Yevamot 26

IF THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rivals. ');">¹</span> PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the brothers. ');">²</span> BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE TO MARRY A PRIEST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the opinion of Beth Shammai the halizah is legal and any woman who performed legal halizah is, like one divorced, forbidden to marry a priest. ');">³</span>

AND BETH HILLEL DECLARE THEM TO BE ELIGIBLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their opinion the halizah was unnecessary and may, therefore, be treated as if it had never taken place. ');">⁴</span> IF THEY WERE MARRIED TO THE LEVIRS, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THEM ELIGIBLE [TO MARRY A PRIEST],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When their husbands die. ');">⁵</span> AND BETH HILLEL DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because having married persons to whom they are forbidden they are regarded as harlots who are ineligible ever to marry a priest. ');">⁶</span>

THOUGH THESE FORBADE WHAT THE OTHERS PERMITTED, AND THESE REGARDED AS INELIGIBLE WHAT THE OTHERS DECLARED ELIGIBLE, BETH SHAMMAI, NEVERTHELESS, DID NOT REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN FROM [THE FAMILIES OF] BETH HILLEL, NOR DID BETH HILLEL [REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN] FROM [THE FAMILIES OF] BETH SHAMMAI. [SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF] ALL [QUESTIONS OF RITUAL] CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, WHICH THESE DECLARED CLEAN WHERE THE OTHERS DECLARED UNCLEAN, NEITHER OF THEM ABSTAINED FROM USING THE UTENSILS OF THE OTHERS FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD THAT WAS RITUALLY CLEAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'do clean things, these upon these'. ');">⁷</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Simeon b. Pazzi said: What is Beth Shammai's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For permitting the rivals to marry the other brothers. ');">⁸</span> — Because it is written, The outside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] is rendered, 'the one who is the outside one', the word being regarded as an adjective fem. with the relative. E.V., 'abroad'. ');">⁹</span>

wife of the dead shall not be married unto one not of his kin;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹⁰</span> 'outside'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the one who is not otherwise related to the levir. ');">¹¹</span> implies that there is also an internal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Related to the levir. ');">¹²</span>

and the All Merciful said, She shall not marry [unto one not of his kin].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But only unto her husband's brother (Deut. XXV, 5), which shews that a rival is permitted to the other brothers. ');">¹³</span> And Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who prohibit the rival to the brothers, how do they explain this text? ');">¹⁴</span> — They require the text for the exposition which Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: Whence is it deduced that betrothal [by a stranger] is of no validity in the case of a sister-in-law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before halizah had been performed. ');">¹⁵</span>

For it is said in the Scriptures, The wife of the dead shall not be married<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'she shall not be', [H] (rt. [H]). ');">¹⁶</span> outside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. E.V. for [H], supra note 3. ');">¹⁷</span> unto one not of his kin;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹⁸</span>

there shall be no validity in any marriage of a stranger with her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a stranger shall have no being ([H] of the root [H]) in her'. ');">¹⁹</span> And Beth Shammai? — Is it written 'la-huz'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'to the outside'. ');">²⁰</span> Surely 'huzah'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], v. supra note 3. ');">²¹</span>

was written. And Beth Hillel? — Since the expression used was huzah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">²²</span> it is just the same as if la-huz had been written; as it was taught: R. Nehemiah said, 'In the case of every word which requires a 'lamed' at the beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To indicate direction. ');">²³</span> Scripture has placed a 'he'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The he being the he local. ');">²⁴</span>

at the end; and at the School of R. Ishmael the following examples were given:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he recited' or 'taught'. ');">²⁵</span> <i>Elim, Elimah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'To [H] appears as [H] (Ex. XV, 27) instead of [H]. ');">²⁶</span></i> Mahanayim, Mahanayimah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'To [H] appears as [H] (II Sam. XVII, 24) instead of [H]. ');">²⁷</span>

