Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 8, 2022 | 讝壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 32

Presentation in PDF format

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Belinda Kreike in loving memory of Esther Kreike, Esther Bas Yehuda Nossan Hacohen on her 8th yahrzeit on the 2nd Day of Shavout. 鈥淪he is remembered fondly by her family in Manchester and Israel.鈥

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy Baumel-Schwartz in honor of her daughter, Beki’s birthday! “I am constantly amazed by her enthusiasm for learning new things, and am thrilled that she has joined the Hadran Daf Yomi community. May all her dreams come true. Happy Birthday!”聽

If a woman does maamar in order to subsequently fulfill yibum with her deceased husband’s brother, and then he dies, can she do yibum with a third brother? The rabbis say no as she is falling to yibum from two different men and this is not permitted. Rabbi Shimon permits as he does not view maamer as significant and therefore she is only performing yibum for her first husband. What if the husband undoes the maamar by giving a get, is she then permitted according to the rabbis or not? If two brothers marry two sisters and after the first brother dies childless, the sister married to the other brother dies. The first one’s wife cannot do yibum as she was prohibited at the time she fell to yibum. Why is this Mishna mentioned – we already learned this in the Mishna on Yevamot 30?! If one has relations with a woman who is both his brother’s wife and his wife’s sister, is he obligated on two counts or one? Rabbi Shimon says one, Rabbi Yosi holds two. But elsewhere Rabbi Yosi says one only receives one punishment even if there were two transgressions as a prohibition cannot apply when there is another prohibition already there. How can we resolve this? Two answers are brought. Rabbi Avahu holds that Rabbi Yosi only holds this way in the case of issur mosif and not in the case of issur kollel. Rava explains it differently. Is this a source of debate among tannaim as well?

 

讜诪拽爪转讜 讞诇讜抓

and part of it must be released by 岣litza. That is, if two women were married to a single man, one of these women must enter into levirate marriage and the other must perform 岣litza.

讜讬讗诪专讜 讗讬 讚诪讬讬讘诐 讜讛讚专 讞诇讬抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara wonders: So let them say it. Why would it be problematic if people thought that? Even were they to act upon this mistaken assumption it would cause no harm, as there is no transgression involved in performing 岣litza. The Gemara answers: If he were to consummate the levirate marriage with one and then later proceed to perform 岣litza with the other, then indeed there would be no reason for concern.

讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讞诇讬抓 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诪讬讬讘诐 讜拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讗砖专 诇讗 讬讘谞讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖诇讗 讘谞讛 砖讜讘 诇讗 讬讘谞讛

Rather, the requirement to perform 岣litza with both women is a rabbinic decree that was instituted lest he first perform 岣litza with one of his brother鈥檚 wives and subsequently consummate the levirate marriage with the other. Under such circumstances, he would in fact be violating a prohibition. Once he performs 岣litza with the first woman he is subject to the prohibition indicated by the verse 鈥淪o shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother鈥檚 house鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:9). In this verse the Merciful One states that once he did not build his brother鈥檚 house but rather opted to perform 岣litza with one of his brother鈥檚 wives, he may not proceed to build it by consummating the levirate marriage with a different wife.

讗诪专 专讘讗 谞转谉 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讛讜转专讛 爪专转讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讚诪讞诇驻讛 讘讘注诇转 讙讟

Rava said: If the brother who performed levirate betrothal in the case described in the mishna subsequently gave a bill of divorce to that wife in order to nullify his levirate betrothal before he died, her rival wife is rendered permitted to the third brother. The third brother is allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with the wife of the second brother because this wife is no longer considered to be the rival wife of a woman with a double levirate relationship. The bill of divorce serves to nullify the act of levirate betrothal completely. However, the woman with whom the brother performed levirate betrothal and then received the bill of divorce is forbidden to the third brother. Why is this? She might be confused with a woman who receives a bill of divorce. In general cases where levirate betrothal was not performed, if a man gives a yevama a bill of divorce, he is no longer allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with her. If it were permitted to consummate the levirate marriage in this case, people might mistakenly do so in other cases of divorce as well.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 谞转谉 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讛讜转专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讚注讘讚 讘讛 砖拽诇讬讛

