Yevamot 79

Chapter 79

א שבתחלה היתה עליו בכלל היתר נאסרה וחזרה והותרה יכול תחזור להיתירה הראשון ת"ל מצות תאכל במקום קדוש מצוה
1 for originally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before its ingredients were consecrated. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> its status in relation to him was one of permissibility; then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When its ingredients were consecrated as a meal-offering, ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב בשלמא לרבא דאמר הא מני רבנן היא הכא הכי קאמר מצות תאכל במקום קדוש מצוה שבתחלה היתה עליו בכלל היתר רצה אוכלה רצה אינו אוכלה (נאסרה חזרה והותרה יכול תחזור להיתירה הראשון) רצה אוכלה רצה אינו אוכלה
2 it was forbidden, and again<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the 'handful' (v. Lev. VI, 8) had been offered up upon the altar. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> permitted; consequently one might assume that it reverts to its first status of permissibility, hence it was specifically stated, It shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 254, n. 12. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג רצה אינו אוכלה והכתיב (שמות כט, לג) ואכלו אותם אשר כופר בהם מלמד שהכהנים אוכלים ובעלים מתכפרין
3 it is a commandment'. Now, according to Raba who said that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause of the Baraitha cited. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> represents the view of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this, whose'. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד אלא רצה הוא אוכלה רצה כהן אחר אוכלה ת"ל מצות תאכל במקום קדוש מצוה
4 the Rabbis, one could well explain that what is meant here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the second clause which presumably represents the views of the same authors. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> is this: It shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 254, n. 12. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה אלא לרב יצחק בר אבדימי דאמר אבא שאול היא הכא מאי תרי גווני איכא
5 is a commandment, for at first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before its ingredients were consecrated. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> its status in relation to him was one of permissibility since, if he desired, he could eat it and, if he preferred, he could abstain from eating it; then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When its ingredients were consecrated as a meal-offering. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ו וכי תימא רצה לתאבון אוכלה רצה אכילה גסה אוכלה אכילה גסה מי שמה אכילה והאמר ר"ל האוכל אכילה גסה ביוה"כ פטור מלא תעונה
6 it was forbidden, and again<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the 'handful' (v. Lev. VI, 8) had been offered up upon the altar. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> permitted; consequently it might be assumed that it reverts to its first status of permissibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. enclose 'then it was forbidden&nbsp;… permissibility' in parentheses. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ז אלא רצה מצה אוכלה רצה חמץ אוכלה
7 so that, if he wished, he could eat it and, if he preferred, he could abstain from eating it. — [You say,] 'If he preferred he could abstain from eating it'? Surely it is written in the Scriptures, And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 33. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> which teaches that the priests must eat them, and that the owner attains thereby atonement! Say rather: [it might be assumed that] if he wished, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest who performed the ceremonial. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ח והכתיב (ויקרא ו, י) לא תאפה חמץ חלקם ואמר ריש לקיש ואפילו חלקם לא תאפה חמץ אלא רצה מצה אוכלה רצה חלוט אוכלה
8 may eat it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meal-offering. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> himself and, if he preferred, another priest may eat it, hence it was specifically stated, It shall be eaten' without leaven in a holy place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 9, dealing with the laws of the meal-offering. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט האי חלוט היכי דמי אי מצה היא הא מצה היא ואי לא מצה היא מצות אמר רחמנא
9 it is a commandment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] That the first priest (v. supra n. 10) shall eat it. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> According to R. Isaac b. Abdimi, however, who said that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause of the Baraitha cited. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
י לא לעולם אימא לך מצה היא ולהכי תנא ביה קרא לעכב
10 [represents the view of] Abba Saul, what two alternatives<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Analogous to those in the first clause. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> exist here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Acting (a) with, and (b) without the intention of fulfilling the commandment, which are the alternatives in the case of the levirate marriage in the first clause, are obviously inapplicable here, since whatever be the motive of one's eating, no prohibition, such as is the case with levirate marriages, is thereby infringed. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יא אלא חלוט מצה היא דקאמרינן למאי הלכתא לומר שאדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח אע"פ דחלטיה מעיקרא כיון דהדר אפייה בתנור לחם עוני קרינא ביה ואדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח:
11 And were you to suggest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the two alternatives. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> that if he wished he could eat it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meal-offering. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יב <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> החולץ ליבמתו הרי הוא כאחד מן האחין לנחלה ואם יש שם אב נכסים של אב הכונס את יבמתו זכה בנכסים של אחיו ר' יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך אם יש שם אב נכסים של אב:
12 to appease his appetite and, if he preferred, he could devour it gluttonously can eating gluttonous]y [it may be retorted] be described as proper eating? Surely Resh Lakish said, 'He who eats gluttonously on the Day of Atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When eating is prohibited. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> is exempt [from <i>kareth</i>],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> פשיטא סד"א חליצה במקום יבום קיימא ונשקול כולהו נכסי קמ"ל
