Yevamot 29

שיהו חולצות ולא מתייבמות לא הספיקו לגמור את הדבר עד שנטרפה השעה

perform the <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that any stranger might be permitted to marry them, even according to Beth Shammai. ');">¹</span> but do not marry any of the brothers'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus prevent their children from being branded bastards according to Beth Hillel. (V. supra note 6). ');">²</span> They had hardly time to conclude the matter before confusion set in. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel to them, 'What now could we do with previous rivals'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Yeb, I; the rivals who, relying on Beth Shammai, married brothers-in-law, prior to the ordinance, whose children would, were the ordinance of R. Johanan b. Nuri to be accepted, become bastard. ');">³</span>

א"ל רשב"ג מה נעשה להם לצרות הראשונות מעתה

Now, if you assume that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">⁴</span> acted [in accordance with their own rulings] one can understand why he said, 'What shall we do'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since some may have married brothers-in-law. V. supra n. 1. ');">⁵</span> If, however, you assume that they did not so act, what is the meaning of 'What shall we do'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No such marriage could possibly have taken place. ');">⁶</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא עשו היינו דקאמר מה נעשה אלא אי אמרת לא עשו מאי מה נעשה

— R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's precaution. ');">⁷</span> was required only in the case of the rival herself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who may have married a stranger without previous halizah, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel. It has no reference at all to the children, who would not be regarded bastards even according to Beth Shammai. ');">⁸</span> and this is the meaning of the objection 'what shall we do': 'How shall we, according to Beth Shammai, proceed with those rivals [who married<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Strangers, previously performing the halizah. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לא נצרכה אלא לצרה עצמה ומה נעשה הכי קאמר הנך צרות דב"ה לב"ש היכי נעביד להו

in accordance with the rulings] of Beth Hillel? Should they be asked to perform the <i>halizah</i>, they would become despised by their husbands; and should you say, "Let them be despised", [it could be retorted]. Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. III, 17. The ways of the law must lead to no unpleasantness for the innocent. ');">¹⁰</span> Come and hear: R. Tarfon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A disciple of Beth Shammai. ');">¹¹</span> said: Would that the rival of [my] daughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was married to a brother of his. ');">¹²</span>

ליחלצו מימאסי אגברייהו וכי תימא לימאסן (משלי ג, יז) דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום

were to fall to my lot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As levir. ');">¹³</span> so that I could marry her!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that Beth Shammai acted in accordance with their ruling that the rival of a forbidden relative is permitted to the brothers. ');">¹⁴</span> — Read, 'that I could make her marry [another]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is, of course, permitted according to Beth Hillel. The Heb. [H] 'I will marry her' (verb. neut. Kal) may be easily mistaken for [H] will cause her to marry another' (verb. act. Hif.). ');">¹⁵</span>

ת"ש דא"ר טרפון תאבני מתי תבא צרת הבת לידי ואשאנה אימא ואשיאנה

But he said, 'Would'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies a desire to shew something novel. Marrying a stranger, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel, is the usual practice. ');">¹⁶</span> — It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'would'. ');">¹⁷</span> implies objection to the ordinance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to bring out', 'to exclude (the view)'. ');">¹⁸</span>

והא תאבני קאמר לאפוקי מדרבי יוחנן בן נורי

of R. Johanan b.Nuri.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who desired to institute for rivals halizah to enable them to marry strangers, though prohibiting their marriage with the brothers ');">¹⁹</span> Come and hear: It happened that R. Gamaliel's daughter was married to his brother Abba who died without issue, and that R. Gamaliel married her rival!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus acting in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai. (V. p. 79, n. 12.) ');">²⁰</span> — But how do you understand this? Was R. Gamaliel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A descendant of the house of Hillel. ');">²¹</span>