There are those who say an alternative formulation of Rava鈥檚 statement. Rava said: If the second brother gave a bill of divorce to the wife of the first deceased brother in order to nullify his levirate betrothal to her, then even she herself is permitted to enter into levirate marriage with the third brother. What is the reason for this? That which he performed with her, he removed. The levirate betrothal was completely nullified by the bill of divorce, and it is as though he had done nothing at all. Therefore, as far as the third brother is concerned, she remains with her original, single levirate bond, as though her status had never been changed by the second brother.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转讛 讗砖转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

MISHNA: In the case where two brothers were married to two sisters, and one of the brothers died, the widow at this point would be exempt from levirate marriage as the sister of his wife. And afterward the wife of the second brother died. Although the yevama is no longer the sister of his wife, this woman is nevertheless forbidden to him forever, since she had already been forbidden to him at one time.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讗 诪讬讚讞讬讗 诪讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 诇讙诪专讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讚讞讬讗 诪讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 诇讙诪专讬 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转谞讗 讛讗 转谞讗 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讱 讞讝讬讗 诇讛讬转讬专讗 讜砖专讬讗 讜讛讚专 讞讝讬讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讞讘讬讘讛 诇讬讛 讗拽讚诪讛 讜诪砖谞讛 诇讗 讝讝讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Now, just as there, in the earlier mishnayot, where there was a third brother and so the woman was not disassociated from this household completely, as the levirate obligation existed between her and the third brother to whom she was permitted, you said that she may not enter into levirate marriage because she was forbidden at one time, here, in the case of only two brothers, where she is disassociated from this household completely, is it not all the more so clear that it should be prohibited for her to enter into levirate marriage? The Gemara answers: The tanna taught this mishna at first, at which time he saw it fitting to rule that those other cases are permitted, and therefore he permitted them. And then he subsequently saw it fitting to rule that they are forbidden. And since that case was novel, it was beloved to him, he taught it earlier. But despite the fact that this mishna was no longer necessary, the mishna does not move from its place.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞 讜诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞 讘诇讘讚 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讘诇讘讚

The Sages taught: If he engaged in sexual intercourse with this woman who was forbidden to him, he is liable to receive punishment for violating the prohibition against marrying a brother鈥檚 wife, because she was never rendered permitted by the levirate mitzva, and he is liable to receive punishment for violating the prohibition against marrying a wife鈥檚 sister; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Shimon says: He is liable to receive punishment only for violating the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife. Rabbi Shimon holds that one prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition is already in place, and since she was already forbidden as his brother鈥檚 wife, the additional prohibition cannot take effect. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: He is liable only due to the prohibition against marrying a wife鈥檚 sister?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖谞砖讗 讞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 诪转 讻讗谉 砖谞砖讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to a case where the living brother married his wife first and afterward the brother who is now deceased married her sister. In that case, the first prohibition to take effect on the yevama was that of a wife鈥檚 sister, and only later, when she was married to his now-deceased brother, did the additional prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife take effect. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where the brother who is now deceased married his wife first, whereby she became forbidden to the brother as a brother鈥檚 wife, and afterward the living brother married her sister, rendering her forbidden as his wife鈥檚 sister as well.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诇讗 讞讬讬诇 转转讬讬讘诐 讬讘讜诪讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, in a case where the deceased brother married one of the sisters first, in which case she was forbidden to his brother as a brother鈥檚 wife, and afterward the living brother married her sister, the only prohibition in place is that of a brother鈥檚 wife. Therefore, since the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister never took effect, then after her husband died she should now enter into levirate marriage. As the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife is canceled in the face of the levirate mitzva, she should indeed enter into levirate marriage.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讬转诇讗 转诇讬 讜拽讗讬 讗讬 驻拽注 讗讬住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜讞讬讬诇 讜讛讬诇讻讱 诇讗 驻拽注

Rav Ashi said: The prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister remains suspended. If the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife is terminated, the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister comes and takes effect. Therefore, it is clear that the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister is not completely terminated. Accordingly, when a man dies and the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife is overridden by the levirate mitzva, the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister takes effect and she is forbidden to him due to that. The moment the first prohibition ceases to exist, the second immediately takes effect.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 注讘专 注讘讬专讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 砖转讬 诪讬转讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讞诪讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讝讬拽讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诇讬讜

