Yevamot 30

הרואה אומר לאפושי מיא הוא דקא עביד

the onlooker might assume that the extension was made in order to increase the volume of the water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 2. ');">¹</span> Come and hear: R. Eleazar b. Zadok said: When I was learning Torah with R. Johanan the Horonite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Cf. Hauran, mentioned in Ezek. XLVII, 18, south of Damascus, the Auranitis of the Graeco-Roman times.] ');">²</span>

ת"ש דא"ר אלעזר בר צדוק כשהייתי לומד תורה אצל ר' יוחנן החורני ראיתי שהיה אוכל פת חריבה במלח בשני בצורת באתי והודעתי את אבא אמר לי הולך לו זיתים והולכתי לו ראה אותן שהן לחין אמר לי אין אני אוכל זיתים

I noticed that in the years of dearth he used to eat dry bread with salt. I went home and related it to my father, who said to me, 'Take some olives to him'. When I brought these to him and he observed that they were moist<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Moisture renders fruit susceptible to Levitical uncleanness. ');">³</span> he said to me, 'I eat no olives'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He hesitated to eat them owing to the possibility (Rashi) or the certainty (Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H] that the earthen jar in which they were kept had been touched by an 'am ha-arez and, being moist, received the uncleanness imparted to them by the jar which, by Rabbinical enactment, had become unclean by the touch of the 'am ha-arez. ');">⁴</span>

באתי והודעתי את אבא אמר לי לך ואמור לו חבית נקובה היתה אלא שסתמוה שמרים ותנן חבית של זיתים מגולגלים בית שמאי אומרים אין צריכה לנקב

I again went out and communicated the matter to my father, who said to me, 'Go tell him that the jar was broached,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keeping olives in a broached container is clear evidence that the owner had no desire to retain the sap that exudes from the olives; and only liquids which are desired by the owner render the fruit susceptible to Levitical uncleanness. ');">⁵</span> only the lees had blocked up the breach';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus the undesired 'moisture remained on the olives. As such moisture does not render the fruit susceptible to uncleanness (v. previous note) the olives may safely be eaten even by the scrupulous. ');">⁶</span>

ובית הלל אומרים צריכה לנקב ומודים שאם ניקבה וסתמוה שמרים שהיא טהורה

and we learned: A jar containing pickled olives, Beth Shammai said, need not be broached;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in their opinion the moisture that exudes from the olives is regarded as a fruit juice which does not render food susceptible to Levitical uncleanness. ');">⁷</span> but Beth Hillel say: It must be broached.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The moisture is regarded by them as actual oil which does render food susceptible to uncleanness. Broaching is consequently necessary in order to indicate thereby that the owner had no desire to preserve the liquid. ');">⁸</span>

ואע"פ שתלמיד שמאי היה כל מעשיו לא עשה אלא כדברי ב"ה אי אמרת בשלמא עשו היינו רבותיה אלא אי אמרת לא עשו מאי רבותיה

They admit, however, that where it had been broached and the lees had blocked up the holes, it is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the liquid, having clearly been shewn to be unwanted, does not render the olives susceptible to Levitical uncleanness. 'Ed. IV, 6. ');">⁹</span> And though he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan the Horonite. ');">¹⁰</span>

ת"ש שאלו את ר' יהושע צרת הבת מהו אמר להם מחלוקת ב"ש וב"ה והלכה כדברי מי אמר להם מפני מה אתם מכניסין ראשי בין שני הרים גדולים בין שתי מחלוקות גדולות בין ב"ש ובין ב"ה מתיירא אני שמא ירוצו גלגלתי

was a disciple of Shammai, he always conformed in practice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all his deeds he only did'. ');">¹¹</span> to the rulings of Beth Hillel. Now, if it be conceded that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">¹²</span>

אבל אני מעיד לכם על שתי משפחות גדולות שהיו בירושלים משפחת בית צבועים מבן עכמאי ומשפחת בית קופאי מבן מקושש שהם בני צרות ומהם כהנים גדולים ושמשו על גבי המזבח

did act in accordance with their own rulings, one can well understand why his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan the Horonite. ');">¹⁰</span> action was worthy of note;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that is his greatness'; i.e., his conduct was remarkable and worthy of note in that he acted according to the ruling of Beth Hillel despite the practice of his colleagues of acting in accordance with the rulings of their own School. ');">¹³</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא עשו היינו דקאמר מתיירא אני אלא אי אמרת לא עשו אמאי קאמר מתיירא אני ונהי נמי דעשו מאי מתיירא אני

if, however, it were to be contended that they did not so act, in what respect was his conduct noteworthy!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what was his greatness'; he only acted on the same lines as the other disciples of Beth Shammai. Consequently it must be concluded that Beth Shammai did act in accordance with their own rulings. ');">¹⁴</span> Come and hear: R. Joshua was asked, 'What is the law in relation to the rival of one's daughter'? He answered them, 'It is a question in dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel'. — 'But [he was asked] in accordance with whose ruling is the established law'? 'Why should you,' he said to them, 'put my head between two great mountains, between two great groups of disputants, aye, between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel? I fear they might crush my head! I may testify to you, however, concerning two great families who flourished in Jerusalem, namely, the family of Beth Zebo'im of Ben 'Akmai and the family of Ben Kuppai of Ben Mekoshesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [A locality in Judaea; on the identification of the other names, v. Klein MGWJ 1910, 25ff, and 1917, 135ff and Buchler Priester, p. 186.] ');">¹⁵</span>