13 since [Scripture has stated], Shall not be afflicted'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from his people (Lev. XXIII, 29). An excessive meal being injurious to the body is deemed to be an affliction. Now, since such a meal is not regarded as eating in the case of the Day of Atonement, how could it be regarded as proper eating in the case of a meal offering? ');"><sup>22</sup></span> [Were you to suggest], however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the two alternatives. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יד אי הכי הרי הוא כאחד מן האחים אינו אלא כאחד מן האחים מיבעי ליה
14 that if he wished he could eat it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meal-offering. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> unleavened and, if he preferred, he could eat it leavened, surely [it might be retorted] it is written in Scripture, It shall not be baked with leaven their portion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 20. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
טו אלא סד"א הואיל ואפסדה מיבום לקנסיה קמ"ל:
15 from which Resh Lakish inferred that even their portion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the priests, the remnants of the meal-offering. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> must not be baked with leaven! Again [Were you, to suggest,]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the two alternatives. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
טז אם יש שם אב: דאמר מר אב קודם לכל יוצאי ירכו:
16 that if he wished he could eat it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meal-offering. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> unleavened and, if he preferred, he could eat it as a dumpling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H] 'to mix'), a paste prepared by stirring flour in hot water. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
יז הכונס את יבמתו וכו': מ"ט (דברים כה, ו) יקום על שם אחיו אמר רחמנא והרי קם:
17 how [it could be retorted] is one to imagine [such a dumpling]? If it is unleavened, well, then it is unleavened;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is not forbidden at all. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> and if it is not unleavened, the All Merciful, surely, has said without leaven!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Take the meal-offering&nbsp;… and eat it without leaven (Lev. X, 12); what need then was there for repeating the same prohibition in Lev. VI, 9? ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יח ר' יהודה אומר וכו': אמר עולא הלכה כר' יהודה וכן א"ר יצחק נפחא הלכה כר' יהודה
18 — No;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eating of the meal-offering with leaven is not one of the alternatives. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dumpling. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
יט ואמר עולא ואיתימא ר' יצחק נפחא מ"ט דר' יהודה דכתיב (דברים כה, ו) והיה הבכור אשר תלד כבכור מה בכור אין לו בחיי האב אף האי נמי אין לו בחיי האב
19 may indeed be assumed to be unleavened; but the object of the exposition of the Scriptural text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause of the Baraitha cited. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> was to forbid it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to prevent'. A meal-offering may not be prepared in the form of a dumpling even though that paste is unleavened. ');"><sup>33</sup></span>
כ אי מה בכור נוטל פי שנים לאחר מיתת האב אף האי נוטל פי שנים לאחר מיתת האב
20 In respect of what practical issue, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a meal-offering which must be unleavened may not be prepared in the form of a dumpling. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> has it been stated that a dumpling may be regarded as unleavened bread? — [The statement was made] to indicate that a man may perform with it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dumpling. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
כא מידי יקום על שם אביו כתיב יקום על שם אחיו כתיב ולא על שם אביו
21 his duty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of eating unleavened bread. Cf. Ex. XII, 18. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> on the Passover. Though he made it first into a dumpling, it is nevertheless designated the 'bread of affliction', since he subsequently baked it in an oven. Consequently a man may perform with it his duty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of eating unleavened bread. Cf. Ex. XII, 18. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
כב אימא היכא דליכא אב דלשקול נחלה תתקיים מצות יבום היכא דאיכא אב [דלא] שקיל נחלה לא תתקיים מצות יבום
22 on the Passover. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A LEVIR PARTICIPATED IN <i>HALIZAH</i> WITH HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE HE IS REGARDED AS ONE OF THE OTHER BROTHERS IN RESPECT OF INHERITANCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the estate of the deceased brother. ');"><sup>36</sup></span>
כג מידי יבום בנחלה תלה רחמנא יבומי מיבמי ואי איכא נחלה שקולי ואי לא לא שקיל
23 IF, HOWEVER, THE FATHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deceased brother. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> WAS LIVING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if there is'. ');"><sup>38</sup></span>
כד יתיב ר' חנינא קרא קמיה דר' ינאי ויתיב וקאמר הלכה כר' יהודה א"ל פוק קרי קרייך לברא אין הלכה כר' יהודה
24 THE ESTATE BELONGS TO THE FATHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A father takes precedence over a brother in respect of inheritance. V. B.B. 115a and infra. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> HE WHO MARRIES HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE GAINS POSSESSION OF HIS BROTHER'S<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deceased brother. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
כה תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן אין הלכה כר' יהודה א"ל אלא כמאן כרבנן פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים
25 ESTATE. R. JUDAH SAID: IN EITHER CASE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the levir married, or submitted to the halizah from his sister-in-law. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> IF THE FATHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deceased brother. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
כו א"ל אסמייה א"ל לא את הלכה אתנייך ומוקשה הוא דאקשי לך ואפכת ולמאי דאפכת שפיר אפכת:
26 WAS LIVING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if there is'. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> THE ESTATE BELONGS TO THE FATHER.