The baraita indicates that Rabbi Yosei holds that if the brother consummated the levirate marriage with this woman he violated two prohibitions. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who committed a transgression deserving of two death penalties is sentenced to the harsher of the two deaths? One would be guilty of such a transgression if he engaged in intercourse with a forbidden relative who was also a married woman, as he would incur one death penalty due to her being a forbidden relative and one death penalty due to her being a married woman. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced according to the first relationship that applied to him with regard to this woman.

讜转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讝讬拽讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诇讬讜 讞诪讜转讜 讜谞注砖讬转 讗砖转 讗讬砖 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讞诪讜转讜 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜谞注砖讬转 讞诪讜转讜 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖

And it is taught in a baraita: In what case did Rabbi Yosei say that he is sentenced according to the first relationship that applied to him? If this woman was his mother-in-law who was widowed or divorced, and therefore forbidden to him only due to her status as his mother-in-law, and later she married and became forbidden as a married woman and he engaged in sexual relations with her, then he is sentenced for violating the prohibition proscribing his mother-in-law, since this was the first prohibition to apply. Alternatively, if she was a married woman and then he married her daughter so that she then became his mother-in-law, and then had sexual relations with her, he is sentenced for violating the prohibition proscribing a married woman.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝

Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Yosei concedes that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists when it is an expanded prohibition. An expanded prohibition is a prohibition that has a greater scope than the original prohibition, either because it applies with greater severity or because it applies to additional individuals. Rabbi Yosei holds that if the second prohibition incorporates additional individuals into the list of those for whom the original item is prohibited, then it takes effect in addition to the previous prohibition that had a more limited range.

转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 讞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 诪转 诪讙讜 讚讗转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 讗讞讬诐 讗转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: This works out well in cases where the living brother married his wife first, and her sister became forbidden to him as a wife鈥檚 sister, and then afterward the brother who was subsequently deceased married his wife鈥檚 sister. In that case it is possible to say: Since a prohibition was added for all the brothers, a prohibition was added for the living brother as well, and he is liable due to both prohibitions, as this prohibition is more wide-ranging than the previous one. In other words, at first this sister was permitted to the other brothers, and when the second brother married her she was rendered a brother鈥檚 wife and so she was additionally forbidden to the other brothers.

讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 诪讗讬 讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讗讬讻讗

However, where the deceased brother married first and afterward the living brother married her sister, in what way is there a prohibition that adds? No additional individuals were incorporated into the prohibition as a result of the marriage of the living brother with the sister, since the prohibition here proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister applies to him alone.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讙讜 讚讗讬转住专 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讗讞讜讜转讗 讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讛讜讗

And if you would say: Since he himself now married a sister he became prohibited to all of the other sisters, as opposed to the prior state of affairs where only his brother was married to one of the sisters and all of the other sisters were permitted to him, and therefore an additional prohibition now applies to him, this is difficult. In this case the new prohibition is not considered an expanded prohibition, but rather it is considered a more inclusive prohibition. It is more inclusive and more comprehensive in that it adds additional aspects to the prohibition for the same individual. This is not called an expanded prohibition, as it does not add prohibitions to additional individuals.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪注诇讛 讗谞讬 注诇讬讜 讻讗讬诇讜 注砖讛 砖转讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪注诇讛 讗谞讬 注诇讬讜 讻讗讬诇讜 注砖讛 砖转讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讘专讜 讘讬谉 专砖注讬诐 讙诪讜专讬诐

Rather, Rava said that when Rabbi Yosei stated in the baraita that the man is liable due to both prohibitions, for a brother鈥檚 wife and for a wife鈥檚 sister, he meant to say: I ascribe to him liability as though he transgressed twice, since indeed he violated two prohibitions, yet he is liable to receive punishment in human courts on only one count. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: I ascribe to him liability as though he transgressed twice, yet he is liable to receive punishment on only one count. The Gemara asks: What difference does it make if we consider it as though he transgressed twice? The Gemara answers: It affects the decision whether or not to bury him among the completely wicked. Just as a righteous individual is not buried among the wicked, so too, a wicked individual is not buried among those more wicked than himself. He who violated this prohibition is considered as though he committed two transgressions and not one, and so he would be buried accordingly.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讝专 砖砖讬诪砖 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 拽驻抓 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 砖转讬诐 拽驻抓 讘专 拽驻专讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 讗讞转