Mizrayim, Mizraimah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'To [H], Gen. XII, 10. ');">²⁸</span> Dibelathaimah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'To [H] (Num. XXXIII, 47). ');">²⁹</span> Yerushalaimah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'To [H] (Jerusalem) [H] (Ezek. VIII, 3). ');">³⁰</span>

midbarah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'To [H] (wilderness or place-name) [H] (I Chron. V, 9). ');">³¹</span> Whence do Beth Shammai derive the deduction made by Rab Judah in the name of Rab? — It is derived from Unto one not of his kin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">³²</span> Then let Beth Hillel also derive it from 'Unto one not of his kin'! — This is so indeed. What need, then, was there for 'huzah'? — To include one who was only betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the deceased brother. Such a widow also is subject to the levirate marriage as if she had been actually married. 'Huzah' implies (cf. supra p. 68, n. 3) 'outside', i.e., one who is not within the marriage bond. ');">³³</span>

And the others? — They derive it from the use of ha-huzah where huzah could have been used.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The addition of the 'he' in [H] where [H] would have conveyed the same meaning implies the inclusion of the betrothed. (V. n. 6.) ');">³⁴</span> And the others? — A deduction from huzah ha-huzah does not appeal to them. Raba said: Beth Shammai's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 68, n. 2, supra. ');">³⁵</span>

is that one prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, e.g., of marrying a brother's wife. ');">³⁶</span> cannot take effect on another prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of marrying a forbidden relative (e.g., a daughter). Since the latter prohibition takes no effect in such a case, the forbidden relative whom the levirate bond does not consequently affect may be regarded as non-existent, so far as her levirate obligations are concerned. Her rivals, therefore, come under the category of complete strangers and are consequently permitted to the brothers. ');">³⁷</span> This explanation is satisfactory in the case where the deceased had married first and the surviving brother married<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sister of his brother's wife. ');">³⁸</span>

afterwards, since the prohibition of marrying a wife's sister<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which arose later. ');">³⁹</span> could not come and take effect on the prohibition of marrying a brother's wife;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As legally the widow is only 'his brother's wife' but not 'his wife's sister', her rivals may justly be regarded as strangers who are permitted. ');">⁴⁰</span> where, however, the surviving brother had married first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his wife's sister has in consequence become forbidden to him. ');">⁴¹</span>

and the deceased married later,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the prohibition of a brother's wife arose. ');">⁴²</span> the prohibition of 'wife's sister' was, surely, first!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And consequently had taken effect; why then are her rivals permitted? This objection is based on the assumption that Raba, in stating the prohibition of marrying a forbidden relative cannot take effect owing to the prohibition of 'brother's wife', was referring only to such prohibitions as are due to a marriage contract, e.g., a wife's sister. ');">⁴³</span> — Since the prohibition of a 'brother's wife' cannot take effect on the prohibition of 'wife's sister', [any of the other widows] is the rival of a forbidden relative to whom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place'. ');">⁴⁴</span>

the precept of the levirate marriage is inapplicable, and is consequently permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 69, n. 10. ');">⁴⁵</span> IF THEY HAD PERFORMED THE <i>HALIZAH</i>, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE etc. Is not this obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What need then was there for stating it. ');">⁴⁶</span> — [It had to be stated] in order to exclude [the instruction] of R. Johanan b. Nuri who said: Come and let us issue an ordinance that the rivals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of forbidden relatives. ');">⁴⁷</span>

perform the <i>halizah</i> but do not marry the levir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And being subject to halizah, even though on account of a Rabbinical ordinance only, it might have been assumed that they are ineligible for marriage with a priest. (Cf. supra p. 67, n. 9.) ');">⁴⁸</span> Hence it was taught that Beth Hillel declare them eligible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indicating that the rivals in such a case are not even Rabbinically subject to the halizah. ');">⁴⁹</span> IF THEY WERE MARRIED TO THE LEVIRS etc. BETH HILLEL DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE. What need again was there for this? — Because it was taught, IF THEY PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason given supra. V. previous note. ');">⁵⁰</span>

