Yevamot 15a — the Talmud in English

Come, and let us institute a remedy for the rival wives ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page-column location")

that they should perform halitza and not levirate marriage,

but they should marry after halitza into the marketplace, and they themselves will be fit, and their children fit, according to everyone.

They did not manage to finish the matter before the hour was disrupted.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said to

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri:

What shall we do with the

forbidden-relative

rival wives

who had already entered into levirate marriage before the enactment, according to Beit Shammai,

from now onward,

after it was enacted for them that they should not enter into levirate marriage?

That is to say, we can institute a remedy only from this point onward. But what remedy will there be for the illegitimate children of those rival wives of a forbidden relative, after they had already entered into levirate marriage according to Beit Shammai!? And the Gemara proves:

Granted, if you say that they acted

according to their words,

this is why he said: What shall we do

to remedy the illegitimate children?

But if you say that they did not act

according to their words—

what

was Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel’s question,

“What shall we do”?

After all, there are no illegitimate children whose situation must be remedied!?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: It was necessary;

the matter here is not the remedy of the illegitimate children,

but for the

matter of the remedy of the

rival wife herself,

according to Beit Shammai.

And

his question,

“What shall we do?”—

this is what he said:

These rival wives of a

forbidden relative

according to Beit Hillel,

for according to Beit Hillel there is no need for them to perform halitza, if they went and married without halitza—

According to Beit Shammai—

how shall we make a remedy for them,

so that they will be permitted to their husbands? For according to Beit Shammai they were not permitted to the marketplace without halitza, and they stand under the prohibition of a negative commandment, “The wife of the deceased shall not be outside,” with regard to their husbands.

Perhaps you will say,

let them perform halitza

now,

this is not a remedy, for by making them perform halitza—

they will become repulsed by their husbands!

They will thereby become repulsive to their husbands.

And if you would say

what does it matter to us?—

Let them become repulsive to them!

What difference does it make that they will become repulsive to their husbands, for they are forbidden to them according to Beit Shammai?

The answer to you: The verse said [Proverbs 3],

“Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.”

And this is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What shall we do with the first rival wives, who married without halitza and are forbidden to their husbands according to Beit Shammai, for we have no remedy for them!

Come and hear, from

that

which Rabbi Tarfon said,

of the students of Beit Shammai:

I long

[that is, “I long”],

for when the rival wife of the daughter comes into my hands,

that she should fall to me through the marriage of my brother—

and I will marry her

by entering into levirate marriage with her!

And it is proven that Beit Shammai acted according to their words!

And we answer:

Say

that this is what Rabbi Tarfon said: When the rival wife of the daughter will come into my hands,

I will marry her off

to the marketplace, without halitza, according to the words of Beit Hillel.

And we challenge:

But

Rabbi Tarfon

“I long”

[“I long”]

said!

And his words imply that he longs for a novel matter, one that is not currently found. But if he holds according to Beit Hillel, there is no novelty in this, since everyone conducts themselves according to Beit Hillel!?

And we answer: Rabbi Tarfon said that he longed

to exclude Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri’s

enactment, by which he enacted that she should perform halitza.

And Rabbi Tarfon longed to remove this enactment, and to marry her off to the marketplace without having her perform halitza, in accordance with the words of Beit Hillel.

Come and hear: An incident involving Rabban Gamliel’s daughter, who had been married to Abba, his brother,

Rabban Gamliel’s.

And Abba died,

Abba, Rabban Gamliel’s brother, who had been married to his daughter,

without children, and Rabban Gamliel entered into levirate marriage with her rival wife,

who was the rival wife of his daughter!

And it is proven from this that Rabban Gamliel entered into levirate marriage with his daughter’s rival wife, that Beit Shammai acted in practice according to their words, for otherwise Rabban Gamliel would not have entered into levirate marriage with her.

And the Gemara rejects:

But can you understand it

—can you really say this?

But was

Rabban Gamliel a student of Beit Shammai?

After all, he was among the descendants of Hillel!

Rather, Rabban Gamliel’s daughter was an aylonit.

