Sanhedrin 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

And the positive mitzva

of “her brother-in-law shall consummate the levirate marriage with her”

override

the

negative mitzva and positive mitzva. Rather,

if she is a widow

from betrothal,

raise the difficulty:

why

does he not perform levirate marriage with her, and why does the

positive mitzva

of the mitzva of levirate marriage

not override the negative mitzva

of a widow to a High Priest?!

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the positive mitzva of levirate marriage overrides the prohibition of a widow to a High Priest, and by Torah law he has a mitzva to perform levirate marriage with her. But since the positive mitzva is fulfilled only through the first act of intercourse, and not through a second act or subsequent acts, therefore the Sages also prohibited the first act of intercourse, and the Sages enacted a

decree,

that he should not have intercourse with her

the first time, lest

he continue thereafter to keep her as his wife and have intercourse with her

a second time,

at which point he would violate the prohibition incumbent upon a High Priest with regard to a widow, since at that point the positive mitzva of levirate marriage no longer applies.

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

It was taught likewise:

The first act of intercourse with a widow by a High Priest is an act through which the mitzva of levirate marriage is fulfilled, as we learned in a beraita: All levirate women who are prohibited to their levirs by a negative mitzva, including a widow, who is prohibited by a negative mitzva to a High Priest,

if the levirs preceded

the others and

had intercourse

with their levirate women

the first time,

then although they violated a rabbinic prohibition, nevertheless they

acquired

the levirate woman as a wife

, and it is forbidden to keep her through a second act of intercourse,

rather, he divorces her with a bill of divorce.

That is to say: When a levir has intercourse with a levirate woman, he acquires her as his wife with regard to all the laws of marriage, and she can be 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 betrothal is entirely exempt from levirate marriage, then he would not acquire her as a wife even through the first act of intercourse. Rather, it is proven that the first act is indeed intercourse for the sake of the mitzva of levirate marriage by Torah law, and therefore the levir acquires her as his wife.

We learned in our Mishna:

If a relative of his dies,

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

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Meir’s rationale.

The Sages taught:

With regard to a High Priest who is an onen over the death of his relatives, the Torah states [Leviticus 21]: “He shall not become impure for his father or his mother,

and he shall not leave the Sanctuary.”

Rabbi Meir expounded that this does not mean that he may not leave the Sanctuary at all, but rather

that he may not leave with them,

with those carrying his father’s or mother’s bier.

But he does go out behind them. How so? They are concealed, and he is visible; they are visible, and he is concealed.

We learned in our Mishna:

And he goes out with them as far as the entrance

of the city gate. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not leave the Sanctuary, as it is stated: “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary.”

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Yehuda’s rationale and the basis of their dispute.

The Gemara asks:

Rabbi Yehuda has stated a sound argument,

for the Torah said that he may not leave at all; what will Rabbi Meir answer him?!

Rabbi Meir could say to you: If so,

if your interpretation is correct, that the verse “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary” is to be understood literally,

he should not leave for his house either,

the High Priest!

Rather,

necessarily,

this is what it is saying:

This is the intent of the verse:

“He shall not leave the Sanctuary”—

he shall not leave his sanctity.

The High Priest must strengthen and safeguard the matter, so that he will not cause himself to leave his sanctity and become impure.

And since he has a distinguishing sign,

as he has a recognizable indication not to enter the alley in which the bier is located—

he will not come to touch it,

the High Priest will not come to touch the corpse.

But Rabbi Yehuda

holds:

Because of his grief,

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 it,

lest he inadvertently come to touch the corpse.

We learned in our Mishna:

And when he consoles

others, all the people pass by one after another, and the appointed officer stands between him and the people.

The Gemara now explains the practice of consoling mourners when they stand in a line.

The Sages taught: When he,

the High Priest,

passes along the line to console

the

other

mourners,

the deputy

of the priesthood

and the former anointed priest [a High Priest who had been removed from his temporary position, for example, one who was appointed High Priest to serve while the High Priest was temporarily unfit to serve] pass alongside him

a High Priest who was removed from his temporary office—for example, one who had been appointed High Priest to serve while the regular High Priest was temporarily unfit to serve—pass alongside him

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 pass together with the High Priest.

And when he

the High Priest

stands in the line

near his house

and is consoled 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 console the High Priest.

The Gemara infers from the fact that the former anointed priest is not mentioned in the latter clause [when the High Priest is a mourner] that he does not come to console him—

But the former anointed priest does not come to him,

he does not come to him to console him

. What is the reason?

Because

his mind is weakened:

If the former anointed priest were to pass before him, the High Priest would feel distressed, because he

would think,

to himself,

“He is rejoicing over my distress!”

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

Rav Pappa said: Learn from this,

it is possible to derive

from this teaching

from this beraita

three

matters.

Learn from it

from the fact that the beraita calls him “deputy” while the Mishna calls him “appointed officer” [the one who stands between him and the people], one can learn that

the deputy and the appointed officer are one and the same,

that the deputy is the appointed officer, and these are two titles for a single position.

