Yevamot 85

Chapter 85

א וכי רבי לא שנאה ר' חייא מנין לו

1 If Rabbi1 has not taught it,2

ב אמר ליה והא תנן מסרק של פשתן שניטלו שיניו ונשתיירו בו שתים טמאות ואחת טהורה וכולן שניטלו אחת אחת בפני עצמן טמאות

2 whence would R. Hiyya3 know it! The first said to him: Surely we learned: A hackle for flax, whose teeth were broken off and two remained, is [susceptible to levitical] uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the hackle can still be used even though only two teeth remained. [H] 'vessels' (v. Lev. XI, 32ff) by which all kinds of implements and instruments are understood, are susceptible to levitical uncleanness so long only as they are useable. Broken 'vessels' which cannot be put to any further use are always levitically clean. ');">4

ג של צמר שניטלו שיניו אחת מבינתים טהור נשתיירו בו ג' במקום אחד טמא היתה החיצונה אחת מהן טהור ניטלו ב' ועשאן למלקט טמאות אחת והתקינה לנר או למיתוח טמאה

3 but [if only] one [tooth remained,5 it is levitically] clean.6

ד וקי"ל דאין הלכה כאותה משנה אמר ליה בר מינה דההיא דר' יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוייהו זו אינה משנה

4 All the teeth, however, if they were removed one by one are individually [susceptible to levitical] uncleanness.7 A wool [comb] whose alternate teeth8

ה מ"ט אמר רב הונא בר מנוח משמיה דרב אידי בריה דרב איקא משום דקשיא רישא לסיפא דקתני של צמר שניטלו שיניו אחת מבינתים טהור הא נשתיירו בו שתים במקום אחד טמא והדר תני נשתיירו בו ג' טמא ג' אין שתים לא

5 are broken off is levitically clean.9 If three consecutive10

ו ומאי קושיא דלמא הא בגווייתא הא בברייתא

6 teeth, however, remained, it is susceptible to levitical uncleanness. If one of these was a side tooth,11 [the comb] is levitically clean.12

ז אלא מהכא דקתני וכולן שניטלו אחת אחת בפני עצמן טמאות ואע"ג דלא התקינה אימא סיפא אחת והתקינה לנר או למיתוח טמאה התקינה אין לא התקינה לא

7 If two [teeth] were removed and someone used them as pincers, they are susceptible to levitical uncleanness. One [tooth also] that was adopted for [snuffing] the light,13 or as a spool,14

ח אמר אביי ומאי קושיא דלמא הא בקתייהו הא בלא קתייהו

8 is susceptible to levitical uncleanness.15 And we have it as a traditional ruling that the halachah is not in agreement with this Mishnah!16

ט א"ר פפא ומאי קושיא ודלמא הא בקטינתא הא באלימתא

9 — The other replied, 'With the exception of this;17 for both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish stated: This is not [an authoritative] Mishnah'.

י אלא משום דמסיימי בה דווקני זו דברי ר"ש

10 What is the reason? — R. Huna b. Manoah replied in the name of R. Idi son of R. Ika: Because the first clause is in contradiction to the second one. For at first it was stated that 'a wool comb whose alternate teeth are missing is levitically clean' from which it follows that if two consecutive teeth did remain it would be susceptible to uncleanness, while immediately afterwards it was stated, 'If three consecutive teeth, however, remained it is susceptible to levitical uncleanness' from which it follows that only three but not two! — What difficulty is this? It is possible that one18 refers to the internal,19

יא שלח ר' חייא בר אבין מארסין תוך ג' וכן עושים מעשה

11 and the other20 the external teeth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two of which are useless. A wool comb had two sets of teeth, external and internal. The former were used for the main work, and no less than three were required. The latter served only the purpose of holding up the wool, and two of these were quite sufficient for that purpose. It should be noted that the 'side tooth' mentioned in the Baraitha does not refer to these but to the first or last tooth of the row (v. supra p. 278, n. 7). ');">21

יב וכן היה ר' אלעזר מלמדנו משום רבי חנינא הגדול רובו של ראשון ורובו של שלישי ואמצעי שלם

12 The contradiction, however, arises from the following:22 It was taught first, 'all the teeth, however, if they were removed one by one are individually susceptible to levitical uncleanness' [implying], even though each tooth was not adapted [for the purpose]. Now read the final clause: 'One tooth that was adapted for snuffing the light, or as a spool, is susceptible to levitical uncleanness', [implying,] only when he adapted it but not when he did not adapt it! — Abaye replied: What is the difficulty? It is possible that the one [refers to a tooth] with a handle23

יג אמימר שרא ליארס ביום תשעים אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר והא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו צריכה להמתין ג' חדשים חוץ מיום שמת בו וחוץ מיום שנתארסה בו ההוא לענין מינקת איתמר דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו צריכה להמתין כ"ד חודש חוץ מיום שנולד בו וחוץ מיום שנתארסה בו

