Yevamot 43a — the Talmud in English

And if Rabbi did not teach it as an anonymous Mishna, since he did not wish to decide thus as halakha—

как анонимную Мишну, поскольку не хотел устанавливать это как галахическое решение, —

Rabbi Ḥiyya,

who was Rabbi’s student,

from where does he know that this is the halakha, to the extent that he stated it anonymously in a beraita without dispute?!

, чтобы считать это галахой и потому записать в барайте без разногласия?!

Rabbi Naḥum said to

Rabbi Abbahu:

but we learned in tractate Kelim [13:8]:

в трактате Келим [13:8]:

A ritually impure vessel from which the designation of “vessel” has been removed no longer imparts ritual impurity.

A comb for flax,

which is made for combing flax,

whose teeth were removed, and two remained in it,

the two teeth that remained in it still have a use, to comb flax with them, and they are

ritually impure.

And

if one tooth remained in the comb,

one

alone, attached to the comb, which has no use as a vessel—then it is

ritually pure.

And all of them,

all the teeth

that were removed

from the comb, when they are

each one separately,

and they are not inserted into the comb, and they have a use as a vessel, such as cleaning the mouth of a lamp with them from the dirt accumulating in it, they are

ritually impure.

And if the comb was

for wool,

which was made for combing wool,

whose teeth were removed one between the others,

meaning that from every three adjacent teeth, the middle tooth was removed from between the two teeth on its two sides—

the comb is ritually pure,

because it is no longer fit for combing wool with it.

There remained in it,

in the wool comb,

three

teeth

in one place—

it is ritually impure.

And if

the

tooth

outer

the broad one of the comb

was one of them,

of the three teeth that remained in the comb—then it is

ritually pure,

because the broad outer tooth is not fit to comb with.

Two

teeth

were removed and he made them into tweezers,

into forceps—

they are ritually impure.

A tooth was removed,

one, and he prepared it for a lamp,

to clean with it the dirt accumulating in the mouth of the lamp,

or for stretching,

to spread out a garment to stretch it, into which pins or sharp teeth are inserted—then it is

ritually impure.

And it is established for us that the halakha is not in accordance with that Mishna,

despite the fact that it is an anonymous Mishna?!

Rabbi Abbahu said to

Rabbi Abbahu:

Set that one aside!

Bring proof from another place, apart from this Mishna!

For there is no proof from this Mishna, since

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say:

the Mishna

this—

is not a Mishna!

What is the reason

that it is not a Mishna?

Rav Huna bar Menoaḥ said in the name of Rav Idi, son of Rav Ika: because there is a difficulty

in this Mishna,

from the first clause to the final clause.

For it teaches

in the first clause of this Mishna: A comb

for wool whose teeth were removed one between the others—

ritually pure.

If two remained in it

teeth

in one place—

it is ritually impure.

And then it teaches

in the continuation of the Mishna:

three remained in it

teeth—

it is ritually impure.

And it follows precisely: only if

three

teeth remained in the comb,

yes,

only then is it ritually impure.

But if

two

adjacent teeth remained in it, it is

not

ritually impure.

And it follows that the final clause contradicts the first clause, and since it is a Mishna that must be emended, it is not a Mishna from which to bring proof.

And we challenge:

But what difficulty

is there from the first clause to the final clause?

Perhaps,

it is possible to distinguish and say:

This,

that which we learned in the Mishna, that if there are two adjacent teeth it is fit to comb with such a comb, refers to teeth found

in the interior,

in the center of the comb, opposite the handle of the comb, which is located in the center of the comb; and thus the one combing can comb by means of the two adjacent teeth that remained in the comb.

Whereas

this,

that which we learned, that three adjacent teeth are required, refers to teeth found

at the exterior,

at the side, toward the head of the comb, and they are not aligned opposite the handle of the comb, and it is difficult to comb with them; therefore, only if three adjacent teeth remained there is there benefit in this comb.

Rather, from here

we must say that this Mishna is not a Mishna:

For it teaches

in it:

And all of them that were removed each one separately—

are ritually impure.

And although he did not prepare it

the tooth for another use, it is still ritually impure, for the designation of “vessel” has not been removed from it.

But, on the other hand,

say the final clause:

there was a tooth

one

that was removed,

and he prepared it for a lamp or for stretching—

it is ritually impure.

And it is proven from here that only if

he prepared it,

the removed tooth for another use,

yes,

only then does it continue to be called a vessel and is it ritually impure.

But if

he did not prepare it

for another use, it

does not

continue to impart ritual impurity, because the designation of “vessel” has been removed from it.

And behold, the Mishna contradicts itself, and therefore it is not a Mishna.

Abaye said: But what difficulty

is this?

