Yevamot 167

Chapter 167

א הכלאים וטרפה ויוצא דופן טומטום ואנדרוגינוס לא קדושין ולא מקדשין
1 A hybrid, <i>terefah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> one that was extracted through the abdominal wall,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of the 'Caesarean operation'. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> the <i>tumtum</i> and the hermaphrodite can neither become sacred nor can they impart sanctity to others;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 17a. V. also op. cit. 11a and Bek. 42a. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> and Samuel explained: They neither become sacred by means of exchange,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If any of these was exchanged for a consecrated beast. (Cf. Lev. XXVII, 10). That these cannot be directly consecrated is obvious. Cf. Bek. 14a. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ב ואמר שמואל לא קדושין בתמורה ולא מקדשין בעושה תמורה ש"מ:
2 nor do they impart sanctity [to any other beast]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they themselves were sacred. In the case of the hybrid, tumtum and hermaphrodite their sanctity is possible only where they were born from a consecrated beast. In the case of the terefah and the one extracted by means of the Caesarean operation sanctity is possible if the former was consecrated before it became terefah and the latter while it was still in its embryonic state. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> by causing it to become an exchange.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXVII, 10. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> This proves [what has been said]. R. ELIEZER STATED&nbsp;… THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. It was taught: Rabbi related, 'When I went to learn Torah at [the school of] R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a, his disciples combined against me like the cocks of Beth Bukya<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A town in Upper Galilee notorious for its fierce cocks who do not allow the intrusion of a strange cock among them (Rashi). ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ג ר' אליעזר אומר חייבין עליו סקילה כזכר: תניא א"ר כשהלכתי ללמוד תורה אצל ר' אלעזר בן שמוע חברו עלי תלמידיו כתרנגולים של בית בוקיא ולא הניחוני ללמוד אלא דבר אחד במשנתינו רבי אליעזר אומר אנדרוגינוס חייבין עליו סקילה כזכר:
3 and did not let me learn more than this single thing in our Mishnah: R. ELIEZER STATED: [FOR COPULATION WITH] AN HERMAPHRODITE THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. SOME WOMEN ARE PERMITTED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In marriage. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBLDDEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In marriage. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> TO THEIR LEVIRS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If their husbands died without issue when, in ordinary cases, it is the duty of the levir to marry his deceased brother's widow. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ד <br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הערל</strong></big><br><br>
4 OTHERS ARE PERMITTED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In marriage. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In marriage. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> TO THEIR HUSBANDS, OTHERS ARE PERMITTED TO BOTH THE FORMER AND THE LATTER, WHILE OTHERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO THE FORMER AS WELL AS TO THE LATTER. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE WOMEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and these'. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> ARE PERMITTED TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBIDDEN TO THEIR LEVIRS: IF A COMMON PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST; IF A HALAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ה מתני׳ <big><strong>יש מותרות</strong></big> לבעליהן ואסורות ליבמיהן מותרות ליבמיהן ואסורות לבעליהן מותרות לאלו ולאלו ואסורות לאלו ולאלו
5 WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eligible to marry a priest. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of pure priestly stock. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In marriage. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBIDDEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A town in Upper Galilee notorious for its fierce cocks who do not allow the intrusion of a strange cock among them (Rashi). ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ו ואלו מותרות לבעליהן ואסורות ליבמיהן כהן הדיוט שנשא את האלמנה ויש לו אח כ"ג חלל שנשא כשרה ויש לו אח כשר
6 TO THEIR LEVIRS. THE FOLLOWING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and these'. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> ARE PERMITTED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In marriage. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In marriage. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ז ישראל שנשא בת ישראל ויש לו אח ממזר ממזר שנשא ממזרת ויש לו אח ישראל מותרות לבעליהן ואסורות ליבמיהן
7 TO THEIR HUSBANDS: IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO BETROTHED A WIDOW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But did not marry her. If marriage took place the woman would in consequence be ineligible to marry even a common priest. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> HAD A BROTHER A COMMON PRIEST; IF ONE OF LEGITIMATE STATUS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of pure priestly stock. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> WHO MARRIED A HALALAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> HAD A BROTHER A HALAL;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ח ואלו מותרות ליבמיהן ואסורות לבעליהן כ"ג שקידש את האלמנה ויש לו אח כהן הדיוט כשר שנשא חללה ויש לו אח חלל ישראל שנשא ממזרת ויש לו אח ממזר ממזר שנשא בת ישראל ויש לו אח ישראל מותרות ליבמיהן ואסורות לבעליהן
8 IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN TO THEIR HUSBANDS. THE FOLLOWING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and these'. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> ARE FORBIDDEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In marriage. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> TO BOTH THE FORMER AND THE LATTER;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to these and to these'. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ט ואלו אסורות לאלו ולאלו כהן גדול שנשא את האלמנה ויש לו אח כהן גדול או כהן הדיוט כשר שנשא חללה ויש לו אח כשר ישראל שנשא ממזרת ויש לו אח ישראל ממזר שנשא בת ישראל ויש לו אח ממזר אסורות לאלו ולאלו ושאר כל הנשים מותרות לבעליהן וליבמיהן
9 IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST, OR IF A COMMON PRIEST OF LEGITIMATE STATUS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of pure priestly stock. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> WHO MARRIED A HALALAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of pure priestly stock. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> OR IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE FORBIDDEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In marriage. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
י שניות מד"ס שנייה לבעל ולא שנייה ליבם אסורה לבעל ומותרת ליבם שנייה ליבם ולא שנייה לבעל אסורה ליבם ומותרת לבעל שנייה לזה ולזה אסורה לזה ולזה
10 BOTH TO THE FORMER AND THE LATTER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to these and to these'. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> ALL OTHER WOMEN ARE PERMITTED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In marriage. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> TO BOTH THEIR HUSBANDS AND THEIR LEVIRS. [IN RESPECT OF] RELATIVES OF THE SECOND GRADE, [WHO ARE FORBIDDEN] BY THE ORDINANCES OF THE SCRIBES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 201, 211. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יא אין לה לא כתובה ולא פירות ולא מזונות ולא בלאות והולד כשר וכופין אותו להוציא