And further,

learn from it

from the fact that in the first clause it says that the High Priest “passes” to console others, whereas when others console him, the latter clause says that he “stands,” one can learn that this is the practice:

the mourners stand, and all the people

who console

pass by,

approaching him one by one to console him.

And further,

learn from it

from the fact that the beraita said in its first clause, when the High Priest consoles others, “the mourners and all the people are on his left”—that the people who console pass on his left, and the High Priest is among those who console, while the mourners are on his left—one can learn that the

mourners—

stand on the left of those who console.

The Sages taught: At first,

in the ancient practice,

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

One family

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

Therefore,

they instituted

the enactment

that the people should stand and the mourners should pass by.

(He returned, went, and recounted; a mnemonic

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

1.

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 by.

2.

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 child

behind her,

but rather before her. And the reason was

because of an incident that occurred:

A woman once walked in the marketplace with her son walking behind her, and ruffians kidnapped him and placed him in a house. When the woman returned and did not see him, she began screaming and crying. One of the ruffians came and said to her: Come, and I will show him to you. She entered after him, and they raped her. If he walks before her, she can watch him so that they will not snatch him.

3.

And

further,

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

with one another

in the lavatory, because of seclusion.

For in their time the lavatories were public ones in the fields outside the city, and everyone would relieve himself there, and they were not locked from within. Therefore, if a man heard voices of people talking, he would not enter. But if he did not hear voices, he would enter and be secluded with the women; and it is forbidden for a man to be secluded even with two women.

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

Rav Menashya bar Uta said: I asked

I asked

Rabbi Yoshiya the Great

the elder

in the cemetery of Hutzal [the name of a city] concerning the “line,”

and

he said to me: There is no

line made with fewer than

ten people,

rather, every line must contain at least ten people,

and the mourners are not included in the count

of the ten.

Rabbi Yoshiya the Great further instructed me:

Whether the mourners stand and all the people pass by,

as in the ancient practice,

or whether the mourners pass by and all the people stand.

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

We learned in our Mishna:

When he is consoled

by others, etc., they say to him: We are your atonement, etc.

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

Therefore—

They raised a dilemma before them:

The students of the academy were uncertain:

When he consoles

the

others—

how

does

he say to them?

The Gemara clarifies:

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned in a beraita:

And he says: “May you be consoled.”

But the beraita does not clarify which consolation is being discussed. Therefore, the Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances?!

What case is being discussed?

If you say

that

when others console him,

when others console him, this is impossible! For would

he say to them,

would the High Priest answer them:

“May you be consoled”?!

After all,

he would be casting an evil omen!

He would be imposing a bad sign upon them, as though saying that they too would, Heaven forbid, require consolation.

Rather,

we must say that the beraita is speaking

when—

he consoles

the High Priest

others,

and in this manner the beraita says that he

said to them

the formula

“May you be consoled.”

The conclusion of the Gemara is: Indeed,

learn from it!

And the dilemma has been resolved.

We learned in our Mishna:

A king does not judge

and is not judged; he does not testify, and testimony is not given against him.

Rav Yosef said: They taught

in our Mishna

only with regard to kings of Israel,

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

But

a king who is among

the kings of the House of David—

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

for the prophet Jeremiah says [chapter 21]:

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

[with alacrity]

judgment.”

justice.”

Thus, they judge others.

And if they do not judge them,

if they do not judge them,

how do they judge

others?

But it is written

[Zephaniah 2]:

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

first,

and afterward adorn others.

[It is explained on the previous page.]

The Gemara raises an objection:

Rather,

if a king from the House of David judges and is judged—

why not the kings of Israel?!

Why do they neither judge nor stand trial?

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 dynasty and not from the House of David]

killed a person,

committed homicide.

Shimon ben Shetaḥ said to the Sages

of the Sanhedrin:

Set your eyes upon him,

to judge him properly, without flattery or favoritism,

and let us judge him,

let us judge him.

They sent word to him,

the Sages sent word 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 word to him,

the Sages sent word to King Yannai:

“You too, come here.”

Come here as well, because a court does not decide the fate of property belonging to a person except in the presence of the owner of the property. And similarly we find with regard to an ox that killed a person:

“And it was testified to its owner,” the Torah said,

and from here we learn the law that

the owner of the ox should 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 the owner monetary loss. Likewise, when a court comes to determine the sentence of a slave, who has an owner and is considered the owner’s property, they must judge him specifically in the presence of the owner.

He came,

King Yannai came before the Sages

and sat down,

and took his seat.

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

that your slave killed a person.

“You are not standing before us, but before Him Who spoke and brought the world into being. As it is stated”

[Deuteronomy 19]:

“And the two men who have the dispute 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:

No

I will stand

when you say so. Rather

I will do

as your colleagues say,

the other members of the Sanhedrin.