הא אמר ר' יהושע אין ממזר אלא מחייבי מיתות בית דין נהי נמי דממזר לא הוי פגום מיהו הוי

that they were descendants of rivals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel, married strangers without previously performing halizah with the levirs. ');">¹⁶</span> and yet some of them were High Priests who ministered upon the altar'. Now, if it be conceded that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">¹⁷</span>

מק"ו מאלמנה מה אלמנה שאין איסורה נוהג בכל בנה פגום זו שאיסורה שוה בכל כו'

acted [in accordance with their own rulings] it is quite intelligible why he said, 'I fear'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the rivals, acting on the ruling of Beth Shammai, might have married the brothers, their children who, according to Beth Hillel, would thus be descendants of marriages forbidden under the penalty of kareth, would be deemed to be bastards. These would certainly resent R. Joshua's declaration in favour of Beth Hillel, and his life would thus be in danger. ');">¹⁸</span> If, however, it be suggested that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');">¹⁷</span>

קבעו מיניה צרות וקפשיט ליה בני צרות תרתי קא בעי מיניה צרות מאי ואם תמצי לומר צרות כבית הלל בני צרות דבית הלל לב"ש מהו

did not so act, why did he say, 'I fear'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No one could possibly resent his decision since no one would be adversely affected by it. Cf. supra p. 83, n. 10, final clause. ');">¹⁹</span> But even if it be granted that they did act [according to their rulings], what [cause had he for saying,] 'I fear'? Surely R. Joshua said that a bastard was only he who was a descendant of one of those who are subject to capital punishments which are within the jurisdiction of the <i>Beth din</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 49a. Now, even if he had decided in favour of Beth Hillel no one would have been degraded thereby to the level of a bastard. Why then was he afraid? ');">²⁰</span>

למאי נפקא מינה למיפשט ולד מחזיר גרושתו לבית הלל

— Granted that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A descendant from a marriage punishable by kareth. ');">²¹</span> was not a bastard, he is nevertheless tainted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though not actually a bastard, he would, were he a kohen, he disqualified from the priesthood. ');">²²</span>

מי קאמרינן קל וחומר ומה אלמנה לכהן גדול שאין איסורה שוה בכל בנה פגום זו שאיסורה שוה בכל אינו דין שבנה פגום

as may be deduced by inference a minori ad majus from the case of the widow: If the son of a widow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Born from her marriage with a High Priest. ');">²³</span> who is not forbidden to all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A widow is forbidden only to a High Priest. V. Lev. XXI, 14. ');">²⁴</span>

או דלמא איכא למיפרך מה לאלמנה שהיא עצמה מתחללת ואמר להו צרות מתיירא אני

is nevertheless tainted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 8. ');">²⁵</span> [how much more so the son of a rival]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'etc.' ');">²⁶</span> who is forbidden to all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A rival is forbidden to Israelites as well as priests. ');">²⁷</span> They asked him concerning rivals and he answered them about the sons of the rivals! — They really asked him two questions: 'What is the law concerning the rivals? And if some ground could be found in their case in favour of the ruling of Beth Hillel, what is the law according to Beth Shammai in regard to the sons of the rivals, [who married]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Strangers without previous halizah with the levirs. ');">²⁸</span> in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are the children of such marriages, which are forbidden by a negative precept, disqualified from the priesthood? ');">²⁹</span> What practical difference is there?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the halachah is according to Beth Hillel. ');">³⁰</span> — That a solution may be found, according to Beth Hillel, for the question of the child<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A daughter. ');">³¹</span> of a man who remarried his divorced wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After she had been married to another man. Such remarriage is also forbidden (v. supra note 2) by a negative precept (V. Deut. XXIV, 1-4.) ');">³²</span> Do we<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case according to Beth Hillel, as in the case of a rival's son according to Beth Shammai; both cases coming under the prohibition of a negative precept. ');">³³</span> apply the inference a minori ad majus, arguing thus: 'If the son of a widow who was married to a High Priest, who is not forbidden to all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 84, n. 10. ');">³⁴</span> is nevertheless tainted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 84, n. 8. ');">³⁵</span> how much more so the son of her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A rival. ');">³⁶</span> who is forbidden to all';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A rival is forbidden to Israelites as well as to priests. ');">³⁷</span> or is it possible to refute the argument, thus: 'The case of the widow is different because she herself is profaned'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the death of the High Priest to whom she was unlawfully married she may not marry any more even an ordinary priest, and as she was a priest's daughter she is henceforth forbidden to eat terumah. On a woman, however, who was remarried after divorce no new restrictions are imposed. ');">³⁸</span> And he said to them, 'With reference to the rivals I am afraid;<a rel="footnote" href="#15b_39">³⁹</a>