搂 The Gemara comments that the issue of a prohibition taking effect where another prohibition already exists is taught in the dispute found in a baraita, where it was stated: With regard to a non-priest who served in some capacity in one of the Temple services, such as the burning of a burnt-offering on the altar on Shabbat, Rabbi 岣yya says: He is liable to receive punishment on two counts, both because he was a non-priest serving in the Temple and because he desecrated Shabbat. Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one count. Rabbi 岣yya jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on one count.

讛转讞讬诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讚讜谉 砖讘转 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讗爪诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜转专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜转专讛 讜诇讗 诇讝专讬诐 讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转 讜讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讛转讞讬诇 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讚讜谉 砖讘转 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讛讜转专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗诇讗 讝专讜转

Since the matter could not be decided by tradition, Rabbi 岣yya began to deliberate and analyze the question logically. Prohibited labor on Shabbat was prohibited to all. When prohibited labor was permitted in the Temple for the purposes of the Temple service, it was permitted only for priests. This indicates that it was permitted for priests and not for non-priests. Therefore, when a non-priest serves in the Temple on Shabbat, there is a transgression here due to his serving as a non-priest and there is a transgression here due to his desecrating Shabbat. Bar Kappara began to deliberate in a different manner: Shabbat was prohibited to all. When it was permitted it was permitted in the Temple, so that if it was permitted for one to serve in the Temple, it was permitted for him to serve on Shabbat. Therefore, there is a transgression here only for his serving as a non-priest, since if this man were a priest his service would have been permitted. Therefore, he is not liable to receive punishment for desecrating Shabbat.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖砖讬诪砖 讘讟讜诪讗讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 拽驻抓 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 砖转讬诐 拽驻抓 讘专 拽驻专讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 讗讞转

They disagreed over a similar issue as well, the case of a priest with a blemish who served in the Temple by sacrificing a public offering, which overrides ritual impurity, while he was ritually impure. Rabbi 岣yya says: He is liable on two counts, both for serving with a blemish and for being ritually impure. Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one count, for serving with a blemish. Rabbi 岣yya jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on one count.

讛转讞讬诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讚讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讗爪诇 讻讛谞讬诐 转诪讬诪讬诐 讛讜转专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 转诪讬诪讬诐 讛讜转专讛 讜诇讗 诇讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讜讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讛转讞讬诇 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讚讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讛讜转专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘注诇 诪讜诐

Rabbi 岣yya began to deliberate. Ritual impurity was prohibited to all, as it was prohibited for all individuals who are ritually impure to enter into the Temple. When it was permitted in the Temple in circumstances where the entire public was impure, it was permitted for unblemished priests. Therefore, it was permitted only for unblemished priests and not for priests with blemishes. Consequently, if that priest with a blemish served while impure, there is a transgression here due to his status as a blemished priest and there is a transgression here due to ritual impurity. Bar Kappara began to deliberate in a different manner: Ritual impurity was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted for all. Therefore, the only problem was that this priest was blemished, and so there is a transgression here only due to his status as a blemished priest.

讝专 砖讗讻诇 诪诇讬拽讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 拽驻抓 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 砖转讬诐 拽驻抓 讘专 拽驻专讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 讗讞转

They disagreed over a similar issue as well. This dispute is with regard to a non-priest who ate a bird sin-offering that was killed by pinching the back of its neck. It is permitted for priests to consume such an offering, but it is prohibited to consume any other bird killed in such a manner, since it was not ritually slaughtered. Rabbi 岣yya says: He is liable to receive punishment on two counts, both for being a non-priest who ate a priestly offering and for eating something that was not properly slaughtered. Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one count. Rabbi 岣yya jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on one count.

