Yevamot 7b — the Talmud in English

Therefore

the verse states: “For as the sin-offering -

so is the guilt-offering.”

The Scripture taught by comparing a sin-offering to a guilt-offering:

Just as

just as

a sin-offering requires the placing of blood and the burning of

the sacrificial portions

on the altar,

so too a guilt-offering

of a leper

requires the placing of blood and

the burning of

the sacrificial portions on the altar.

And

it is explained in the baraita that

if the verse had not returned it,

if the Scripture had not returned the detail that departed from the general rule, to compare it to that rule,

we would have thought:

For what it departed

only that detail which departed from the general rule

departed,

only it departed from the general rule, and it is not like it.

And for what it did not depart -

it did not depart.

That is, the other details of the general rule, which the Scripture did not remove from the general rule, did not depart from the general rule. For we have no basis to compare and liken the general rule to the detail that departed from it, or the detail to the general rule.

And if so,

here too,

with regard to the brother’s wife in the place of levirate marriage, which departed from the general rule in order to be judged through a new matter of permission for levirate marriage,

we would have thought,

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

the brother’s wife,

which departed from the general rule of forbidden sexual relations,

was permitted

that it was permitted for levirate marriage - she alone

was permitted,

was permitted for the purpose of levirate marriage.

But

the other forbidden sexual relations,

which did not depart from the general rule -

not

were compared to it, but remained in their prohibition, even without the teaching of “aleha”!

And the question remains: for what purpose is “aleha” needed!?

Rather,

the Gemara retracts this explanation and brings another explanation:

It might enter your mind to say: let it come,

let us learn that every forbidden relation may enter into levirate marriage

by

the teaching of

“what do we find” from

the forbidden relation of

the brother’s wife:

Just as,

just as

the brother’s wife,

which is a forbidden relation, and nevertheless

he may enter into levirate marriage with her,

so too the wife’s sister

also

may enter into levirate marriage.

Therefore the teaching of “aleha” comes to remove the teaching of “what do we find.”

And we reject this:

Are they comparable,

is the wife’s sister comparable to the brother’s wife, such that the Scripture needed “aleha” to say that one may not learn through the teaching of “what do we find” to permit the wife’s sister like the brother’s wife?

But

there,

there, with regard to the brother’s wife, there is only

one

prohibition,

that of the brother’s wife alone, and it alone was permitted in the place of levirate marriage.

But

here,

with regard to the wife’s sister, there are upon her

two

two

prohibitions!

For in addition to the brother’s wife, the prohibition of the wife’s sister is upon her as well!

And it is impossible to learn through the teaching of “what do we find” to permit for levirate marriage a woman upon whom there are two prohibitions, from the permission for levirate marriage of a woman upon whom there is only one prohibition.

And therefore the Gemara now brings a new course, explaining for what purpose the teaching of “aleha” is needed:

What might you say,

there would be room to say:

since it was permitted

the forbidden relation of the brother’s wife for the purpose of the mitzva of levirate marriage -

it was permitted

for the purpose of levirate marriage also the forbidden relation of the wife’s sister!

It teaches us “aleha” that only the prohibition of the brother’s wife was permitted, and we do not say that since the prohibition of the brother’s wife was permitted, the prohibition of the wife’s sister was also permitted.

And the Gemara explains:

And from where do you say,

and from where do we have grounds to say that there is such a possibility,

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

From this

as it was taught

with regard to the impurity of a leper: since permission was granted to him to insert his thumbs into the courtyard despite the impurity of his affliction, permission was also granted to him to insert them into the courtyard while bearing an additional impurity, the impurity of one who has immersed that day, who immersed on that day from the impurity of a seminal emission:

A leper who recovered from his leprosy, and whom the priest purified, as explained in the section concerning the leper, is still one who lacks atonement, for he is forbidden to enter the courtyard and forbidden to eat sacrificial meat until he comes on the eighth day of his purification to the Temple Mount and brings the purification-offerings of a leper.

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

And he inserts the thumb of his right hand and the big toe of his right foot into the courtyard, so that the priest may place upon them the blood of the guilt-offering that the leper brought.

The reason that he was permitted to insert his thumbs into the courtyard, although 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 Passover-offering.

And he saw

the leper who had come to purify himself

a seminal emission on that very day.

One who became impure with the impurity of a seminal emission is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount. It follows that he cannot come to the Temple Mount, stand at the Gate of Nicanor, and insert his thumbs into the courtyard in order to become purified through the blood of the guilt-offering that will be placed upon his fingers.

