Yevamot 15b — the Talmud in English

The one who sees says: “To increase water”,

in order to increase water in the trough

is what he is doing.

Therefore, he makes a wide hole.

And this is not similar to two Torahs.

And the Gemara brings proof that they conducted themselves according to the words of Beit Shammai:

ta shma,

from this

which Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: “When I was studying Torah with Rabbi Yohanan the Horonite, I saw that he was eating dry bread with salt in two ways.

I came and told my father.

He said to me: ‘Take him olives.’ And I took them to him.

He saw them,

the olives,

that they were wet,

and he thought that the liquid issuing from the olives had come upon them, and by this they had been “prepared” to receive impurity.

No food receives impurity unless liquid has been placed upon it, and through this it becomes “prepared,” that is, it becomes “fit” to receive food impurity.

And he was concerned: perhaps an am ha-aretz had touched the outer surface of the earthenware barrel in which the olives had been placed, and the olives had become impure, by rabbinic law, since the Sages decreed impurity upon the touch of an am ha-aretz.

He said to me: “I do not eat olives!”

I came and told my father.

He said to me: “Go and say to him: It was a perforated barrel”,

and through the hole the liquid should have gone out of it to the outside.

Thus, I do not desire the placing of the liquid upon the olives.

And when there is no “satisfaction” in the placing of the liquid upon the food, it does not become “prepared” to receive impurity.

Except that the dregs blocked it

at the place of the hole, and therefore the liquid remained in it.

And we learned: “A barrel of rolled olives”,

pressed tightly in the barrel, and because of the pressure liquid issues from them—

Beit Shammai say: It does not need a hole,

so that it will be evident that its owner does not desire the placing of the liquid upon the olives, since the liquid is not considered a liquid, but is merely in the category of “fruit juice,” which does not prepare the food to receive impurity.

And Beit Hillel say:

The liquid issuing from the olives is considered a liquid like oil, and it prepares the olives to receive impurity if the owners desire the placing of the liquid upon the olives.

And therefore, if the owner wishes that the rolled olives in the barrel not become prepared to receive impurity from the liquid,

it needs

the barrel

to be perforated,

so that the liquid will go out through it to the outside, and it will be evident that the owners do not desire the placing of the liquid upon the olives.

And they agree

Beit Hillel with Beit Shammai,

that if it was perforated

the barrel

and the dregs blocked it—

that it

the olives inside it

is pure.

And even though

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok

was a student of Shammai—

all his deeds he performed only according to the words of Beit Hillel.

And we infer:

if you say that they acted

Beit Shammai according to their words,

this is its novelty,

there is a novelty in what the beraita pointed out about the conduct of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok, that he did not conduct himself like Beit Shammai, despite having been their student.

But if you say that they did not act

Beit Shammai according to their words—

what is its novelty

that Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok conducted himself according to the words of Beit Hillel!?

And the Gemara brings another proof:

ta shma

from that which was taught:

They asked Rabbi Yehoshua: “The rival wife of the daughter”—

what is

its law?

He said to them:

It is a

dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

!

And they asked him again:

“And according to whose words is the halakha”

?

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them:

Rabbi Yehoshua said:

“Why are you placing my head between two great mountains?

Between two great disputes, between Beit Shammai and between Beit Hillel!

I am afraid

to answer you according to whose words the halakha is,

lest they crush

crush

my rolled-up one!”

“But I testify to you concerning two great families that were in Jerusalem, the family of the House of Tzavoim from Ben Akhmai, and the family of the House of Kofaï from Ben Mekoshesh, that they are sons of rival wives”

of a forbidden relation, who married outside without chalitza, according to the words of Beit Hillel,

and among them

there are also

high priests, and they served upon the altar.”

And the Gemara infers:

if you say that they acted

Beit Shammai according to their words, it is well;

this is what he was saying

Rabbi Yehoshua

“I am afraid”,

for he did not wish to decide against them and rule that the sons of the rival wives whom Beit Shammai permitted to marry were mamzerim, since he was afraid of those mamzerim, that they would attack him because he disqualified them from entering the congregation.

But if you say that they did not act

Beit Shammai themselves according to their words—

why did he say, “I am afraid”?

Rather, the Gemara was astonished at what we learned in the beraita:

And even if they acted,

even if we say that Beit Shammai acted according to their words, while the halakha is according to Beit Hillel, it is still difficult:

What is “I am afraid”

that Rabbi Yehoshua said?

And

Rabbi Yehoshua said: “There is no mamzer except [one born] from those liable to court-imposed death!”

Whereas the sons of the rival wives who performed yibum according to Beit Shammai are the sons of those liable to karet, and they are not mamzerim, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, even according to Beit Hillel.

And if so, he has no reason at all to fear mamzerim attacking him if he publicizes that the halakha is according to Beit Hillel, since according to his words they are not mamzerim!?

And we answer:

Even if

the son of those liable to karet

is not a mamzer—

he is blemished

for the priesthood;

however, he is!

And Rabbi Yehoshua was concerned about those whom he would blemish for the priesthood.

And the blemish of the son of those liable to karet for the priesthood can be learned

by a kal va-chomer from

the son of an

almanah

who is possessed in a prohibited manner by a high priest.

Just as an almanah, whose prohibition does not apply to everyone,

but only to a high priest,

her son,

born from a high priest, is

blemished

for the priesthood, since he is a chalal.

This one,

the son of the rival wife of a forbidden relation who performed yibum,

whose prohibition applies equally to everyone—

all the more so is he blemished for the priesthood!

And now the Gemara explains the words of Rabbi Yehoshua, how he answered those who asked him:

And we considered it:

they established,

they asked

from him,

from Rabbi Yehoshua, the law of

the rival wives

of the forbidden relation: whether they are permitted for yibum according to Beit Shammai, or whether they are liable to karet according to Beit Hillel.

And

if Rabbi Yehoshua

had resolved for him

the law of the

sons

of the

rival wives,

whose mothers married outside without chalitza, when he testified to them concerning their sons, among whom there were high priests.

But surely it is obvious that the sons of the rival wives of a forbidden relation who married outside are not mamzerim even according to Beit Shammai, since they are the sons of those liable to negative commandments, and they are not mamzerim!?

And we answer:

two

two problems

he was asking from him

from Rabbi Yehoshua:

The first:

the rival wives

themselves of the forbidden relation—

what,

what is their law?

And if you should say

that concerning the

rival wives

of the forbidden relation the halakha is

according to Beit Hillel,

we have a second question:

The sons of the rival wives

of the forbidden relation

of Beit Hillel,

whose mothers married outside without chalitza—

according to

the

Beit Shammai—

what

is their law?

Perhaps you will say:

what practical difference is there

what the law of the sons of the rival wives of a forbidden relation is according to Beit Shammai, when the entire question was on the possibility that the halakha is according to Beit Hillel?

Your answer:

to resolve

from here the law of

the offspring of one who remarries his divorced wife

after she married another husband, and her other husband divorced her, and the first one took her back in violation of [“Her first husband, who sent her away, may not again take her”]—

according to Beit Hillel.

That is, it is learned from what Beit Shammai hold concerning the offspring of a woman awaiting yibum who married outside, that according to Beit Hillel he is only the offspring of those liable to negative commandments, that likewise the offspring of one who remarries his divorced wife is only the offspring of those liable to negative commandments.

But concerning the offspring of a priestly prohibition involving an ordinary priest, such as a divorced woman to a priest, it is obvious that he is forbidden by the law of a chalal, and one cannot learn from him by a kal va-chomer.

Are we saying

that one should expound

a kal va-chomer

as follows:

Just as an almanah to a high priest, whose prohibition does not apply equally to everyone,

for she is forbidden only to a high priest—

her son is blemished

for the priesthood.

This one,

a divorced woman whom her husband remarried after she had married another,

whose prohibition applies equally to everyone—

is it not logical that her son is blemished

for the priesthood?

Or perhaps there is an objection to be raised

against the kal va-chomer:

What is true of an almanah

to a high priest,

that she herself becomes profaned

through this intercourse, and therefore her son too is a chalal.

Can you say this concerning one who remarries his divorced wife after she married, that she does not become profaned through his intercourse, for she was already forbidden to marry a priest from the time she was divorced.

But she does not become disqualified from eating teruma, since a woman becomes profaned through the intercourse of those liable to negative commandments only through intercourse with one who was permanently a stranger to her, such as intercourse with a mamzer. But not through intercourse with one who has now become forbidden to her, such as one who remarries his divorced wife after she married, or a woman awaiting yibum who marries outside without chalitza.

And he said to them

Rabbi Yehoshua:

the rival wives

themselves—

I am afraid

to answer you what their law is, for according to Beit Shammai they perform yibum, and their sons are the sons of those liable to karet, and the sons of those liable to karet are disqualified for the priesthood; therefore I am afraid of them.