11 Tishrei 5781

(6) Wood that serves a metal vessel is susceptible to impurity, but metal that serves a wooden vessel is clean. How so? If a lock is of wood and its clutches are of metal, even if only one of them is so, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the lock is of metal and its clutches are of wood, it is clean. If a ring was of metal and its seal of coral, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the ring was of coral and its seal of metal, it is clean. The tooth in the plate of a lock or in a key is susceptible to impurity by itself.

(7) If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity. If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity. And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer.

Rava said: This halakha applies only in a case where, were he to run to the trunk of the tree he could reach it before the onset of Shabbat. Abaye said to him: But doesn’t the mishna state: And it grew dark while he was traveling, indicating that he is farther away than that? The Gemara answers: The mishna means that it grew dark while he was traveling so that he can no longer return to his house before nightfall; however, he is able to go to the trunk of the tree before Shabbat. Some state a different version of the previous statement. Rava said: The mishna means that it grew dark while he was traveling, so that were he to walk very slowly he could not reach his house; however, if he runs, he can still arrive before Shabbat. Rabba and Rav Yosef were going together along the way. Rabba said to Rav Yosef: Our residence will be beneath the palm that carries its brother, the one with another palm tree leaning on it. And some say he said to him: Our residence will be beneath the palm that spared its owner from the land tax [karga], the palm which yielded enough dates for its owner to pay his entire land tax. Rabba asked: Does the Master know of that tree? Rav Yosef said to him: No, I do not know of it. He said to him: Then rely on me, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: If two people were walking together, one of whom is familiar with a particular location in the distance, and one is not familiar with it, the one who is not familiar with it entrusts his right to designate his residence to the one who is familiar with it, and the one who is familiar with it says: My residence is in such-and-such place. The Gemara comments: But it is not so; that is not the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabba only taught it as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei so that Rav Yosef would accept it from him, due to the fact that Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning accompanies his rulings, Since the halakha is usually in accordance with Rav Yosei’s opinion, Rav Yosef would be less likely to raise doubts with regard to the ruling. We learned in the mishna: If one is not familiar with a tree or any other noticeable landmark, or if he is not an expert in the halakha, unaware that residence can be established from a distance, and he said: My residence is at my current location, his presence at his current location acquires for him the right to walk two thousand cubits in each direction. The Gemara raises a fundamental question: These two thousand cubits, where are they written in the Torah? The Gemara answers that it is as it was taught in a baraita: “Remain every man in his place” (Exodus 16:29); these are the four cubits, which constitute the minimum Shabbat limit, e.g., for one who ventured beyond his prescribed limit. “Let no man go out of his place” (Exodus 16:29); these are the two thousand cubits of the Shabbat limit for one who remains in his place. Unless otherwise specified, the measure of one’s place is two thousand cubits. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is the measure of one’s place? Rav Ḥisda said: We derive this by means of a verbal analogy between the term place written here: “Let no man go out of his place,” and from the term place written with regard to an unwitting murderer: “Then I will appoint you a place to where he shall flee” (Exodus 21:13). This last verse mentions both place and fleeing, and the term place is derived from the term fleeing. And the term fleeing is derived from the term fleeing, written in a different verse with regard to the unwitting murderer: “But if the slayer shall at any time come outside the border of the city of his refuge, whither he has fled” (Numbers 35:26). And the term fleeing is derived from the term border, which appears in the same verse. And the term border is derived from the term border, as it states there: “And the avenger of blood find him outside [miḥutz] the borders of the city of his refuge” (Numbers 35:27). Since this verse mentions both the term border and the term outside, the term border is derived from the term outside. And the term outside is derived from the term outside, as it is written with regard to the Levite cities, which also served as cities of refuge: “And you shall measure from outside [miḥutz] the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits” (Numbers 35:5). From this chain of identical terms, the meaning of the term place stated in connection with Shabbat is derived from the two thousand cubits mentioned with regard to the Levite cities. The Gemara asks: But let us derive instead by means of a verbal analogy between the term outside in the verse: “Outside the borders of the city of refuge,” and the term outside in the verse: “From the wall of the city outward [vaḥutza] a thousand cubits” (Numbers 35:4), that the Shabbat limit measures only a thousand cubits. The Gemara answers: One derives the meaning of the term outside [ḥutz] by means of a verbal analogy from another instance of the term outside [ḥutz], but one does not derive the meaning of the term outside from the term outward [ḥutza]. The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is significant about the difference between the two terms? Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse: “And the priest shall return [veshav]” (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse: “And the priest shall come [uva]” (Leviticus 14:44), from which it is derived that this is the halakha with regard to returning, i.e., it is after seven days; this is the same halakha with regard to coming; it is after seven days. Obviously, the less pronounced difference of one letter between ḥutz and ḥutza, should not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy. Gemara rejects this argument: This applies only when there are no terms that are identical to it however, where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms identical to it, rather than from the terms that are not precisely identical. The tanna’im of the mishna disagree whether the two-thousand-cubit limit granted to a person in every direction is measured as a circle or as a square tablet. The Gemara poses a question: With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigenos that the limit is measured as a circle, no matter what you say, it is difficult. If he is of the opinion that there is a verbal analogy from the verse written with regard to the Levite cities it is difficult, because sides is the term written, indicating squared boundaries. And if he is not of the opinion that there is a verbal analogy, from where does he derive that the Shabbat limit is two thousand cubits? The Gemara answers: Actually, he is of the opinion that there is a verbal analogy, but here, with regard to the Levite cities, it is different, as the verse says: “This shall be to them the open space of the cities” (Numbers 35:5), from which it is inferred: To this, the open space of the city, you should provide sides and square it, but you do not provide sides to those resting on Shabbat. Instead, those who establish Shabbat residence are provided with a circular, two-thousand-cubit limit. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis understand the emphasis placed on the word this in the verse? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita that Rav Ḥananya says: Like this measure shall be the calculations of measures for all those who rest on Shabbat, i.e., square. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: One who carries an object four cubits in the public domain is only liable if he carries it four cubits with their diagonal. The four cubits mentioned in many places is only the basic measure by which the distance beyond which it is prohibited to carry is calculated. However, in practice, a person is liable only if he carries the object the length of the diagonal of a square with four-cubit sides. Rav Pappa said that Rava once tested us by asking: With regard to a pillar in the public domain, ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, must the width be four handbreadths with their diagonal in order to be regarded a private domain, or not? And we said to him: Is this not that which was taught by Rav Ḥananya? As it was taught in a baraita: Rav Ḥananya says: Like this measure shall be that of all those who rest on Shabbat, indicating that the diagonal is the determining measure for the halakhot of rest on Shabbat. We learned in the mishna: And this is the meaning of that which the Sages said: A pauper can establish an eiruv with his feet, i.e., one who does not have the bread required to establish an eiruv may walk anywhere within his Shabbat limit and acquire residence. We have this leniency in effect only for a pauper, who does not have food for two meals. However, one who has bread may only establish residence with bread. Rabbi Yehuda says: This leniency is in effect for both a pauper and a wealthy person. Rav Naḥman said: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to a case where the person said: My residence is in my current location. As Rabbi Meir maintains: The primary ordinance and establishment of eiruv is with bread. Therefore, it is only with regard to a pauper, who does not have food for two meals, that the Sages were lenient and permitted him to establish residence merely by saying: My residence is in my current location. However, with regard to a wealthy person in his own house who has bread, no, they did not permit him to do so. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: The primary ordinance of eiruv is by foot, i.e., by going and stating that he is establishing his residence in that location, and therefore it applies to both a pauper and a wealthy person. However, with regard a case when the person said: My residence is in such-and-such place, and he is not there, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that for a pauper on the road on a Shabbat eve, yes, an eiruv may be established in that manner; however, for a wealthy person, no, an eiruv may not be established in that manner. And as for the mishna’s statement: And this is what the Sages meant when they said that a pauper can establish an eiruv with his feet, who, which Sage, is teaching it? It is Rabbi Meir. And to which clause of the mishna is it referring? It refers to the previous statement: If he is not familiar with a tree or any other noticeable landmark, or if he is not an expert in the halakha, and therefore is unaware that a residence can be established from a distance, and said: My residence is in my current location, he acquires two thousand cubits in each direction. And as for the statement in the continuation of the mishna: The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only to be lenient with the wealthy person, who, which Sage, is teaching it? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the option of establishing an eiruv by foot is available to the wealthy as well. Rav Ḥisda, however, disagreed with Rav Naḥman and said: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna is with regard to a person who said: My residence is in such-and-such place, in which case his residence is neither acquired by foot nor with bread. As Rabbi Meir maintains: A pauper, yes, he establishes residence with an eiruv in that manner; however, a wealthy person, no, he does not. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Both a pauper and a wealthy person may establish an eiruv in that manner. However, in a case where one said: My residence is in my present location, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that an eiruv of this kind is effective both for a pauper and for a wealthy person, as everyone agrees agree that the primary ordinance of eiruv is by foot. And as for the mishna’s statement: And this is what the Sages meant when they said that a pauper can establish an eiruv by foot, who is teaching it? It is Rabbi Meir. And to which clause of the mishna is it referring? It is referring to this clause: One who was coming along the way on Shabbat eve, and it grew dark while he was traveling. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he could have established an eiruv even if he was in his house. And as for the statement in the continuation of the mishna: The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only in order to be lenient with the wealthy person, who is teaching it? Everyone agrees with this halakha, and it is taught according to both opinions. The Gemara comments: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to one who said: My residence is in my present location. It was stated in the baraita: Both a pauper and a wealthy person establish an eiruv with bread; however a wealthy person may not go out beyond the Shabbat limit and say: My residence is in my present location, because the Sages said that one can establish an eiruv by foot only in the case of a person who was coming along the way and it grew dark while he was traveling. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Both a pauper and a wealthy person establish an eiruv by foot. And a wealthy person will go out beyond the Shabbat limit and say: My residence is in my present location. And this is the primary ordinance of eiruv. However, the Sages permitted a homeowner to send his eiruv in the hand of his servant, or in the hand of his son, or in the hand of his agent, in order to be lenient with him, so that he need not exert himself and go out and establish an eiruv by foot. This baraita presents the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as it was delineated by Rav Naḥman. The baraita continues. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the members of the household of the Memel family and members of the household of Guryon family in the village of Aroma, who were distributing dried figs and raisins to the paupers in years of famine, and the paupers of the village of Siḥin and the paupers of the village of Ḥananya would come to the edge of the Shabbat limit at nightfall, which was also within the Shabbat limit of Aroma, and then go home. The following day they would rise early and go to receive their figs and raisins. Apparently, one can establish an eiruv by foot, if he says: My residence is in my present location. Rav Ashi said: The formulation of the mishna is also precise, in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s explanation, as it teaches: If on a Shabbat eve one set out to go to a city for which an eiruv is established enabling him to go there on Shabbat, and another person caused him to return home, he himself is permitted to go to that city on Shabbat, and for all the other residents of the town it is prohibited to go there. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And we discussed this mishna and raised a difficulty: What is different about him and what is different about them? Why is he permitted to proceed to the other town while it is prohibited for the other residents to do so? And Rav Huna said: We are dealing here with a case where he has two houses, one in each city, and there is the distance of two Shabbat limits, four thousand cubits, between them. With regard to him, since he set out on his way, his legal status is that of a pauper, as he did not intend to return to his first house, but to continue to his other house. Therefore, he can establish residence at the end of his Shabbat limit by verbal means alone. And the legal status of these other inhabitants of his city, is that of wealthy people, as they are in their houses and have food. Consequently, they can only establish residence at the end of their Shabbat limit by depositing food there prior the onset of Shabbat. Apparently, everything stated with regard to one who says: My residence is in such-and-such place; to a pauper, yes, it applies to a wealthy person, no, it does not apply. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the case. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi was teaching the mishna to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav. He stated that this leniency applies both to a pauper and to a wealthy person. Rav said to him: Conclude your statement also: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan was in the habit of coming from his home in Artibbena to Pumbedita on Shabbat.

that he must divorce his yevama with a bill of divorce and she does not also require ḥalitza. And he may remarry her, if he wishes, after the divorce; as the halakha is not ruled in accordance with the opinion that after he performs the mitzva she is once more forbidden to him as his brother’s wife. Why? There, too, let the halakha say that the verse states: “And consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema],” as explained above, meaning that the first levirate bond is still upon her and she should also require ḥalitza. The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states: “And take her to him to be his wife” (Deuteronomy 25:5) to teach that once he has taken her, her legal status is that of his wife in every sense. The Gemara objects: If so, here too, in the case of a brother born after the levirate marriage, according to the opinion of the Rabbis this same principle should apply. The Gemara answers that The Merciful One states: “And consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema],” that is, even after the marriage she is still considered to be the wife of the deceased brother [yevama] with respect to any brothers who are born later. The Gemara asks: What did you see to distinguish in this way and say that once she is married the levirate obligation is totally abrogated with regard to ḥalitza, but that she remains prohibited as the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist with respect to any brothers born in the future? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason to say: Toss that which is permitted on that which is permitted, and toss that which is prohibited on that which is prohibited. In other words, in cases where the woman becomes permitted to her yavam through levirate marriage, it stands to reason that this permitted state is absolute, but with regard to the prohibition against taking the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist, it stands to reason that the verse comes to teach that she retains her prohibited status with respect to any brothers born in the future. The Gemara suggests: But according to Rabbi Shimon, who said that since he came and found her in a permitted state a brother born subsequently may perform levirate marriage since she was never for a single moment prohibited to him; however, if that is so, consider the case of one’s maternal half sister, who married his paternal half brother; their marriage was fully permissible since the husband and wife were in no way related to each other. And then his brother was born and the married brother died; in that case, let the sister enter into levirate marriage with her newly born half brother for the same reason, i.e., since he came and found her in a permitted state, as when he was born she was already his brother’s wife. The Gemara challenges this suggestion: How can you say that? What happened to the prohibition against marrying his sister, to where did it go? This widow is the maternal sister of the newly born brother and is therefore forbidden to him. The Gemara objects: If so, here too, one could have said: What happened to the prohibition against marrying the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist, to where did it go? In this case as well, the prohibition against marrying the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist already applied from the first brother, so why does Rabbi Shimon see this as abrogated by marriage? The Gemara answers that the comparison is unsound. This prohibition against marrying one’s sister has no case where it is permitted and so in this case is also not canceled, whereas that prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife has a case where it is permitted, when the mitzva of levirate marriage applies to a second brother and is therefore removed completely before the third brother is born. MISHNA: The Sages stated a principle about a yevama: Whoever is forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden relations to her yavam neither performs ḥalitza nor enters into levirate marriage and is completely exempt. If she is forbidden by a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or by a prohibition stemming from sanctity, as will be explained later, then since in these cases the obligation of levirate marriage is not fundamentally nullified she performs ḥalitza in order to become free of the levirate bond, and due to her prohibition she does not enter into levirate marriage. The Sages stated another principle: If two sisters who had been married to two brothers who subsequently died happened before the third brother for levirate marriage, and one of those sisters is a close relation to this third brother and is therefore forbidden to him, she is exempt from levirate marriage. But the other, her sister who is her yevama, i.e., her sister-in-law, performs ḥalitza or enters into levirate marriage. In this case, they are not ruled to be two sisters who happened before him simultaneously for levirate marriage, since one of them is prohibited to him as a forbidden relation, and therefore she never actually happened before him at all. The mishna explains: A prohibition resulting from a mitzva is referring to secondary forbidden relationships, which are prohibited by rabbinic law. The Sages prohibited marriage to certain women who were not forbidden by the Torah but were nevertheless deemed forbidden incestuous relations. A prohibition stemming from sanctity is referring to marriage of a widow to a High Priest, a divorcée or a woman who has performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] to a common priest, a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret] or a Gibeonite woman to an Israelite, and also an Israelite woman to a Gibeonite or to a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer]. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: This principle stated in the mishna about yevamot, what other cases does it add? Since the entire list of cases involving a forbidden relation was already detailed in the first chapter, what is this mishna adding? Rafram bar Pappa said: It comes to include the case of a rival wife of a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children. Not only does an aylonit herself not enter into levirate marriage, since she is unable to give birth, but her rival wife is exempt as well. And this is like the principle of Rav Asi, who said that the rival wife of an aylonit is forbidden because the aylonit herself remains prohibited to the yavam as the wife of his brother, as she was never rendered permitted by the obligation of levirate marriage. Therefore, her rival wife is the rival wife of someone prohibited as a forbidden relation. And there are those who say that Rafram bar Pappa’s statement was made in a different context. It was taught in the mishna: Whoever is forbidden to her yavam by a prohibition of forbidden relations is completely exempt, which implies that it is specifically in such a case that her rival wife is forbidden. But any case when one wife is not forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden relations but is instead forbidden for some other reason, then her rival wife is not forbidden. This case comes to exclude what? Rafram said: It excludes the rival wife of an aylonit, who requires levirate marriage or ḥalitza because the aylonit is not prohibited as a forbidden relation. And this statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi. The mishna states: Her sister who is her yevama performs ḥalitza or enters into levirate marriage. The Gemara clarifies this: Whose sister? If we say it is the sister of one who is forbidden due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva, since by Torah law she is cast before him for levirate marriage, then this would in fact simply be a case of two sisters who fell simultaneously before him, both requiring levirate marriage, since according to Torah law there is no prohibition against entering into levirate marriage with such a woman. If so, it turns out that he encounters the sister of the woman with whom he has a levirate bond; but that case has already been taught. Rather, it must refer to the sister of a woman who is forbidden to him by a prohibition of forbidden relations, and since he may not enter into levirate marriage with a forbidden relation, her sister is not considered to be the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. Therefore, the sister may be taken in levirate marriage. The mishna states that a prohibition resulting from a mitzva is referring to secondary forbidden relationships, which are prohibited by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: Why is this called a prohibition resulting from a mitzva? Abaye said: This is because it is a mitzva to listen to and obey the words of the Sages. The mishna states: A prohibition stemming from sanctity is referring to a marriage of a widow to a High Priest, a divorcée or a ḥalutza to a common priest. The Gemara asks: Why are these called a prohibition stemming from sanctity? As it is written with regard to the priests: “They shall be sacred to their God…they shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman divorced by her husband” (Leviticus 21:6–7). It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda switches the terms: A prohibition resulting from a mitzva is referring to a widow to the High Priest, or a divorcée or a ḥalutza to a common priest. And why is this called a prohibition resulting from a mitzva? As it is written in summarization at the end of Leviticus: “These are the mitzvot that the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai” (Leviticus 27:34). A prohibition stemming from sanctity is referring to secondary relationships forbidden by rabbinic law. And why is this called a prohibition stemming from sanctity? Abaye said: Whoever fulfills the words of the Sages is called sacred. Rava said to him: The language you use is not precise, since if so, whoever does not fulfill the words of the Sages is not called sacred, which implies that he is also not called wicked. However, anyone who transgresses the words of the Sages is in fact referred to as wicked. Rather, Rava said that the reason why this is called a prohibition stemming from sanctity is that the term sanctity indicates differentiation or separation, and there is a principle that you must sanctify yourself by refraining from that which is permitted to you by Torah law. The Sages decreed against secondary forbidden relations so that one would not eventually come to transgress Torah law. The mishna states that the levirate bond of a widow to a High Priest requires her to perform ḥalitza, and she may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara comments: The halakha that a widow does not enter into levirate marriage with a High Priest is taught categorically, merely in a general manner. It is no different whether she is a widow from marriage or she is a widow from betrothal alone. Granted, she certainly may not enter into levirate marriage if she is a widow from marriage, since she is forbidden to the High Priest by the positive mitzva stated in the verse: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13), and by the prohibition stated in the verse: “A widow, or one divorced…these he shall not take” (Leviticus 21:14). And a positive mitzva, levirate marriage, does not override both a prohibition, not marrying a widow, and a positive mitzva, marrying a virgin, together. However, if she is a widow from betrothal, then there is only a prohibition, as she is still a virgin. In that case, why not say that the positive mitzva of levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition against marrying a widow from betrothal? Rav Giddel said that Rav said in response: The verse states: “His yevama shall ascend to the gate to the Elders and say: My brother-in-law refused to establish a name for his brother in Israel, he did not wish to consummate the levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:7). As there is no need for the verse to state: “His yevama,” since it is clear to whom the verse refers and no new information is added by this word, what is the meaning when the verse states: “His yevama”? It comes to teach that there is one yevama who ascends for ḥalitza but may not ascend for levirate marriage, and her brother-in-law is not given a choice. Who is this? This is a woman with whom it is prohibited for her yavam to enter into levirate marriage, as he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition, and the positive mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition. The Gemara asks: Say that this is referring to those women who are forbidden and would be liable to receive the penalty of karet as well, i.e., that these too may not enter into levirate marriage but nevertheless require ḥalitza. The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And if the man does not wish to take his yevama” (Deuteronomy 25:7). This implies that if he wishes, he takes her in levirate marriage; it depends upon his wishes. However, one who is eligible for levirate marriage is eligible for ḥalitza. And conversely, one who is ineligible for levirate marriage is ineligible for ḥalitza and therefore does not require ḥalitza at all. Since those relations that carry a penalty of karet have no possibility of entering into levirate marriage, they do not require ḥalitza either. The Gemara asks: If so, those relations who are forbidden as he would be liable for the violation of a standard prohibition also should not require ḥalitza, as they may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: But the Merciful One included one category of yevama who is eligible for ḥalitza alone and not levirate marriage through the term: “His yevama.” The Gemara asks: And what did you see to conclude that the additional term is referring to relations who are forbidden and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition and not those who are liable to receive karet? The Gemara answers: That stands to reason, since betrothal takes effect with those women who are forbidden and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition. That is, if a man betroths a woman who is forbidden to him and with whom he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition, then although he violates a prohibition in doing so, the betrothal is valid and cannot be ended without a bill of divorce. Therefore, such a woman also requires ḥalitza. In contrast, betrothal does not take effect at all with those who are forbidden and would be liable to receive the punishment of karet, and therefore in these cases the laws of levirate marriage and ḥalitza do not apply at all. Rava raised an objection to the explanation of Rav: It is taught in a baraita with regard to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva and a prohibition stemming from sanctity that if he engages in intercourse with such a woman or performs ḥalitza with her, her rival wife is exempt, even though it was prohibited for him to have engaged in intercourse with her in the first place. If it enters your mind that women who are forbidden, as he would be liable for the violation of a prohibition, require ḥalitza by Torah law but do not require levirate marriage, then when he engages in intercourse with his yevama why is her rival wife exempt? If there is no biblical mitzva to engage in intercourse with her, his action would carry no halakhic validity and the rival wife should not be exempt. Rava raised the objection and he resolved it: The baraita teaches it disjunctively; it did not all deal with the same case. When the baraita says: Engages in intercourse with her, it is referring to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva. If one engages in intercourse with a yevama prohibited to him by rabbinic law, since by Torah law levirate marriage with her is valid, then although his act involved the transgression of a rabbinic decree, he nevertheless fulfilled the Torah mitzva and the rival wife is thereby exempt. When the baraita says: Performs ḥalitza with her, it is referring to a prohibition stemming from sanctity, and by Torah law there is no option of levirate marriage because of the prohibited relation; therefore, only ḥalitza exempts her rival wife. Rava raised an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta (Yevamot 11:3): A man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals or one whose penis has been severed, one who is a eunuch caused by man and not from birth or by disease, or an elderly man, all of whom are incapable of fathering children, one either performs ḥalitza or levirate marriage. How so? If any of these infertile men died, and they had brothers and they also had wives, and they then died childless, and the brothers proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives, or gave them a bill of divorce, or performed ḥalitza, whatever