11 A WOMAN WHO IS WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE HUSBAND BUT NOT WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE LEVIR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for instance, the woman was the husband's mother's mother and the levir was his paternal, but not his maternal brother. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> IS FORBIDDEN TO THE HUSBAND AND PERMITTED TO THE LEVIR; [A WOMAN WHO IS WITHIN] THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE LEVIR BUT NOT WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE HUSBAND IS FORBIDDEN TO THE LEVIR AND PERMITTED TO THE HUSBAND; [WHILE ONE WHO IS WITHIN] THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE ONE AND TO THE OTHER IS FORBIDDEN TO THE ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER. SHE CANNOT CLAIM EITHER <i>KETHUBAH</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> OR USUFRUCT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the husband had consumed. The reason is given infra 89a. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> OR ALIMONY, OR HER WORN CLOTHES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which she brought to her husband at their marriage. She has no claim upon such clothes even if they were still available (Rashi). According to Tosaf. (infra 85a, s.v. [H]) she is entitled to such clothes, and the ruling here applies to compensation for clothes which have been completely worn out. Cf Keth. 201a. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יב אלמנה לכ"ג גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ממזרת ונתינה לישראל בת ישראל לנתין ולממזר יש להן כתובה:
12 [SHOULD A] CHILD [BE BORN HE] IS ELIGIBLE [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD]; BUT THE HUSBAND MUST BE COMPELLED TO DIVORCE HER. A WIDOW, HOWEVER, WHO WAS MARRIED TO A HIGH PRIEST, A DIVORCEE OR <i>HALUZAH</i> WHO WAS MARRIED TO A COMMON PRIEST, A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE, OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS MARRIED TO A NATHIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> OR A BASTARD IS ENTITLED TO HER <i>KETHUBAH</i>. GEMARA. What was the point in teaching MARRIED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first section of our Mishnah. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי איריא דתני נשא ליתני קידש
13 He could have taught: 'Betrothed'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if only betrothal had taken place the woman would be permitted to her husband and forbidden to the levir. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> And were you to reply that the reason [for the prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> is only] because he MARRIED, since [in that case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the levir is a High Priest. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> a positive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A virgin&nbsp;… shall (positive) he take (Lev. XXI, 14) but not a widow (negative). A negative derived from a positive has only the force of a positive. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יד וכ"ת טעמא דנשא דהוה ליה עשה ולא תעשה אבל קידש אתי עשה ודוחה לא תעשה והא כולה פירקין עשה ולא תעשה הוא ולא אתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה
14 as well as a negative<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A widow&nbsp;… shall he not (negative) take (ibid.). ');"><sup>30</sup></span> precept is involved,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were the levirate marriage to take place two precepts would have been overridden by the single positive precept of the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> but where betrothal only took place the positive precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> does override the negative;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 7. The positive precept. A virgin&nbsp;… shall he take (v. supra note 6) is not in this case infringed, since a widow after a betrothal is still in her virginity. ');"><sup>32</sup></span>
טו משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא כ"ג שנשא את האלמנה דוקא נשא דשוייה חללה אבל קידש שריא ליה תנא נמי רישא נשא
15 but [it could be retorted] the whole of our section deals with a positive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> versus a negative precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bastard, for instance, to an Israelite. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> and the positive nevertheless does not override the negative! — As it was desired to state in the final clause, A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW, [who is forbidden]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To his brother who is a common priest. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> only where [the High Priest] MARRIED her, since in that case he caused her to be a halalah, but [not where he only] betrothed [her in which case] she is permitted [to his brother],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to him'. ');"><sup>36</sup></span>
טז ואדתני משום סיפא ליתני משום מציעתא כ"ג שקידש את האלמנה ויש לו אח כהן הדיוט אלא משום בת בוקתא דקבעי למיתני חלל שנשא כשרה טעמא דנשא דשוייה חללה אבל קידש שריא ליה משום הכי קתני נשא
16 he taught in the first clause also: MARRIED. But why should the expression<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first section of our Mishnah. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> be determined by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and instead of teaching on account of'. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> the final clause? Let it be determined by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'let him teach on account of'. ');"><sup>39</sup></span>
יז ומאי איריא דקתני אלמנה ליתני בתולה
17 the middle clause: IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO BETROTHED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A COMMON PRIEST!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the expression used was BETROTHED, and not 'married'. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> — The determining factor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the use of the expression of MARRIED. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> rather, is the case immediately following in the same context.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but because of the daughter of the (same) valley'. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> As it was desired to teach, IF A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS, where the reason [for her prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To his brother. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> is] because [the halal] MARRIED her and thus caused her to become a halalah, but where he had only betrothed her she would have been permitted to him; MARRIED was, therefore, taught [here also].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first case, that of the common priest who married a widow. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> What point, however, was there in teaching, A widow? He should have taught: 'A virgin'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, becoming a widow after her husband's death, is, like one who was married as a widow, forbidden to a High Priest. ');"><sup>45</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter