Yevamot 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

Therefore,

the verse states: “For like the sin-offering —

the guilt-offering is.”

The verse teaches, by comparing the sin-offering to the guilt-offering:

Just as

the

sin-offering requires the placing of its blood and

the burning of its

fats on the altar,

so too the guilt-offering

of a leper

requires the placing of its blood and

the burning of its

fats on the altar.

And

it is explained in the beraita that

if the verse had not repeated it,

if the verse had not brought back the detail that had been excluded from the general category in order to equate it with that category,

we might have thought:

That which was excluded

only that detail which was excluded from the general category

was excluded;

only it was excluded from the general category and is not like it.

And that which was not excluded —

was not excluded.

That is, the other details of the general category, which the verse did not exclude from the category, were not excluded from it. For we cannot equate or compare the general category to the detail that was excluded from it, or the detail to the general category.

And if so,

here too,

in the case of a brother’s wife in the context of yibbum, who was excluded from the general category of forbidden relations in order to be treated under a new provision permitting yibbum,

we might have thought

I would say, even without the verse “upon her,” that only

a brother’s wife,

who was excluded from the general category of forbidden relations,

which was permitted

she alone was permitted for yibbum

was permitted

for the purpose of yibbum.

But

the other forbidden relations,

which were not excluded from the general category,

were not

equated with her; rather, they remained forbidden even without the teaching of “upon her”!

The question therefore remains: For what purpose is “upon her” needed?

Rather,

the Gemara retracts this explanation and offers another:

It might enter your mind to say that it should be derived

that every forbidden relation may undergo yibbum

by

means of a

“what do we find” derivation from

the forbidden relation of

a brother’s wife:

Just as,

in the same manner as

a brother’s wife,

who is a forbidden relation, nevertheless

may undergo yibbum,

so too a wife’s sister

also

may undergo yibbum.

Therefore, the teaching of “upon her” comes to preclude the “what do we find” derivation.

And we reject this:

Are they comparable?

Is a wife’s sister comparable to a brother’s wife, such that the verse needed to say “upon her” to teach that one may not derive from the “what do we find” derivation that a wife’s sister is permitted like a brother’s wife?

But

there,

in the case of a brother’s wife, there is only

one

prohibition,

the prohibition against a brother’s wife alone, and that prohibition alone was permitted in the context of yibbum.

But

here,

in the case of a wife’s sister, there are

two

two

prohibitions!

For in addition to the prohibition against a brother’s wife, she is subject to the prohibition against a wife’s sister!

It is impossible to derive by means of the “what do we find” derivation that a woman subject to two prohibitions is permitted for yibbum based on the permission for yibbum of a woman subject to only one prohibition.

Therefore, the Gemara now presents a new approach explaining why the teaching of “upon her” is necessary:

Lest you say,

there would be room to say:

Since the forbidden relation of a brother’s wife was permitted

for the sake of the mitzva of yibbum —

the forbidden relation of a wife’s sister was also permitted

for the sake of yibbum!

The verse teaches us “upon her” that only the prohibition against a brother’s wife was permitted; we do not say that since the prohibition against a brother’s wife was permitted, the prohibition against a wife’s sister was also permitted.

The Gemara explains:

And from where do you say this?

And where do we find grounds to say that there is such a possibility,

that we say, “Since it was permitted, it was permitted”?

From this

which was taught

with regard to the impurity of a leper: Since he was permitted to bring his thumbs into the Temple courtyard despite the impurity of his affliction, he was also permitted to bring them into the courtyard while subject to an additional impurity, the impurity of one who immersed that day, having immersed on that day to purify himself from the impurity of a seminal emission:

A leper who had recovered from his leprosy and whom the koen purified, as described in the passage concerning the leper, is still one who lacks atonement. He is forbidden to enter the Temple courtyard and forbidden to eat sacrificial meat until, on the eighth day after his purification, he comes to the Temple Mount and brings the purification offerings of a leper.

The leper stands at the Nicanor Gate, since the area of this gate was not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple courtyard.

He brings the thumb of his right hand and the big toe of his right foot into the courtyard, so that the koen can place on them the blood of the guilt-offering brought by the leper.

The reason he was permitted to bring his thumbs into the courtyard even though he himself is forbidden to enter there will be explained below.

And it was taught: If it happened that there was a

leper whose

eighth

day fell on the eve of Passover,

on which one is obligated to bring the Paschal offering,

and he experienced

the leper who had come to purify himself

a seminal emission that same day.

One who became impure through a seminal emission is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount. Consequently, he cannot come to the Temple Mount, stand at the Nicanor Gate, and bring his thumbs into the courtyard in order to be purified by the blood of the guilt-offering placed on his fingers.

And since he is impure, he cannot offer or eat the Paschal offering!