讛转讞讬诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讚讜谉 谞讘诇讛 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讗爪诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜转专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜转专讛 讜诇讗 诇讝专讬诐 讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转 讜讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 诪诇讬拽讛 讛转讞讬诇 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讚讜谉 谞讘诇讛 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讛讜转专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转

Rabbi 岣yya began to deliberate. An unslaughtered animal carcass was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted to priests alone. Since it was permitted to priests and not to non-priests, there is a transgression here due to his status as a non-priest who ate of the sin-offering and there is a transgression here due to eating an animal killed by pinching. Bar Kappara began to deliberate: An unslaughtered animal carcass was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted to all. Therefore there is a transgression here only for being a non-priest, since if he were a priest there would be no prohibition at all.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 30-36 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn various scenarios that begin with three brothers, two of which marry two sisters. We will...
har hamenuchot nofar shuster

To Dust You Shall Return

Proper burial is a very significant idea in Judaism. We go to great lengths to ensure that the body is...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 3: Visual Tools for Yevamot (26-32)

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...

Yevamot 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 32

讜诪拽爪转讜 讞诇讜抓

and part of it must be released by 岣litza. That is, if two women were married to a single man, one of these women must enter into levirate marriage and the other must perform 岣litza.

讜讬讗诪专讜 讗讬 讚诪讬讬讘诐 讜讛讚专 讞诇讬抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara wonders: So let them say it. Why would it be problematic if people thought that? Even were they to act upon this mistaken assumption it would cause no harm, as there is no transgression involved in performing 岣litza. The Gemara answers: If he were to consummate the levirate marriage with one and then later proceed to perform 岣litza with the other, then indeed there would be no reason for concern.

讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讞诇讬抓 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诪讬讬讘诐 讜拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讗砖专 诇讗 讬讘谞讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖诇讗 讘谞讛 砖讜讘 诇讗 讬讘谞讛

Rather, the requirement to perform 岣litza with both women is a rabbinic decree that was instituted lest he first perform 岣litza with one of his brother鈥檚 wives and subsequently consummate the levirate marriage with the other. Under such circumstances, he would in fact be violating a prohibition. Once he performs 岣litza with the first woman he is subject to the prohibition indicated by the verse 鈥淪o shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother鈥檚 house鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:9). In this verse the Merciful One states that once he did not build his brother鈥檚 house but rather opted to perform 岣litza with one of his brother鈥檚 wives, he may not proceed to build it by consummating the levirate marriage with a different wife.

讗诪专 专讘讗 谞转谉 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讛讜转专讛 爪专转讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讚诪讞诇驻讛 讘讘注诇转 讙讟

Rava said: If the brother who performed levirate betrothal in the case described in the mishna subsequently gave a bill of divorce to that wife in order to nullify his levirate betrothal before he died, her rival wife is rendered permitted to the third brother. The third brother is allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with the wife of the second brother because this wife is no longer considered to be the rival wife of a woman with a double levirate relationship. The bill of divorce serves to nullify the act of levirate betrothal completely. However, the woman with whom the brother performed levirate betrothal and then received the bill of divorce is forbidden to the third brother. Why is this? She might be confused with a woman who receives a bill of divorce. In general cases where levirate betrothal was not performed, if a man gives a yevama a bill of divorce, he is no longer allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with her. If it were permitted to consummate the levirate marriage in this case, people might mistakenly do so in other cases of divorce as well.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 谞转谉 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讛讜转专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讚注讘讚 讘讛 砖拽诇讬讛

There are those who say an alternative formulation of Rava鈥檚 statement. Rava said: If the second brother gave a bill of divorce to the wife of the first deceased brother in order to nullify his levirate betrothal to her, then even she herself is permitted to enter into levirate marriage with the third brother. What is the reason for this? That which he performed with her, he removed. The levirate betrothal was completely nullified by the bill of divorce, and it is as though he had done nothing at all. Therefore, as far as the third brother is concerned, she remains with her original, single levirate bond, as though her status had never been changed by the second brother.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转讛 讗砖转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