And therefore her rival wife is not considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative. And as we learned in the first Mishna: All of them whose aylonit status was discovered—their rival wives are permitted. Since it becomes clear that her betrothal was a mistaken transaction, her rival wife is not the rival wife of a forbidden relative.

And we ask:

But from what it teaches in the latter part

of that same beraita:

Others say: Rabban Gamliel’s daughter was an aylonit.

And therefore Rabban Gamliel entered into levirate marriage with her rival wife.

By inference

we have to prove from this,

that the first tanna holds

that Rabban Gamliel’s daughter

was not an aylonit,

and nevertheless Rabban Gamliel entered into levirate marriage with her rival wife!

And we answer: In truth, according to both the first tanna and Others, Rabban Gamliel’s daughter was an aylonit.

And concerning the question whether

he knew about her,

Rabban Gamliel’s brother knew at the time of her betrothal that she was an aylonit,

and whether

he

did not know about her

at the time of betrothal—

there is a difference between them,

between the first tanna and Others.

And this is the dispute between the first tanna and Others:

Whether the rival wife of an aylonit daughter is permitted for levirate marriage only when he did not know at the time of her betrothal that she was an aylonit, and his transaction was a mistaken transaction, and therefore her rival wife is not at all the rival wife of a forbidden relative, for it was retroactively clarified that his deceased brother had not been married at all to his aylonit daughter. But if he knew that she was an aylonit and betrothed her, and the aylonit was the daughter of the levir, then she renders her rival wife forbidden.

This is the opinion of the first tanna.

Or, even if he knew at the time of her betrothal that she was an aylonit, and his transaction was not a mistaken transaction, her rival wife is not rendered forbidden.

And the reason for the matter is that an aylonit, since she cannot give birth, is not included at all in the section of levirate marriage. And her rival wife is considered “the rival wife of a forbidden relative not in the place of a mitzva.”

And when not in the place of a mitzva, the rival wife of a forbidden relative is not rendered forbidden.

And this is the opinion of Others. For they said, “Rabban Gamliel’s daughter was an aylonit,” and the meaning of “was”—

that he knew at the time of her marriage that she was an aylonit.

For if this were a mistaken transaction, it would have been appropriate to say that “she was found to be an aylonit.”

And if you wish, say:

if

he brought her into his house,

the deceased brother married Rabban Gamliel’s daughter, and she was together with her rival wife in his house.

And ultimately,

before his death,

the deceased brother divorced

Rabban Gamliel’s daughter, and only afterward the brother died, and now her rival wife, who had been her rival wife only during his lifetime and not at the time of the fall to levirate marriage, falls before him—

there is a difference between them,

between the first tanna and Others, as to whether she has the exemption of the rival wife of a forbidden relative.

According to Others, she too is considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative, and therefore Others said that Rabban Gamliel entered into levirate marriage with her because his daughter was an aylonit, and an aylonit does not render her rival wife forbidden.

But according to the first tanna, there is no need to say that she was an aylonit. Rather, this is not the rival wife of a forbidden relative. Since at the time his brother died she was not the rival wife of a forbidden relative [for his brother had divorced the forbidden relative], the prohibition of the rival wife of a forbidden relative applies only if she was a rival wife of the forbidden relative at the time of death, which is then the time of the fall to levirate marriage.

And if you wish, say: There is a condition concerning intercourse—

there is a difference between them.

That Rabban Gamliel’s brother made a condition with Rabban Gamliel’s daughter, whom he brought into his house as a wife on condition that she have no physical defects.

And the first tanna and Others dispute whether we say, “A person does not make his intercourse intercourse of licentiousness,” and he waives his condition so that his intercourse should not be intercourse of licentiousness with an unmarried woman, or whether he does not waive it, and if she has a defect she is not his wife.

According to the first tanna, his condition remains in force, and he does not waive it for her; therefore she is not his wife, for she is an aylonit, which is a defect, and consequently her rival wife is not the rival wife of a forbidden relative, for she is not her rival wife.

And according to Others, he waives his condition, and she is his wife, and her rival wife is the rival wife of a forbidden relative. Yet the rival wife of an aylonit who is a forbidden relative is permitted, since an aylonit is not called a fall in the place of a mitzva, and the prohibition of the rival wife of a forbidden relative applies only in the place of a mitzva.

