Yevamot 28

אי אמרת בשלמא דמודעי להו משום הכי לא נמנעו אלא אי אמרת דלא מודעי להו בשלמא ב"ש מב"ה לא נמנעו דטמאות דב"ה לב"ש טהרות נינהו

Now, if it be agreed that the required information was supplied<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By Beth Shammai. ');">¹</span> one well understands why they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Hillel, who were the more rigorous in matters of ritual cleanness. ');">²</span>

אלא ב"ה מב"ש למה לא נמנעו טהרות דב"ש לב"ה טמאות נינהו אלא לאו דמודעי להו שמע מינה

did not abstain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From using the utensils of Beth Shammai. The fact that any vessel was not clean according to Beth Hillel would have been, they knew, duly communicated to them. ');">³</span> If, however, it be assumed that no such information was supplied, one can still understand why Beth Shammai did not abstain from using the utensils of Beth Hillel, since that which was regarded by Beth Hillel as ritually unclean was deemed by Beth Shammai to be ritually clean; but why did not Beth Hillel abstain from using the utensils of Beth Shammai when that which was deemed clean by Beth Shammai was regarded as unclean by Beth Hillel? Must it not, then, be concluded that they supplied them with the required information! Our point is thus proved.

ומאי אולמיה דהך מהך מהו דתימא צרה קלא אית לה קמ"ל

In what respect is the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inference from the final clause of our Mishnah relating to ritual cleanness and uncleanness. ');">⁴</span> more conclusive proof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the required information was supplied. ');">⁵</span>

גופא אמר רבי אלעזר אע"פ שנחלקו ב"ש וב"ה בצרות מודים שאין ממזר אלא ממי שאיסורו איסור ערוה וענוש כרת מאן מודים אילימא ב"ש לב"ה פשיטא בני חייבי לאוין כשרים נינהו

than the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause dealing with the marriages of rivals. ');">⁶</span> — It might have been thought that the case of a rival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who married one of the brothers. ');">⁷</span>

אלא ב"ה לב"ש היא גופא חייבי כריתות היא

receives due publicity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no special report on such a case is needed. ');">⁸</span> hence it was necessary [for the inference from the final clause] to be cited.

לעולם ב"ש לב"ה ולאפוקי מדר' עקיבא דאמר יש ממזר מחייבי לאוין קמ"ל דאין ממזר מחייבי לאוין

[Reverting to] the previous text, 'R. Eleazar said: Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the question of rivals they concede that a bastard is only he who is descended from a marriage forbidden as incest and punishable by kareth'. Who concedes? If it be said, Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a rival married a stranger without previously performing the halizah (v. our Mishnah). ');">⁹</span> this, surely, is obvious, since the children of those who are guilty of the infringement of a negative precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 75, n. 4. ');">¹⁰</span>

ת"ש אע"פ שנחלקו ב"ש וב"ה בצרות ובאחיות

are deemed legitimate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the question of legitimacy does not at all arise in the dispute. ');">¹¹</span> Must it not consequently be the case that Beth Hillel conceded to Beth Shammai;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of a rival who married one of the brothers. ');">¹²</span>

בגט ישן ובספק אשת איש ובמגרש את אשתו ולנה עמו בפונדק

but this very case is subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i>! — The fact is that Beth Shammai conceded to Beth Hillel; and the purpose was to exclude the opinion of R. Akiba, who maintains that a descendant from persons guilty of the infringement of a negative precept is deemed a bastard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 49a. ');">¹³</span> Hence it was taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');">¹⁴</span>

בכסף ובשוה כסף בפרוטה ובשוה פרוטה

that a descendant from persons guilty of the infringement of a negative precept is not deemed a bastard. Come and hear: Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of rivals, sisters,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who married their brothers; infra 26a. ');">¹⁵</span>

לא נמנעו ב"ש מלישא נשים מבית הלל ולא ב"ה מבית שמאי ללמדך שחיבה וריעות נוהגים זה בזה לקיים מה שנאמר (זכריה ח, יט) האמת והשלום אהבו ר"ש אומר נמנעו הן מן הודאי ולא נמנעו מן הספק

an old bill of divorce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 79b. ');">¹⁶</span> a doubtfully married woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the validity of her marriage is in doubt. V. infra 107a. ');">¹⁷</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא עשו משום הכי נמנעו אלא אי אמרת לא עשו אמאי נמנעו ותסברא נהי נמי דעשו בשלמא בית הלל נמנעו מבית שמאי דחייבי כריתות נינהו וממזרים הם לב"ה

a woman whom her husband had divorced<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and about him who divorced his wife'. ');">¹⁸</span> and who stayed with him over the night in an inn,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 81a. ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא ב"ש אמאי נמנעו מב"ה בני חייבי לאוין נינהו וכשרים נינהו כדאמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לא נצרכה אלא לצרה עצמה ה"נ לא נצרכה אלא לצרה עצמה

money, valuables, a <i>perutah</i> and the value of a <i>perutah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last four deal with the question of what constitutes legal betrothal. Kid. 2a and 11a. ');">²⁰</span> Beth Shammai did not, nevertheless, abstain from marrying women of the families of Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying those of Beth Shammai. This is to teach you that they shewed love and friendship towards one another, thus putting into practice the Scriptural text, Love ye truth and peace.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zech. VIII, 19. ');">²¹</span>

ומ"ש מן הודאי דאיסורא הוא ספק נמי איסורא הוא

R. Simeon said: They abstained [from marrying] in cases of certainty but did not abstain in doubtful cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Yeb. I. ');">²²</span> Now, if you agree that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">²³</span>

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>

ומאי קמ"ל דאהבה וריעות נוהגים זה בזה היינו רישא הא קמ"ל דכולה ר"ש היא

And what does he teach us thereby? That they shewed love and friendship to one another? But this is exactly the same as the first clause!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should there be a repetition of the same thing? ');">²⁶</span> — He teaches us this: That the entire Mishnah represents the views of R. Simeon.

תא שמע דאמר רבי יוחנן בן נורי היאך הלכה זו רווחת בישראל נעשה כדברי ב"ש הולד ממזר לדברי ב"ה נעשה כדברי ב"ה הולד פגום לדברי ב"ש בואו ונתקן להן לצרות

Come and hear: R. Johanan b. Nuri said: 'How is this law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Relating to the marriages of rivals. ');">²⁷</span> to be promulgated in Israel? Were we to act in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who permit the rivals to marry the brothers. ');">²⁸</span> the child would, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel, be a bastard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been born from a forbidden marriage (that of a brother's wife) which involves kareth. ');">²⁹</span> And were we to act in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permitting rivals to marry strangers without previous halizah. ');">³⁰</span> the child, according to the ruling of Beth Shammai, would be tainted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though not actually a bastard, he would, were he a kohen, be disqualified from the priesthood. ');">³¹</span> come, then, and let us issue an ordinance that the rivals