it was also taught, IF THEY WERE MARRIED TO THE LEVIRS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Halizah and marriage usually being the only alternatives. ');">⁵¹</span> We learned elsewhere: The Scroll of Esther<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'scroll', always signifies in Rabbinical literature the Scroll of Esther, unless the context explicitly or implicitly points to any other scroll. ');">⁵²</span> is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth or the fifteenth [of Adar].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whether the readers live in a village, a town, or a town that had been walled in the days of Joshua, and according to the day of the week on which the feast of Purim occurs. ');">⁵³</span>

but not earlier<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Than the eleventh. ');">⁵⁴</span> or later.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Than the fifteenth. Meg. 2a. ');">⁵⁵</span> Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: Apply here the text of Lo tithgodedu,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (Deut. XIV, 1), rendered by E.V. Ye shall not cut yourselves, is here taken as a form of the root [H], 'to bind', implying the formation of separate groups, sects, factions. ');">⁵⁶</span>

you shall not form separate sects!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, then, was the Scroll allowed to be read on different days by different classes of people? ');">⁵⁷</span> (Is not Lo tithgodedu required for its own context, the All Merciful having said, 'You shall not inflict upon yourselves any bruise for the dead'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 13 for the rendering of E.V. ');">⁵⁸</span> — If so, Scripture should have said, Lo tithgodedu,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would have implied the prohibition of cutting or bruising the body. (V. p. 70, n. 13.) ');">⁵⁹</span>

why did it say 'Lo tithgodedu'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The longer form, the Hithpael. ');">⁶⁰</span> hence it must be inferred that its object was this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for this it came', to imply both 'cutting the body for the dead', and 'the formation of sects'. ');">⁶¹</span> Might it not then be suggested that the entire text refers to this only?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The formation of sects. ');">⁶²</span>

— If so, Scripture should have said, Lo thagodu;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would have been understood to refer to the undesirable formation of sects. ');">⁶³</span> why did it say 'Lo tithgodedu'? Hence the two deductions.)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It has thus been shewn that the formation of sects is undesirable; why then was it allowed to form separate groups to read the Scroll of Esther on different dates? ');">⁶⁴</span> — The former answered: Have you not yet learned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'You should have replied' (Rashi). ');">⁶⁵</span> 'Wherever it is customary to do manual labour on the Passover Eve until midday it may be done; wherever it is customary not to do any work it may not be done'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that, despite the undesirability of forming separate groups, different customs are allowed. ');">⁶⁶</span> The first said to him: I am speaking to you of a prohibition, for R. Shaman b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: 'Scripture having said, To confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Esth. IX, 31, emphasis on 'appointed times', [H]. ');">⁶⁷</span> the Sages have ordained for them different times,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a group who were ordained to read the Scroll on a particular date must not read it on any other date. ');">⁶⁸</span> and you speak to me of a custom!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Manual labour on the Passover Eve is universally permitted, and its prohibition in certain places is not a matter of law but merely a question of custom. ');">⁶⁹</span> But is there no prohibition there?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of work on the Passover Eve. (Both the day and the night preceding the Passover are designated [H] Passover Eve). ');">⁷⁰</span> Surely we learned, 'Beth Shammai prohibit work during the night<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Preceding the first Passover night. ');">⁷¹</span> and Beth Hillel permit it'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews, since some would be acting in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai while others would follow Beth Hillel, that even in the case of a prohibition the formation of sects is allowed. ');">⁷²</span> — The other said to him: In that case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there', where some people do no work though permitted. ');">⁷³</span> anyone seeing [a man abstaining from work] would suppose him to be out of work.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question of sects does not arise in such a case. ');">⁷⁴</span> But do not BETH SHAMMAI PERMIT THE RIVALS TO THE OTHER BROTHERS AND BETH HILLEL FORBID THEM!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A dispute which creates faction, some following the ruling of the one authority and others that of the other. ');">⁷⁵</span>