MISHNA: In the case where two brothers were married to two sisters, and one of the brothers died, the widow at this point would be exempt from levirate marriage as the sister of his wife. And afterward the wife of the second brother died. Although the yevama is no longer the sister of his wife, this woman is nevertheless forbidden to him forever, since she had already been forbidden to him at one time.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讗 诪讬讚讞讬讗 诪讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 诇讙诪专讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讚讞讬讗 诪讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 诇讙诪专讬 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转谞讗 讛讗 转谞讗 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讱 讞讝讬讗 诇讛讬转讬专讗 讜砖专讬讗 讜讛讚专 讞讝讬讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讞讘讬讘讛 诇讬讛 讗拽讚诪讛 讜诪砖谞讛 诇讗 讝讝讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Now, just as there, in the earlier mishnayot, where there was a third brother and so the woman was not disassociated from this household completely, as the levirate obligation existed between her and the third brother to whom she was permitted, you said that she may not enter into levirate marriage because she was forbidden at one time, here, in the case of only two brothers, where she is disassociated from this household completely, is it not all the more so clear that it should be prohibited for her to enter into levirate marriage? The Gemara answers: The tanna taught this mishna at first, at which time he saw it fitting to rule that those other cases are permitted, and therefore he permitted them. And then he subsequently saw it fitting to rule that they are forbidden. And since that case was novel, it was beloved to him, he taught it earlier. But despite the fact that this mishna was no longer necessary, the mishna does not move from its place.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞 讜诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞 讘诇讘讚 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讘诇讘讚

The Sages taught: If he engaged in sexual intercourse with this woman who was forbidden to him, he is liable to receive punishment for violating the prohibition against marrying a brother鈥檚 wife, because she was never rendered permitted by the levirate mitzva, and he is liable to receive punishment for violating the prohibition against marrying a wife鈥檚 sister; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Shimon says: He is liable to receive punishment only for violating the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife. Rabbi Shimon holds that one prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition is already in place, and since she was already forbidden as his brother鈥檚 wife, the additional prohibition cannot take effect. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: He is liable only due to the prohibition against marrying a wife鈥檚 sister?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖谞砖讗 讞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 诪转 讻讗谉 砖谞砖讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to a case where the living brother married his wife first and afterward the brother who is now deceased married her sister. In that case, the first prohibition to take effect on the yevama was that of a wife鈥檚 sister, and only later, when she was married to his now-deceased brother, did the additional prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife take effect. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where the brother who is now deceased married his wife first, whereby she became forbidden to the brother as a brother鈥檚 wife, and afterward the living brother married her sister, rendering her forbidden as his wife鈥檚 sister as well.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诇讗 讞讬讬诇 转转讬讬讘诐 讬讘讜诪讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, in a case where the deceased brother married one of the sisters first, in which case she was forbidden to his brother as a brother鈥檚 wife, and afterward the living brother married her sister, the only prohibition in place is that of a brother鈥檚 wife. Therefore, since the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister never took effect, then after her husband died she should now enter into levirate marriage. As the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife is canceled in the face of the levirate mitzva, she should indeed enter into levirate marriage.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讬转诇讗 转诇讬 讜拽讗讬 讗讬 驻拽注 讗讬住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜讞讬讬诇 讜讛讬诇讻讱 诇讗 驻拽注

Rav Ashi said: The prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister remains suspended. If the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife is terminated, the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister comes and takes effect. Therefore, it is clear that the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister is not completely terminated. Accordingly, when a man dies and the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife is overridden by the levirate mitzva, the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister takes effect and she is forbidden to him due to that. The moment the first prohibition ceases to exist, the second immediately takes effect.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 注讘专 注讘讬专讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 砖转讬 诪讬转讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讞诪讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讝讬拽讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诇讬讜

The baraita indicates that Rabbi Yosei holds that if the brother consummated the levirate marriage with this woman he violated two prohibitions. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who committed a transgression deserving of two death penalties is sentenced to the harsher of the two deaths? One would be guilty of such a transgression if he engaged in intercourse with a forbidden relative who was also a married woman, as he would incur one death penalty due to her being a forbidden relative and one death penalty due to her being a married woman. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced according to the first relationship that applied to him with regard to this woman.