13 and the other [to a tooth] without a handle! R. Papa replied: What is the difficulty? It is possible that the one refers to small,24 and the other to thick teeth.25

יד והא ההוא דעבד סעודת אירוסין ביום תשעים ואפסדיה רבא לסעודתיה ההיא סעודת נשואין הואי

14 [The reason]26 is rather because accurate scholars add this conclusion: 'These are the words of R. Simeon'.27

טו והלכתא צריכה להמתין כ"ד חודש חוץ מיום שנולד בו וחוץ מיום שנתארסה בו וצריכה להמתין ג' חדשים חוץ מיום שמת בו וחוץ מיום שנתארסה בו:

15 R. Hiyya b. Abin sent the following message: Betrothal may take place within the three months, and the practice [of the Sages]28 is also in accordance with this ruling. And R. Eleazar, too, taught us the same law in the name of R. Hanina the Great: The greater part of the first month, the greater part of the third one, and the full middle month.29

טז חוץ מן האלמנה וכו': אמר רב חסדא ק"ו ומה במקום שאסור לכבס מותר ליארס מקום שמותר לכבס אינו דין שמותר ליארס

16 Amemar permitted betrothal on the ninetieth day.30 Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But, surely, both Rab and Samuel stated that the widow must wait three months exclusive of the day on which her husband died and exclusive of the day of her betrothal! — This ruling was stated in connection with a nursing mother; for both Rab and Samuel stated: She must wait twenty-four exclusive of the day on which the child was born and exclusive of the day of her betrothal.31

יז מאי היא דתנן שבת שחל תשעה באב בתוכה אסור לספר ולכבס ובחמישי מותר מפני כבוד השבת ותניא קודם הזמן הזה העם ממעטין בעסקיהם מלישא ומליתן מלבנות ולנטוע ומארסין אבל לא כונסין ואין עושין סעודת אירוסין

17 Did not, however, a man once arrange a betrothal feast on the ninetieth days32 and Raba spoilt his feast!33

יח כי תניא ההיא קודם דקודם (תניא)

18 — That was a wedding feast. The law is that [a nursing mother] must wait twenty-four months, exclusive of the day on which the child was born and exclusive of the day on which she is to be betrothed. Similarly. One [who is not a nursing mother] must wait three months, exclusive of the day on which her husband died and exclusive of the day on which she is to be betrothed.

יט אמר רבא וקודם דקודם נמי ק"ו ומה במקום שאסור לישא וליתן מותר ליארס מקום שמותר לישא וליתן אינו דין שמותר ליארס

19 EXCEPTING THE WIDOW etc. R. Hisda said: [Cannot the law34 be deduced by inference] from major to minor?35

כ לא תימא דרבי יוסי אומר כל הנשים יתארסו אלא אימא כל הנשים ינשאו

20 If when washing of clothes is forbidden,36 betrothal is permitted, how much more should betrothal be permitted when the washing of clothes is permitted!37 What is it?38 — We learned: During the week in which the Ninth of Ab occurs it is forbidden to cut the hair and to wash clothes. On the Thursday, however, this is permitted in honour of the Sabbath.39 And [in connection with this Mishnah] it was taught: Before this time40 the public must restrict their activities in commerce, building and plantings but it is permissible to betroth though not to marry, nor may any betrothal feast be held!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that betrothal is permitted even when washing of clothes is forbidden. How, then, could R. Jose forbid betrothal where even washing was permitted? (V. supra note 7). ');">41 — That was taught in respect of the period before that time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'before of before', prior to the week in which the fast occurs, when washing also is permitted. During the week itself, however, betrothal as well as washing is forbidden. ');">42 Said Raba, Even in respect of the 'period before that time'43 [the law might be arrived at by inference from] major to minor: If where it is forbidden to trade it is permitted to betroth, how much more should betrothal be permitted where trade also is permitted! — Do not read, R. JOSE SAID: ALL [MARRIED] WOMEN44 MAY BE BETROTHED but read, 'ALL MARRIED WOMEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the hackle can still be used even though only two teeth remained. [H] 'vessels' (v. Lev. XI, 32ff) by which all kinds of implements and instruments are understood, are susceptible to levitical uncleanness so long only as they are useable. Broken 'vessels' which cannot be put to any further use are always levitically clean. ');">44 may be married'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose's disagreement with R. Judah has no bearing on the question of marriage during mourning on which R. Judah and R. Jose are in agreement, the former also admitting that no marriage may be celebrated during the mourning period. R. Jose's disagreement relates to the general question of the remarriage of a married woman within three months after her husband died (or divorced her). While R. Judah permits a married woman within three months betrothal only, but not marriage, R. Jose permits marriage also. ');">45

Previous Chapter Next Chapter