Perhaps

one can distinguish between the cases and say:

This,

where the tooth does not require preparation in order to continue imparting ritual impurity, refers to when he removes the teeth

with their handles,

together with part of the wooden handle of the comb, so that the tooth has a handle by which to hold the wooden handle, and it has a use even if he did not prepare it for another use.

This,

where the tooth requires preparation for another use, refers to when he removes the teeth by themselves,

without their handles,

for then, if he does not prepare them for another use, they have no use as a vessel.

And likewise

Rav Pappa said

to resolve it by means of another distinction:

But what difficulty is there?

And perhaps, this refers to a

tooth

that is small,

a small one, which, if he does not prepare it for another use, has no use and is not a vessel.

This refers to a thick one,

a thick tooth, which does not require preparation, and even if he does not make a handle for it, it is fit for use as it is.

And the Gemara answers:

Rather,

therefore, the halakha is not decided in accordance with that Mishna, despite the fact that it is indeed a Mishna:

because the precise ones conclude in it,

those who are exact in the language of the Mishna conclude in it:

This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

But the Sages dispute him.

And if so, this is not an anonymous Mishna, and therefore the halakha is not in accordance with it.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin sent

two halakhot:

a.

One may become betrothed within three months,

because separation is not required for betrothal,

and likewise

I saw the practice of the Sages, that they

act

to become betrothed within three months.

b.

And likewise

and thus

Rabbi Elazar taught us in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina the Great

how to count the three months of separation, in order to permit marriage:

Most of the

the

first month, and most of the

the

third month,

and the

middle month in full.

Ameimar permitted

he permitted

to become betrothed on the day of

the

ninetieth.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But Rav and Shmuel both say: She must wait three months, apart from the day on which he died and apart from the day on which she became betrothed to him?!

And we answer:

That—

with regard to

the waiting period of

a nursing woman, it was stated!

For Rav and Shmuel both say: She must wait twenty-four months, apart from the day on which he was born and apart from the day on which she became betrothed to him.

But with regard to the waiting of three months for separation, it is already permitted on the ninetieth day itself.

And we challenge:

But what of that man who made a betrothal feast on the ninetieth day, and Rava ruined his feast!

Because it is forbidden to become betrothed on the ninetieth day, but only on the ninety-first day.

And we answer:

That

was a marriage feast.

And the halakha is:

a nursing woman

must wait twenty-four months

complete,

apart from the day on which he was born and apart from the day on which she became betrothed to him.

And

every woman who is not a nursing woman

must wait three months

complete,

apart from the day on which he died and apart from the day on which she became betrothed to him.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: All women may become betrothed,

except for a widow,

because of mourning.

Rav Ḥisda said:

we must wonder at Rabbi Yosei’s words, for

it is a kal va-chomer

it:

And just as in a place where it is forbidden to launder

because of mourning, during the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs, nevertheless

it is permitted to become betrothed

during it, since betrothal is not considered rejoicing.

A place where it is permitted to launder,

during the thirty days of mourning—

is it not logical that it is permitted to become betrothed

then?!

And the Gemara explains:

What is it?

For we learned: The week

a week

in which the Ninth of Av occurs—

it is forbidden to cut the hair and to launder.

And on

the day

of Thursday it is permitted, for the honor of Shabbat.

And it was taught: Before this time,

before the Ninth of Av [and now the Gemara assumes that this refers to the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs]],

the people reduce their business dealings, from buying and selling, from building and planting.

And they become betrothed, but they do not marry, and they do not make a betrothal feast.

And on the basis of the words of this Mishna, Rav Ḥisda argued against Rabbi Yosei’s words that one should derive by a kal va-chomer from the mourning over the destruction of the Temple that it should be permitted to become betrothed during the thirty days.

And we answer:

When that

we learned [the Mishna],

that

Mishna, which permits becoming betrothed before the Ninth of Av, does not refer to the week in which Av occurs, during which it is forbidden to launder, for during this week it is also forbidden to become betrothed.

Rather, it is

the earlier-before-the-earlier.

The week before the week in which Av occurs, during which it is permitted to become betrothed, and then it is also permitted to launder.

And Rav Ḥisda’s kal va-chomer is nullified.

Rava said, and

behold,

“the earlier-before-the-earlier”

the week before the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs,

also

one should derive from it

a kal va-chomer:

And just as in a place where it is forbidden to buy and sell—

it is permitted to become betrothed.

During the thirty days, which is

a place where it is permitted to buy and sell—

is it not logical that it is permitted to become betrothed!

And we answer:

Do not say that Rabbi Yosei says: All women may become betrothed.

Rather, say: All women may marry,

except for a widow, because of mourning, since there is rejoicing in marriage, and during the time of mourning she is forbidden in rejoicing.