Rav Mesharsheya raised an objection: An incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who picked an etrog on the first of Shevat.

That is, at the end of the tree’s second year of the Sabbatical cycle, and at the beginning of the third year.

And he treated it,

out of doubt,

with two tithes

[second tithe and poor tithe]:

One tithe,

one,

the poor tithe; he tithed it according to the law of the tithe that must be separated in the new year of the tree,

according to the words of Beit Shammai,

who say that the New Year for the tree is on the first of Shevat.

And if one tithe,

the

one second tithe, he tithed according to the tithe practiced in the preceding year,

he separated it according to the tithe applicable in the previous year,

according to the words of Beit Hillel,

who hold that the New Year for the tree is on the fifteenth of Shevat.

Infer from this: They acted

Beit Shammai according to their words, and therefore Rabbi Akiva, out of doubt, acted like them!

And we reject: In truth, Beit Shammai did not act according to their words.

And

Rabbi Akiva,

who separated two tithes out of doubt, did this according to Beit Hillel, since

his learning—

the teaching he had learned concerning when the New Year for the tree is—

became doubtful to him.

And Rabbi Akiva did not know

with certainty

whether Beit Hillel said the first of Shevat

is the New Year for the tree,

or whether he said the fifteenth of Shevat.

Mar Zutra raised an objection: An incident occurred, and the daughter-in-law of the elder Shammai gave birth, and Shammai removed

Shammai

the plaster,

he broke the plaster of the ceiling and made an opening in it,

and he covered over

the

bed, for the sake of

the

child,

so that he could eat in the sukka.

Infer from this: They acted

Beit Shammai according to their words. For according to Beit Hillel, a child who still requires his mother is exempt from the sukka.

And we answer:

There,

they acted according to their words and were not concerned about the prohibition of “you shall not cut yourselves,” because one who sees the opening of the ceiling does not know that they are doing this for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva of sukka through a child who still requires his mother.

Rather, the one who

sees

this

says:

He did it to increase the air.

They removed the plaster in order to increase the air in the sukka.

Mar Zutra raised an objection: An incident involving the trough of Jehu, which was in Jerusalem,

and the trough was carved into rock, and it did not contain forty seah of water, which is the measure for a ritual bath.

And that

trough

was “pierced” to the ritual bath

that was beside it.

There was an opening between the trough and the ritual bath, and through the opening the water of the trough became joined to the water of the ritual bath.

And through this the water of the trough became joined to the water of the ritual bath, to be considered one ritual bath containing forty seah.

And all purities that were in Jerusalem—

were prepared upon it.

On the basis of immersion in this trough.

And Beit Shammai sent and widened it,

the opening between the trough and the ritual bath, so that the water of the trough would be joined to the water of the ritual bath through a wider connection.

According to

what Beit Shammai say:

the water of the trough is not considered joined to the water of the ritual bath

until

the wall of the trough on the side of the ritual bath

is reduced for the majority,

and the waters mingle across the majority of the width between the trough and the water of the ritual bath.

And it is not sufficient for the water to mingle through an opening whose width is like the tube of a wineskin [the diameter of two fingers].

And we learned: The joining,

the connection between two

ritual baths, is made through an opening between the two ritual baths, when the measure of the opening’s width is

is accomplished through an opening between the two ritual baths whose width is

like the tube

that can be placed in the mouth of

the wineskin.

And this width of the tube is measured both

in the thickness

of the wall of the round tube,

and

both

in its hollow

of the tube.

And altogether, it is with a diameter of

about two fingers,

which revolve around themselves and

return to their place.

That is, a round opening [and it need not be square] whose diameter is like the diameter of the circle formed by two fingers revolving one complete revolution around themselves.

Infer from this:

from the fact that Beit Shammai widened the connection of the trough to the water,

that they acted

Beit Shammai according to their words.

And we answer:

There,

Beit Shammai acted according to their words because there is no concern in this for the prohibition of “you shall not cut yourselves.”