כז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> החולץ ליבמתו הוא אסור בקרובותיה והיא אסורה בקרוביו
27 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That participation in the halizah does not deprive the levir of his share in his brother's estate. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> obvious? — It might have been presumed that <i>halizah</i> takes the place of the levirate marriage and he receives, therefore, all the estate, hence it was taught [that he does not].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The object of our Mishnah is not to state that the levir is entitled to a share but that he is not entitled to all the estate. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the object of our Mishnah is to indicate his disadvantage. V. supra n. 7. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> why was it stated that HE IS REGARDED AS ONE OF THE OTHER BROTHERS when it should have been stated, he is to be regarded only as one of the brothers! — In truth [this is the purpose of our Mishnah]: It might have been assumed that because he deprived her [of levirate marriage]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halizah with him has placed the widow under the prohibition of marrying any of the brothers. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> he shall be penalized,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And shall receive no share at all. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> hence we were taught [that he does receive a share]. IF, HOWEVER, THE FATHER WAS LIVING, [THE ESTATE BELONGS TO HIM], for a Master said that a father takes precedence over all his lineal descendants.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 115a. V. supra note 4. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> HE WHO MARRIES HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE etc. What is the reason? — The All Merciful said, <i>Shall succeed in the name of his brother</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> and behold he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir who, according to Rabbinic interpretation (v. supra 24a), is the subject of shall succeed. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> has succeeded. R. JUDAH SAID etc. Said 'Ulla: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Judah, and R. Isaac Nappaha likewise said: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Judah. 'Ulla, furthermore, (others say, R. Isaac Nappaha) said: What is R. Judah's reason? — Because it is written in Scripture, And it shall be, that the firstborn that he beareth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> [he is] like the firstborn; as the firstborn has nothing while his father is alive, so has this one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> also nothing while his father is alive. If [one were to suggest that] as the firstborn receives a double portion after his father's death so shall this one also receive a double portion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His own and his brother's. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> after his father's death, [it might be retorted]: Is it written, 'Shall succeed in the name of his father'? It is written, surely, Shall succeed in the name of his brother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> not 'in the name of his father'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he is not entitled to a double portion at the time he steps into the place of his brother he cannot subsequently claim such a portion when he ultimately becomes entitled to a share in the same estate only by virtue of his succession to his father. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> Might it be suggested that, where the father is not alive to receive the inheritance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which consequently passes over into the possession of the levir. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> the law of the levirate marriage should be carried out, but where the father is alive [and the levir] does not receive the inheritance the law of the levirate marriage shall not be carried out? — Has the All Merciful in any way made the levirate marriage dependent on the inheritance? The levir must contract the levirate marriage in any case, and if any inheritance is available he receives it; if not, he does not receive it. The Bible teacher, R. Hanina, once sat before R. Jannai, and as he sat there he stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Judah. The other called out to him: Go out, read Biblical verses outside;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Keth., Sonc. ed. p. 328, n, 7. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> the <i>halachah</i> is not in agreement with R. Judah. A tanna recited in the presence of R. Nahman: The <i>halachah</i> is not in agreement with R. Judah. The other said to him: In agreement with whom, then? In agreement with the Rabbis? This is surely obvious, [since in a dispute between] one individual and a majority the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the majority! — 'Shall I', the first asked him, 'reject it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a superfluous addition. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> 'No', the other replied, 'you were taught [that] the <i>halachah</i> is [in agreement with R. Judah] which, presenting to you a difficulty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could the halachah be in agreement with an individual against the rule of a majority? ');"><sup>57</sup></span> you reversed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating, 'the halachah is not in agreement with R. Judah. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> and in so far as you reversed it your wording is well justified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'you reversed well'. [He, however, forgot that he had reversed it; cf, supra 33b, v. Strashun]. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A LEVIR PARTICIPATED IN <i>HALIZAH</i> WITH HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All relatives that are Biblically forbidden to husband and wife respectively are Rabbinically forbidden to levir and haluzah respectively. ');"><sup>60</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter