Sanhedrin 19a — the Talmud in English

And the positive commandment

of “Her brother-in-law shall come to her”

overrides

the

negative commandment and positive commandment. Rather,

if she is a widow

from the betrothal,

you should challenge this:

why

does he not perform yibbum, and why does the

positive commandment come

of the mitzva of yibbum

and override the negative commandment

of a widow to a High Priest?!

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, the positive commandment of yibbum overrides the prohibition of a widow to a High Priest, and according to Torah law he has a mitzva to perform yibbum. But since the positive commandment is fulfilled only through the first intercourse, and not through a second intercourse and thereafter, therefore the Sages prohibited even the first intercourse, and the Sages issued

a decree,

that he should not have intercourse with her

the first intercourse, lest,

perhaps he will continue and maintain her as his wife afterward, and have intercourse with her

a second intercourse,

and then transgress the prohibition of a High Priest with a widow, for then there is no positive commandment of yibbum.

And the Gemara now brings proof that the intercourse of a High Priest with a widow from the betrothal is indeed intercourse of a mitzva according to Torah law [and although the Sages prevented him from doing so, nevertheless, this does not cause the acquisition that he effected to be nullified].

It was taught likewise,

that the first intercourse with a widow to a High Priest is intercourse through which the mitzva of yibbum is fulfilled, as we learned thus in a beraita: All yevamot who are prohibited to their yevamin by a prohibition, including a widow who is prohibited by a prohibition to a High Priest,

if the yevamin preceded

the yevamin

and had intercourse

with their yevama

through the first intercourse,

then although they transgressed a rabbinic prohibition, nevertheless

they acquired

the yevama to be a wife

, and it is prohibited to maintain her through a second intercourse,

rather, he divorces her with a bill of divorce.

That is to say, when a yavam has intercourse with his yevama, the yavam acquires her to be his wife for all the laws of marriage, and she is divorced from him only by a bill of divorce, without halitza.

And if it were to be said that a widow who falls before a High Priest from the betrothal is entirely exempt from yibbum, then he does not acquire her as a wife even through the first intercourse. Rather, it is proven that the first intercourse is indeed intercourse of the mitzva of yibbum according to Torah law, and therefore the yavam acquires her to be his wife.

We learned in our Mishna:

If a dead person dies for him,

he does not go out after the bier; rather, they are concealed and he is revealed, they are revealed and he is concealed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Gemara now explains the reason of Rabbi Meir.

The Sages taught:

The Torah said concerning a High Priest when he is an onen over the death of his relatives [Leviticus 21]: “For his father and for his mother he shall not become impure,

and from the Temple he shall not go out.”

And Rabbi Meir expounded that this does not mean that he should not leave the Temple altogether, but

that he should not go out with them,

with those carrying the bier of his father and mother.

But he does go out after them. How so? They are concealed, and he is revealed. They are revealed, and he is concealed.

We learned in our Mishna:

And he goes out with them as far as the entrance

of the gate of the city; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not go out from the Temple, as it is stated, “And from the Temple he shall not go out.”

And the Gemara now explains the reason of Rabbi Yehuda and the rationale for their dispute.

And the Gemara discusses:

Rabbi Yehuda has said well,

for the Torah said that he should not go out at all; and what will Rabbi Meir answer to this?!

Rabbi Meir could say to you: If so,

if according to your exposition, that the verse “And from the Temple he shall not go out” is to be understood literally,

then he should not go out even to his house

the High Priest?!

Rather,

necessarily,

this is what it says,

this is the intention of the verse to say:

“From the Temple he shall not go out”—

he shall not go out from his sanctity.

The High Priest should make a reinforcement and safeguard for the matter, so that he will not cause himself to leave his sanctity and become impure.

And since he has a distinguishing indication,

that he has an identifying sign not to enter an alley in which the bier is located—

he will not come to touch,

the High Priest will not come to touch the dead.

And Rabbi Yehuda

holds:

Due to his bitterness,

because of the great bitterness of his heart over the death of his relatives, we are concerned

lest it happen that he come and touch,

lest it happen that he come and touch the dead without paying attention.

We learned in our Mishna:

And when he comforts

others, all the people pass one after another, and the appointed official places him between himself and the people.

And now the Gemara explains the practice of comforting mourners while they stand in a line.

The Sages taught: When he,

the High Priest,

passes through the line to comfort

mourners

of others—

then

the deputy

of the priesthood

and the former anointed [

a High Priest who was removed from his temporary position, as when they appointed him High Priest to serve while the High Priest was temporarily disqualified from serving] pass at his side

on his right

of the High Priest,

and the head of the paternal house

of the priests serving in the Temple,

and the mourners and all the people

pass

on his left

of the High Priest, and they pass with the High Priest.

And when he

the High Priest

stands in the line

near his house

and is comforted by others

over the death of one of his relatives,

the deputy is on his right

of the High Priest,

and the head of the paternal house and all the people are on his left

and the people pass on his left to comfort the High Priest.

And the Gemara infers: Since in the latter clause [when the High Priest is a mourner], “the former anointed” was not mentioned, it follows that he does not come to comfort him—

But the former anointed does not come to him,

he does not come to him to comfort him

. What is the reason?

Because

his mind is weakened,

if the former anointed were to pass before him, it would cause distress to the High Priest, because he

thinks,

he thinks in his heart,

“He is rejoicing over my distress!”

He is happy over my suffering, because they removed him and restored me to my position.

Rav Pappa said: Infer from this,

it is possible to learn

from this teaching

from this beraita,

three

things.

Infer from it

from the fact that the beraita calls him “deputy” and the Mishna calls him “appointed official” [the one who places him between himself and the people], that

the deputy is the appointed official,

that the deputy is the appointed official, and these are two titles for one position.

And further,

infer from it,

from the fact that in the first clause it was taught that the High Priest “passes” to comfort others, whereas when they comfort him it was taught in the latter clause that he “stands,” it may be learned that such is the practice, that the

mourners stand, and all the people

who comfort

pass,

and approach him one by one to comfort him.

And further,

infer from it

from what the beraita said in the first clause, when the High Priest comforts others, “the mourners and all the people are on his left,” that the people who comfort pass on his left and the High Priest is among those who comfort, while the mourners are on his left, it may be learned that the

mourners—

stand on the left of those who comfort.

The Sages taught: At first

in the early practice,

the mourners would stand and all the people would pass. And there were two families in Jerusalem quarreling with one another.

One family

would say: I will pass first, and the other would say: I will pass first.

Therefore

they instituted

a regulation

that the people should stand and the mourners should pass.

(He returned and went and recounted; a mnemonic

) Mnemonics for three traditions that Rami bar Abba said Rabbi Yosei instituted in Sepphoris.

A.

Rami bar Abba said: Rabbi Yosei restored the matter to its original practice in

the city of

Sepphoris, so that the mourners would stand and all the people would pass.

B.

And

he further said,

Rami bar Abba: Rabbi Yosei instituted in Sepphoris—

that a woman should not walk in the marketplace with her son

the young one

behind her

but before her. And the reason was

because of an incident that occurred,

that a woman walked in the marketplace and her son walked behind her, and licentious men kidnapped him and placed him in a certain house. When the woman returned and did not see him, she began shouting and crying, and one of the licentious men came and said to her: Come and I will show him to you. She entered after him, and they raped her. But if he walks before her, she can watch so that they will not snatch him.

C.

And

further,

Rami bar Abba said: Rabbi Yosei instituted in Sepphoris that women should converse

speaking with one another

in the lavatory because of seclusion. Since in their times the lavatories were public, in fields outside the city, and everyone relieved themselves there, and they were not locked from within, therefore, if a man’s voice of people speaking were heard, he would not enter there. But if no voice were heard, he would enter and be secluded with the women, and it is prohibited for a man to be secluded even with two women.

In their time, lavatories were public facilities in fields outside the city. Everyone would relieve themselves there, and the facilities were not locked from within. Therefore, if a man heard voices of people speaking, he would not enter. But if he heard no voices, he would enter and be alone with the women, and it is forbidden for a man to be secluded even with two women.

And the Gemara continues to explain the practice of the “line.”

Rav Menashya bar Utta said: I asked

I asked

Rabbi Yoshiah the elder

the great

in the cemetery of Hutzal [

the name of a city] concerning the matters of the “line,”

and he said to me: There is no

making

a line of fewer than ten people,

rather, in every line there must be at least ten people,

and the mourners are not included in the count

of the ten.

And Rabbi Yoshiah the elder further ruled for me:

Whether the mourners stand and all the people pass

according to the early practice,

or whether the mourners pass and all the people stand.

That is to say, they may follow either one of the practices.

We learned in our Mishna:

When he is comforted

by others, and so on; they say to him, “We are your atonement,” and so on.

The Mishna did not state the formula of consolation that the High Priest says when he comforts others.

And therefore—

They raised a dilemma before them

the members of the academy were uncertain:

When he comforts

the

others—

how,

with what formula

does he say to them?

And the Gemara clarifies:

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned in a beraita:

And he says, “May you be comforted.”

But the beraita does not explain which consolation is being discussed. Therefore the Gemara discusses:

What are the circumstances?!

What case is being discussed?

If you say

if it is said,

when others comfort him,

when others comfort him, this is impossible! For does

he say to them,

the High Priest answer them:

“May you be comforted”?!

For

he casts an evil omen!

He places an evil sign upon them, as though he were saying to them that they too will require consolation, Heaven forbid.

Rather,

it must be said that the beraita is speaking

when.

He comforts

the High Priest

others,

and in this manner the beraita said that he

said to them

with the formula

“May you be comforted.”

And the conclusion of the Gemara: Indeed,

infer from it!

And the dilemma is resolved.

We learned in our Mishna:

The king does not judge

and they do not judge him; he does not testify and they do not testify concerning him.

Rav Yosef said: They taught

in our Mishna

only the kings of Israel,

such as in the First Temple, or the Hasmonean kings in the Second Temple.

But

a king who is from the

kings of the House of David—

he judges and they judge them. As it is written,

for the prophet Jeremiah [chapter 21] says:

“House of David! So said the Lord: Judge in the morning [

promptly]

justice.”

justice.”

Thus, they judge others.

And if they do not judge him,

if they do not judge them,

how do they judge

how can they judge others,

as it is written [

Zephaniah 2]:

“Gather yourselves and gather others.” And Reish Lakish said: Adorn yourself

first,

and afterward adorn others. [

This was explained on the preceding page.]

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Rather,

if a king from the House of David judges and they judge him—

the kings of Israel, what is the reason they do not?!

Why do they neither judge nor are judged?

And the Gemara explains: The reason is

because of an incident that occurred.

The slave of King Yannai

the slave of King Yannai [who was from the Hasmonean family and not from the House of David]

killed a person,

he killed a person.

Shimon ben Shetah said to the Sages

to the Sanhedrin:

Turn your eyes toward him,

to judge him according to law, without flattery and without partiality,

and let us judge him,

and let us judge him.

They sent to him

the Sages to King Yannai:

“Your slave killed a person!”

He sent him to them,

he sent the slave to the Sages so that they would judge him.

They sent to him

the Sages to King Yannai:

“Come, you too, here.”

Come also you here, for a court does not decide the fate of property belonging to a person except in the presence of the owner of the property. And just as we find concerning an ox that killed a person,

“And warning was given to its owner,” the Torah said,

and from this we learned the law that

the owner of the ox shall come

to the court

and stand over his ox,

so that the court can judge it as a forewarned ox, since the court is about to cause monetary loss to its owner. Likewise, when a court comes to determine the judgment of a slave who has owners and is considered the property of the owners, they must judge him specifically in the presence of the owners.

He came,

King Yannai came before the Sages

and sat

and sat down.

Shimon ben Shetah said to him: King Yannai! Stand on your feet and let them testify against you,

concerning the fact that your slave killed a person.

And you are not standing before us, but before Him Who spoke and the world came into being. As it is stated [

Deuteronomy 19]:

“And the two men who have the quarrel shall stand

before the Lord,” and the Sages expounded from here [Shevuot 30a] that it is a mitzva for the litigants to stand on their feet.

He said to him,

King Yannai, to Shimon ben Shetah:

I will not

stand

when you say so. Rather,

I will do

as your colleagues say,

the other members of the Sanhedrin.