And

if he

immersed

in order to purify himself from the impurity of the seminal emission, he is still impure as one who immersed that day, since he requires sunset in order to become completely purified from the impurity of his emission after immersing.

Therefore, as long as it is still day, he is not fit to enter the Temple Mount, and he cannot purify himself from the impurity of leprosy. Consequently, by evening he will not be able to eat the Paschal offering, and therefore they also cannot offer a Paschal offering on his behalf.

The Sages said: Even though “another who immersed that day

who immersed because of a seminal emission

may not enter

the Temple Mount as long as the sun has not set —

one who immersed that day

this

one, who had become a leper, recovered and was purified, and reached the eighth day, but became impure through a seminal emission — since he immersed to purify himself from his impurity, and it is now the eve of Passover,

may enter

the Temple Mount in order to have blood placed on his thumbs, which he brings inside into the courtyard while standing at the Nicanor Gate, and he will thereby become completely purified from his leprosy. He can then, in the evening, eat the Paschal offering; therefore, they may offer the Paschal offering on his behalf during the day.

For

it is preferable that the positive mitzva

of offering the Paschal offering,

which entails

the punishment of

karet if it is neglected, should override

the prohibition of the

positive mitzva

against the entry of one with a seminal emission who immersed that day into the Temple Mount,

which does not entail karet.

Therefore, he enters the Temple Mount as far as the Nicanor Gate, brings his thumbs into the courtyard, and the koen places on them the blood of the guilt-offering; he is thereby purified from the impurity of his affliction.

He can then send his Paschal offering into the courtyard by means of an agent, and by evening he will become completely purified from the impurity of his emission and will be able to eat the Paschal offering.

And

Rabbi Yoḥanan said

in relation to the words of the beraita:

By Torah law,

even

the prohibition — the prohibition of the

positive mitzva

against entering the Temple Mount, which is the Levite Camp —

is not present

in the case of one who immersed that day because of his emission.

This is

as it is stated

concerning that day described in the book of II Chronicles, chapter 20, on which the Jewish people were purified from their impurity:

“And Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah before the new courtyard.”

What is the meaning of “the new courtyard”?

Rabbi said:

A courtyard

in which they introduced new matters and said

in it a new ordinance that they enacted at that time:

One who immersed that day

may not enter the Levite Camp

[the Temple Mount].

It is thereby proven that the prohibition against one who immersed that day entering the Temple Mount, which is the Levite Camp, is only an enactment of the Sages and not a Torah prohibition!

This, however, explains only how one who immersed that day enters the Temple Mount, which is the Levite Camp, since his entry does not involve a Torah prohibition; certainly, his entry does not involve a prohibition punishable by karet.

But it still does not explain how he is permitted to bring his thumbs into the Temple courtyard, which is the Divine Presence Camp, while subject to the impurity of one who immersed that day?

And Ulla said:

Even though “partial entry [of his body]” into the courtyard is considered “entry.”

That is, when an impure person brings part of his body into the courtyard, this is considered “partial entry” of part of his body, like entry into the courtyard, and it is prohibited with a punishment of karet for one who is impure.

Only in the case of a leper is there a special allowance, as the Torah permitted him to bring his thumbs into the courtyard so that he could be purified by the placement of the blood upon them.

Nevertheless, in the case of a leper who is also one who immersed that day because of a seminal emission, he was permitted to bring his thumbs in even while impure because of the seminal emission.

And

for what reason

did the Sages permit a leper who became impure through a seminal emission and immersed, and is therefore one who immersed that day, to bring his thumbs into the courtyard? After all, he is forbidden to bring his thumbs into the courtyard because he is one who immersed that day due to the impurity of a seminal emission, and partial entry is considered entry?!

Because

since the prohibition of entry

into the courtyard was permitted

for

the impurity of

his leprosy,

the prohibition

of entry into the courtyard was also permitted

for

the impurity of

his seminal emission!

It is thereby proven that the entire permission is based on the principle of “since.”

Since the prohibition against bringing the thumbs in while impure due to leprosy was permitted for the leper, the prohibition against bringing the thumbs in while impure due to a seminal emission was also permitted for him [after he immersed].

From here we could derive with regard to yibbum that since the verse permitted the prohibition of the forbidden relation of a brother’s wife with regard to yibbum, it also permitted the prohibition of the forbidden relation of a wife’s sister for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva of yibbum.

Therefore, the verse needed “upon her” to reject such a permission in the case of yibbum involving a forbidden relation.

And we reject this:

Are they comparable?

How can one compare and say, “since it was permitted, it was permitted,” in the case of yibbum involving a forbidden relation,

to the

words of

Ulla,

concerning the permission for a leper who immersed that day because of the impurity of a seminal emission to bring in his thumbs?!