ת"ש מעשה בבתו של רבן גמליאל שהיתה נשואה לאבא אחיו ומת בלא בנים וייבם רבן גמליאל את צרתה ותסברא רבן גמליאל מתלמידי ב"ש הוא

one of the disciples of Beth Shammai!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not. How, then, could it he assumed that he acted in accordance with a ruling of Beth Shammai? ');">²²</span> But [this is the explanation]: R. Gamaliel's daughter was different because she was incapable of procreation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the rival of such a woman is permitted to the brothers. V. Mishnah supra 2b. ');">²³</span> Since, however, it was stated in the final clause, 'Others say that R. Gamaliel's daughter was incapable of procreation' it may be inferred that the first Tanna is of the opinion that she was not incapable of procreation! — The difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'Others' and the first Tanna. ');">²⁴</span>

אלא שאני בתו של רבן גמליאל דאילונית הואי הא מדקתני סיפא אחרים אומרים בתו של רבן גמליאל אילונית היתה מכלל דתנא קמא סבר לאו אילונית היתה

is the question whether he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband, R. Gamaliel's brother. ');">²⁵</span> knew her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Gamaliel's daughter's. ');">²⁶</span> defect<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time of their marriage. ');">²⁷</span>

הכיר בה ולא הכיר בה איכא בינייהו

or not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 12a. According to the first Tanna, the rival of R. Gamaliel's daughter was permitted only because her husband was unaware of her defect, and their marriage consequently took place under a misconception. Such a marriage being invalid, R. Gamaliel's daughter was not a legal wife, and her rival consequently was a mere stranger to her father. According to the 'Others', who use the expression 'was incapable' and not 'was discovered to be incapable', the rival was permitted to R. Gamaliel irrespective of whether his daughter's defect had or had not been known, to her husband. ');">²⁸</span> And if you wish I might say that the difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'Others' and the first Tanna. ');">²⁴</span> is the case where he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband, R. Gamaliel's brother. ');">²⁵</span>

ואיבעית אימא כנס ולבסוף גירש איכא בינייהו

married [the rival] first and subsequently divorced [his wife].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 13a. Such as was the case with R. Gamaliel's daughter. The first Tanna is of the opinion that the rival was permitted to R. Gamaliel because at the time his brother died she was no more his daughter's rival. The 'Others', however, maintain that so long as the two were rivals for any length of time (in this case, between the time of the marriage with the rival and the divorce of R. Gamaliel's daughter) they remain legally as rivals for all time, and the only reason why R. Gamaliel was allowed to marry the rival of his daughter was because his daughter had the defect of being incapable of procreation, and the rival of such a woman is permitted to the brothers. V. supra 2b. ');">²⁹</span> And if you wish I might say that the difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'Others' and the first Tanna. ');">²⁴</span> is whether a stipulation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the woman, e.g., suffers from no illness or that she is not afflicted with any infirmity. ');">³⁰</span>

איבעית אימא יש תנאי בביאה איכא בינייהו

in the case of matrimonial intercourse is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a stipulation was made by the husband in the case of R. Gamaliel's daughter. The first Tanna is of the opinion that the stipulation is valid, and since an infirmity was subsequently discovered, the marriage is null and void and the rival as a mere stranger is consequently permitted. The 'Others', however, regard a stipulation in connection with marital intercourse as invalid. R. Gamaliel's marriage with the rival was consequently permitted only because his daughter was incapable of procreation. ');">³¹</span> R. Mesharsheya raised an objection: It once happened that R. Akiba gathered the fruit of an ethrog<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³²</span> on the first of Shebat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eleventh month in the Hebrew calendar, the first day of which is regarded by Beth Shammai as the New Year for trees. The period of the gathering was about the end of the second year of the septennial cycle and the beginning of the third. ');">³³</span>

מתיב רב משרשיא מעשה בר' עקיבא שליקט אתרוג באחד בשבט ונהג בו ב' עשורין

and subjected it to two tithes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'second tithe' which is due in the second year of the septennial cycle, and the 'tithe for the poor' which is due in the third year of the cycle. ');">³⁴</span> one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'tithe for the poor'. ');">³⁵</span> in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whom, the first of Shebat being regarded as the beginning of the New Year for trees, the third year of the cycle had already begun, and the tithe due is, therefore, that of the poor. ');">³⁶</span>