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

And

if

he immersed

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

And 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, with the result that in the evening he will not be able to eat the Passover-offering; and consequently they also cannot offer a Passover-offering on his behalf.

The Sages said: even though “one who has immersed that day”

[who immersed from the impurity of a seminal emission]

another may not enter

the Temple Mount as long as his sun has not set -

One who has immersed that day

this,

who became leprous, recovered and was purified, and reached the eighth day, but became impure with the impurity of a seminal emission - since he immersed from his impurity, and now it is the eve of Passover, he

enters

the Temple Mount to have blood placed upon his thumbs, which he inserts inside into the courtyard while standing at the Gate of Nicanor, and he thereby becomes completely purified from his impurity of leprosy; then in the evening he can eat the Passover-offering, and therefore they can offer the Passover-offering on that day on his behalf.

For

it is preferable that a positive commandment should come,

that of offering the Passover-offering,

which has

as a consequence of its neglect the punishment of

excision, and should override

the prohibition of

the positive commandment

of the entry of one bearing a seminal emission who has immersed that day into the Temple Mount,

which does not involve excision.

And therefore he enters the Temple Mount as far as the Gate of Nicanor, inserts his thumbs into the courtyard, and the priest places upon them the blood of the guilt-offering, and he thereby becomes purified from the impurity of his affliction.

Then he can send his Passover-offering through an agent to the courtyard, and in the evening he will become completely purified from the impurity of his emission, and he will be able to eat the Passover-offering.

And he added

and Rabbi Yohanan said

concerning the words of the baraita:

By Torah law -

even

the prohibition, the prohibition of

the positive commandment

of entering the Temple Mount, which is the “camp of the Levites” -

there is not in it

there is not in it, for one who has immersed that day from his emission.

For

it is stated

concerning that day described in the Second Book of Chronicles [chapter 20], on which Israel became purified from their impurity:

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

What is “the new courtyard”?

Rabbi said:

A courtyard

in which they renewed matters, and said

in it a new enactment, which they enacted then:

one who has immersed that day -

may not enter the camp of the Levites

[the Temple Mount].

And it is demonstrated that the prohibition against one who has immersed that day entering the Temple Mount, which is the camp of the Levites, is only by an enactment of the Sages, and not from the Torah!

But this explains only how one who has immersed that day enters the Temple Mount, which is the camp of the Levites, and that there is no Torah prohibition in his entry, and all the more so there is no prohibition of excision in his entry.

But it still does not explain how he is permitted to insert his thumbs into the courtyard, which is the camp of the Divine Presence, while bearing the impurity of one who has immersed that day!?

And Ulla said:

Although “entry in part [of his body]” into the courtyard is called “entry.”

That is, an impure person who inserts part of his body into the courtyard is considered to have made “entry in part” of part of his body, like entry into the courtyard, and it is forbidden with the punishment of excision for one who is impure.

Only a leper has a special permission: the Torah permitted him to insert his thumbs into the courtyard so that he might become purified through the placing of the blood upon them.

Nevertheless, for the leper who is also one who has immersed that day from the impurity of a seminal emission, it was permitted to insert his thumbs even while bearing the impurity of a seminal emission.

And

for what reason

did the Sages permit a leper who became impure through a seminal emission and immersed, and is one who has immersed that day, to insert his thumbs into the courtyard? After all, he is forbidden to insert his thumbs into the courtyard because he is one who has immersed that day from the impurity of a seminal emission, and entry in part is called entry?!

For

since it was permitted

the prohibition of entry into the courtyard

for

the impurity of

his leprosy -

it was permitted

also the prohibition of entry into the courtyard

for

the impurity of

his seminal emission!

And it is demonstrated that the entire permission is by virtue of “since.”

Since the prohibition of inserting the thumbs while bearing the impurity of a leper was permitted to the leper, the prohibition of inserting the thumbs while bearing the impurity of a seminal emission was also permitted to him [after he immersed].

And from here we could learn with regard to levirate marriage that since the Scripture permitted the prohibition of the forbidden relation of the brother’s wife with regard to levirate marriage, it also permitted the prohibition of the forbidden relation of the wife’s sister for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva of levirate marriage.

And therefore the Scripture needed “aleha” - to deny such a permission in levirate marriage with a forbidden relation.

And we reject this:

Are they comparable,

how can one compare and say “since it was permitted, it was permitted” in levirate marriage with a forbidden relation

to the

words of

Ulla,

concerning the permission to insert the thumbs of a leper who is one who has immersed that day from the impurity of a seminal emission!?