讜转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讝讬拽讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诇讬讜 讞诪讜转讜 讜谞注砖讬转 讗砖转 讗讬砖 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讞诪讜转讜 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜谞注砖讬转 讞诪讜转讜 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖

And it is taught in a baraita: In what case did Rabbi Yosei say that he is sentenced according to the first relationship that applied to him? If this woman was his mother-in-law who was widowed or divorced, and therefore forbidden to him only due to her status as his mother-in-law, and later she married and became forbidden as a married woman and he engaged in sexual relations with her, then he is sentenced for violating the prohibition proscribing his mother-in-law, since this was the first prohibition to apply. Alternatively, if she was a married woman and then he married her daughter so that she then became his mother-in-law, and then had sexual relations with her, he is sentenced for violating the prohibition proscribing a married woman.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝

Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Yosei concedes that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists when it is an expanded prohibition. An expanded prohibition is a prohibition that has a greater scope than the original prohibition, either because it applies with greater severity or because it applies to additional individuals. Rabbi Yosei holds that if the second prohibition incorporates additional individuals into the list of those for whom the original item is prohibited, then it takes effect in addition to the previous prohibition that had a more limited range.

转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 讞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 诪转 诪讙讜 讚讗转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 讗讞讬诐 讗转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: This works out well in cases where the living brother married his wife first, and her sister became forbidden to him as a wife鈥檚 sister, and then afterward the brother who was subsequently deceased married his wife鈥檚 sister. In that case it is possible to say: Since a prohibition was added for all the brothers, a prohibition was added for the living brother as well, and he is liable due to both prohibitions, as this prohibition is more wide-ranging than the previous one. In other words, at first this sister was permitted to the other brothers, and when the second brother married her she was rendered a brother鈥檚 wife and so she was additionally forbidden to the other brothers.

讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 诪讗讬 讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讗讬讻讗

However, where the deceased brother married first and afterward the living brother married her sister, in what way is there a prohibition that adds? No additional individuals were incorporated into the prohibition as a result of the marriage of the living brother with the sister, since the prohibition here proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister applies to him alone.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讙讜 讚讗讬转住专 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讗讞讜讜转讗 讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讛讜讗

And if you would say: Since he himself now married a sister he became prohibited to all of the other sisters, as opposed to the prior state of affairs where only his brother was married to one of the sisters and all of the other sisters were permitted to him, and therefore an additional prohibition now applies to him, this is difficult. In this case the new prohibition is not considered an expanded prohibition, but rather it is considered a more inclusive prohibition. It is more inclusive and more comprehensive in that it adds additional aspects to the prohibition for the same individual. This is not called an expanded prohibition, as it does not add prohibitions to additional individuals.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪注诇讛 讗谞讬 注诇讬讜 讻讗讬诇讜 注砖讛 砖转讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪注诇讛 讗谞讬 注诇讬讜 讻讗讬诇讜 注砖讛 砖转讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讘专讜 讘讬谉 专砖注讬诐 讙诪讜专讬诐

Rather, Rava said that when Rabbi Yosei stated in the baraita that the man is liable due to both prohibitions, for a brother鈥檚 wife and for a wife鈥檚 sister, he meant to say: I ascribe to him liability as though he transgressed twice, since indeed he violated two prohibitions, yet he is liable to receive punishment in human courts on only one count. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: I ascribe to him liability as though he transgressed twice, yet he is liable to receive punishment on only one count. The Gemara asks: What difference does it make if we consider it as though he transgressed twice? The Gemara answers: It affects the decision whether or not to bury him among the completely wicked. Just as a righteous individual is not buried among the wicked, so too, a wicked individual is not buried among those more wicked than himself. He who violated this prohibition is considered as though he committed two transgressions and not one, and so he would be buried accordingly.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讝专 砖砖讬诪砖 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 拽驻抓 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 砖转讬诐 拽驻抓 讘专 拽驻专讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 讗讞转

搂 The Gemara comments that the issue of a prohibition taking effect where another prohibition already exists is taught in the dispute found in a baraita, where it was stated: With regard to a non-priest who served in some capacity in one of the Temple services, such as the burning of a burnt-offering on the altar on Shabbat, Rabbi 岣yya says: He is liable to receive punishment on two counts, both because he was a non-priest serving in the Temple and because he desecrated Shabbat. Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one count. Rabbi 岣yya jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on one count.