אחד כדברי ב"ש ואחד כדברי ב"ה ש"מ עשו

and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'second tithe'. ');">³⁷</span> in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, maintaining that the new year for trees does not begin until the fifteenth of Shebat, regard the first day of the month as still belonging to the concluding year, i.e., the second of the cycle in which the 'second tithe' is due. 'Er. 7a, R.H. 14a. ');">³⁸</span> This proves that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">³⁹</span>

ר' עקיבא גמריה אסתפק ליה ולא ידע אי ב"ה באחד בשבט אמור או בט"ו בשבט אמור

did act [in accordance with their rulings!] — R. Akiba was uncertain of his tradition, not knowing whether Beth Hillel said the first of Shebat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Was the new year. Cf. supra nn. 5-7. ');">⁴⁰</span> or the fifteenth of Shebat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Was the new year. Cf. supra nn. 5-7. ');">⁴⁰</span> Mar Zutra raised an objection: It once happened that Shammai the Elder's daughter-in-law was confined with child<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the Festival of Tabernacles when it is obligatory upon all males to dwell in booths (Lev. XXIII, 42), the roof of which must consist of branches or leaves or any similar material which grows from the ground (v. Suk. 2aff). ');">⁴¹</span>

מתיב מר זוטרא מעשה וילדה כלתו של שמאי הזקן ופיחת את המעזיבה וסיכך על גבי מטה בשביל קטן ש"מ עשו התם הרואה אומר לאפושי אויר קעביד

and he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shammai. ');">⁴²</span> broke an opening through the concrete of the ceiling and covered it above the bed with the proper festival roofing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 10. ');">⁴³</span> for the sake of the child.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a male and, in the opinion of Beth Shammai, a male child, though still dependent on his mother, is like any male adult subject to the obligation of dwelling in a booth during the festival. Suk. 28a. ');">⁴⁴</span>

מתיב מר זוטרא מעשה בשוקת יהוא שהיתה בירושלים והיתה נקובה למקוה וכל טהרות שהיו בירושלים נעשים על גבה ושלחו בית שמאי והרחיבוה שבית שמאי אומרים עד שתיפחת ברובה

Does not this prove that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">³⁹</span> did act [in accordance with their rulings]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to Beth Hillel the child, being dependent upon his mother, is exempt from the obligation. ');">⁴⁵</span> — In that case, any onlooker might assume that it was done in order to increase the ventilation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The action, therefore, did not in any way demonstrate a disregard for the ruling of Beth Hillel. ');">⁴⁶</span>

ותנן עירוב מקואות כשפופרת הנוד בעובייה ובחללה כשתי אצבעות חוזרות למקומן שמע מינה עשו התם

Mar Zutra raised an objection: It once happened with Jehu's Trough in Jerusalem, which was connected by means of a hole with a ritual bathing pool,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'a gathering together', applied to a bath or pool containing forty se'ah of water, which is the prescribed minimum for a ritual bath. ');">⁴⁷</span> and in which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The trough, though containing less than the required minimum, was rendered ritually fit through fusion with the larger pool by means of the connecting hole. ');">⁴⁸</span> all ritual cleansing in Jerusalem was performed, that Beth Shammai sent and had the hole widened; for Beth Shammai maintain that the greater part [of the intervening wall] must be broken through.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. IV, 5. ');">⁴⁹</span> But we have also learned that the combination of bathing pools<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which renders the smaller one, containing less than the prescribed minimum, ritually fit. ');">⁵⁰</span> may be effected by a connecting tube of the size of the mouth-piece of a leather bottle in diameter and circumference,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like the tube of a leather bottle in its thickness and hollow space'. ');">⁵¹</span> viz., a tube in which two fingers may conveniently be turned round.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hag. 21b, Mik. VI, 7; lit., 'as two fingers returning to their place'. ');">⁵²</span> Does not this prove that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">⁵³</span> did act [in accordance with their rulings]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the original tube, according to Beth Hillel, was quite sufficient, and they had nevertheless ordered its extension. ');">⁵⁴</span> — There