כה בית שמאי במקום בית הלל אינה משנה והרי אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו
25 was required, because it might have been suggested that whereas the congregation, in the case of an erroneous ruling, brings a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering, these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The men of a 'condemned city'. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> should also bring the same sacrifices, but] in the reverse order;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bullock for a sin-offering and a he-goat for a burnt-offering. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> or [it might have been assumed to be] necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the men of a 'condemned city' to bring a special sin-offering. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> but that there was no remedy;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the sin was committed unwittingly since an offering peculiar to themselves is an impossibility. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> hence it was necessary to teach us.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the sacrifices are the same (cf. supra p. 42, n. 5) as deduced from Num. XV, 27. For further notes v. Hor., Sonc. ed. pp. 53ff. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> Said Levi to Rabbi: What ground is there for stating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah, supra 2a. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> FIFTEEN? Sixteen should have been stated! — The other replied: It seems to me that this man has no brains in his head. 'Do you mean', he continued, 'a man's mother who had been outraged by his father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the Mishnah should have included as a sixteenth forbidden relative, a man's mother who was not the lawful wife of his father, and who, having been subsequently married by his paternal brother who died childless, is now subject to the levirate marriage or halizah of her own son, the brother of her second husband. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> The case of a man's mother who has been outraged by his father is a matter in dispute between R. Judah and the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether she may be married to his paternal brother, supra 4a. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> and the author of our Mishnah does not deal with any controversial matter'. But does he not? Surely, the prohibition due to a Rabbinical ordinance and the prohibition due to the levir's sanctity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ruxht a prohibition not included in the Biblical laws of incest, but ordained by the Rabbis. [H], a prohibition due to sanctity in the case, e.g., of a widow whose levir is a High Priest. (For this and an alternative explanation v. infra 20a). ');"><sup>51</sup></span> concerning which R. Akiba and the Rabbis are in dispute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra loc. cit. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> are mentioned! — We mean, in our chapter. But, surely it was taught,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our very chapter, infra 13a. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> 'Beth Shammai permit rivals to the other brothers and Beth Hillel prohibit them'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that even laws which are in dispute are recorded in the chapter. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> — The view of Beth Shammai where it is in contradiction to that of Beth Hillel is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is not a teaching'; the view of Beth Hillel is accepted as law, and can consequently be included in our chapter. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> Is there not the case of the wife of a man's brother who was not his contemporary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in his world', i.e., who was born after the death of his childless brother. ');"><sup>56</sup></span>