previous note) was needed. ');">⁸</span>

אלא סד"א תיתי במה מצינו מאשת אח מה אשת אח מייבמה אף אחות אשה תתייבם

it might have been assumed that the law of a wife's sister<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this reading v. BaH. ');">⁹</span> should be deduced from what has been found in the case of a brother's wife; as a levir may marry his brother's wife so he may also marry his wife's sister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it was necessary to have the superfluous text, ''aleha' (v. supra n. 4) to shew that the law was not so. ');">¹⁰</span> Are, however, the two cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brother's wife and wife's sister. ');">¹¹</span> similar? In the one case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there', a brother's wife. ');">¹²</span>

מי דמי התם חד איסורא הכא תרי איסורי מהו דתימא הואיל ואישתרי אישתרי

there is only one prohibition; in the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here', a wife's sister. ');">¹³</span> there are two prohibitions!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibitions to marry (a) a brother's wife and (b) a wife's sister. How then could the one be deduced from the other? ');">¹⁴</span> — It might have been assumed that since she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A brother's wife who is also one's wife's sister and whose husband died childless. ');">¹⁵</span> was permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the positive precept of the levirate marriage. ');">¹⁶</span>

ומנא תימרא דאמרינן הואיל ואישתרי אישתרי דתניא מצורע שחל שמיני שלו בערב הפסח וראה קרי בו ביום וטבל אמרו חכמים אע"פ שאין טבול יום אחר נכנס זה נכנס

[in respect of one prohibition]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of marrying a brother's wife. ');">¹⁷</span> she was also permitted [in the case of the other].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of marrying one's wife's sister. Hence etc. V. supra note 7. ');">¹⁸</span> And whence is it derived that we assume that 'since something was permitted [in one respect] it was also permitted [in the other]'? — From what was taught: In the case of a leper whose eighth day [of purification]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which he completes the days of his purification and brings the prescribed sacrifices, presenting himself (whither as a leper he was till that day forbidden to enter) on the Temple mount at the entrance to the Nikanor gate of the Sanctuary, from where he extends his thumb and great toe into the Sanctuary (whither he is not yet allowed to enter) for the priest to apply to them some of the sacrificial blood, v. Nazir, Sonc. ed. p. 165ff. ');">¹⁹</span> fell on the Passover eve,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the paschal lamb is sacrificed to be eaten in the evening. ');">²⁰</span>

מוטב שיבא עשה שיש בו כרת וידחה עשה שאין בו כרת ואמר ר' יוחנן דבר תורה אפי' עשה לית ביה

and who, having observed a discharge of semen on that day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a discharge ordinarily disqualifies a man from entering the Temple mount. ');">²¹</span> had taken a ritual bath, the Sages said: Although no other tebul yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] one who has had his ritual bath and is awaiting nightfall for the completion of his purification. ');">²²</span> may enter [the Temple mount],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before nightfall. ');">²³</span> this one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The leper in the circumstances mentioned. ');">²⁴</span>

שנאמר (דברי הימים ב כ, ה) ויעמוד יהושפט בקהל יהודה לפני החצר החדשה מאי חצר החדשה אמר (ר' יוחנן) שחדשו בה דברים ואמרו טבול יום לא יכנס למחנה לויה

may enter, for it is better that the positive precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the paschal lamb. ');">²⁵</span> the non-observance of which involves <i>kareth</i>, shall supersede a positive precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a leper like certain other unclean persons must be sent out from the Levitical camp in which the Temple mount is included. ');">²⁶</span> the infringement of which involves no <i>kareth</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he were not allowed to enter the Temple mount his purification from leprosy could not have been completed (cf. supra p. 31, n. 16) and he would in consequence have been prevented from participating in the paschal lamb. By allowing him to enter he is enabled to complete his purification, while nightfall would also terminate the uncleanness due to the discharge, and thus he is in a position to participate in the evening in the paschal lamb which during the day is prepared for him by a deputy. ');">²⁷</span> And in connection with this R. Johanan said: According to the Torah, not even [the infringement of] a positive precept is involved,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In allowing the leper in the conditions mentioned to enter the Temple court. ');">²⁸</span>

ואמר עולא מה טעם הואיל והותר לצרעתו הותר לקרויו מי דמי לדעולא

for it is said, And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah&nbsp;… before the new court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. XX, 5, referring to a day when Israel completed a period of purification. ');">²⁹</span> What is meant by the new court? Rabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the reading also in Zeb. 32b. Cur. edd. enclose in parentheses 'R. Johanan'. ');">³⁰</span> replied: That they enacted therein new laws, ordaining that a tebul yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³¹</span> must not enter the camp of the Levites.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that the prohibition for a tebul yom to enter the Levitical camp was not of Pentateuchal origin, having been first enacted in the days of Jehoshaphat. ');">³²</span> And 'Ulla said: 'What is the reason?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why was a leper in the circumstances mentioned permitted to extend his hands into the Sanctuary whither an unclean person, according to 'Ulla, may not project even part of his body? ');">³³</span> Since he was given permission<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To project his hands into the Sanctuary. ');">³⁴</span> in respect of his leprosy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Despite the prohibition for an unclean person, though the days of his purification have been duly observed, to enter the Sanctuary even partially, prior to the offering of the prescribed sacrifices. ');">³⁵</span> permission was also given to him in respect of his discharge of the semen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is proved that since something was permitted in one respect the permission remains in force even when another prohibition may be involved in another respect. The same argument might have also applied to a wife's sister or widow of a deceased brother. Hence the need of the text, ''aleha'. ');">³⁶</span> But is this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A brother's wife who is also one's wife's sister. ');">³⁷</span> similar to that of 'Ulla?