讛转讞讬诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讚讜谉 砖讘转 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讗爪诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜转专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜转专讛 讜诇讗 诇讝专讬诐 讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转 讜讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讛转讞讬诇 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讚讜谉 砖讘转 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讛讜转专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗诇讗 讝专讜转

Since the matter could not be decided by tradition, Rabbi 岣yya began to deliberate and analyze the question logically. Prohibited labor on Shabbat was prohibited to all. When prohibited labor was permitted in the Temple for the purposes of the Temple service, it was permitted only for priests. This indicates that it was permitted for priests and not for non-priests. Therefore, when a non-priest serves in the Temple on Shabbat, there is a transgression here due to his serving as a non-priest and there is a transgression here due to his desecrating Shabbat. Bar Kappara began to deliberate in a different manner: Shabbat was prohibited to all. When it was permitted it was permitted in the Temple, so that if it was permitted for one to serve in the Temple, it was permitted for him to serve on Shabbat. Therefore, there is a transgression here only for his serving as a non-priest, since if this man were a priest his service would have been permitted. Therefore, he is not liable to receive punishment for desecrating Shabbat.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖砖讬诪砖 讘讟讜诪讗讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 拽驻抓 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 砖转讬诐 拽驻抓 讘专 拽驻专讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 讗讞转

They disagreed over a similar issue as well, the case of a priest with a blemish who served in the Temple by sacrificing a public offering, which overrides ritual impurity, while he was ritually impure. Rabbi 岣yya says: He is liable on two counts, both for serving with a blemish and for being ritually impure. Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one count, for serving with a blemish. Rabbi 岣yya jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on one count.

讛转讞讬诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讚讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讗爪诇 讻讛谞讬诐 转诪讬诪讬诐 讛讜转专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 转诪讬诪讬诐 讛讜转专讛 讜诇讗 诇讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讜讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讛转讞讬诇 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讚讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讛讜转专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘注诇 诪讜诐

Rabbi 岣yya began to deliberate. Ritual impurity was prohibited to all, as it was prohibited for all individuals who are ritually impure to enter into the Temple. When it was permitted in the Temple in circumstances where the entire public was impure, it was permitted for unblemished priests. Therefore, it was permitted only for unblemished priests and not for priests with blemishes. Consequently, if that priest with a blemish served while impure, there is a transgression here due to his status as a blemished priest and there is a transgression here due to ritual impurity. Bar Kappara began to deliberate in a different manner: Ritual impurity was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted for all. Therefore, the only problem was that this priest was blemished, and so there is a transgression here only due to his status as a blemished priest.

讝专 砖讗讻诇 诪诇讬拽讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 拽驻抓 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 砖转讬诐 拽驻抓 讘专 拽驻专讗 讜谞砖讘注 讛注讘讜讚讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 讗讞转

They disagreed over a similar issue as well. This dispute is with regard to a non-priest who ate a bird sin-offering that was killed by pinching the back of its neck. It is permitted for priests to consume such an offering, but it is prohibited to consume any other bird killed in such a manner, since it was not ritually slaughtered. Rabbi 岣yya says: He is liable to receive punishment on two counts, both for being a non-priest who ate a priestly offering and for eating something that was not properly slaughtered. Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one count. Rabbi 岣yya jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on one count.

讛转讞讬诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讚讜谉 谞讘诇讛 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讗爪诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜转专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜转专讛 讜诇讗 诇讝专讬诐 讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转 讜讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 诪诇讬拽讛 讛转讞讬诇 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讚讜谉 谞讘诇讛 诇讻诇 谞讗住专讛 讻砖讛讜转专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讛讜转专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转

Rabbi 岣yya began to deliberate. An unslaughtered animal carcass was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted to priests alone. Since it was permitted to priests and not to non-priests, there is a transgression here due to his status as a non-priest who ate of the sin-offering and there is a transgression here due to eating an animal killed by pinching. Bar Kappara began to deliberate: An unslaughtered animal carcass was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted to all. Therefore there is a transgression here only for being a non-priest, since if he were a priest there would be no prohibition at all.

Scroll To Top