they did is done; i.e., their act was effective. And if any one of the brothers engaged in intercourse with the widow of one of those infertile men, he thereby acquired the woman as a wife according to the laws of levirate marriage. The inverse is also true: If the brothers died childless, and the infertile men proceeded to perform levirate betrothal with their wives, or gave a bill of divorce, or performed ḥalitza, whatever they did is done and took effect. And if they engaged in intercourse with their yevama, they thereby acquired the yevama as their wife. However, it is forbidden to maintain them, i.e., allow them to continue to live as husband and wife, because it is stated: “One with crushed testicles or whose penis has been severed shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2); they are prohibited from entering the congregation, i.e., marrying a Jew. And if it enters your mind that women who are forbidden, as he would be liable for the violation a prohibition, require ḥalitza by Torah law but do not require levirate marriage, then one could ask: if they engaged in intercourse why are they acquired as wives even though there would be no mitzva of levirate marriage because the men are prohibited from marrying them? Rather, Rav’s opinion is rejected, and Rava said an alternative explanation: The reason why a High Priest does not take a widow from betrothal in levirate marriage is because that relationship is also a violation of both a positive mitzva and a prohibition and therefore a different positive mitzva does not override it. How so? As it is written: “They shall be sacred to their God” (Leviticus 21:6), which teaches that there is a positive mitzva of sanctity associated with all prohibitions applying to priests. Therefore, any such prohibition contains both a positive and a negative mitzva. The Gemara asks: This resolves the issue of priestly prohibitions, but what is there to say about a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret] or a Gibeonite woman, who are prohibited from entering the congregation due to considerations of sanctity? They too may not enter into levirate marriage despite the positive mitzva, which would ordinarily override a prohibition. The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to all of the mitzvot: “Sanctify yourselves, therefore, and be sacred” (Leviticus 11:44). This teaches that in addition to the prohibition, there is the positive mitzva of sanctity. The Gemara raises an objection: If so, then every single prohibition in the entire Torah contains both a positive mitzva and a prohibition, as it is written: “Sanctify yourselves” (Leviticus 11:44). Rather, this reasoning must be rejected, and Rava stated a different reason: While in essence the mitzva of levirate marriage does apply here, nevertheless, a widow from betrothal is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with the High Priest by rabbinic decree, due to the case of a widow from marriage. The Gemara asks: What is there to say about the case of a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman? There appears to be no reason for a rabbinic decree in such cases. The Gemara answers: There, one must say that intercourse with a mamzeret even when the mitzva of levirate marriage applies was prohibited by rabbinic decree due to cases when the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply. The decree was issued lest one come to think that since in the case of levirate marriage a mamzeret is permitted, even in cases when there is no levirate marriage a mamzeret is similarly permitted. The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, and the levirate marriage is prohibited lest it become confused with another case, then the wife of a paternal brother should not enter into levirate marriage; i.e., by the same logic, although the Torah allowed it, the Sages should have established a rabbinic decree requiring that she perform ḥalitza due to the case of the wife of a maternal brother, who always remains prohibited as a brother’s wife. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon inheritance, and it is well known by everyone that only patrilineal relatives inherit, so there is no likelihood of confusion. The Gemara objects further: Then a childless woman should not enter into levirate marriage even though the mitzva applies to her; there should be a rabbinic decree due to the case of a woman who has children. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon children; it is well known by everyone that the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to establish one’s brother’s name and that levirate marriage applies only when there are no children. Here, too, there is no likelihood of error. The Gemara challenges further: The wife of a brother with whom one did coexist should not enter into levirate marriage; there should be a rabbinic decree due to the case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. The Gemara responds: The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon a common dwelling together and coexistence of brothers, and this is well known by everyone since the matter is explicit in the Torah. The Gemara continues to object: No woman should enter into levirate marriage; there should be a rabbinic decree due to the case of an aylonit. Since an aylonit may not enter into levirate marriage, all other women should be prohibited by rabbinic decree from doing so to avoid confusion. The Gemara answers: The case of an aylonit is not commonplace, and the Sages did not institute rabbinic decrees on matters that are not common. The Gemara asks: If so, neither a mamzeret nor a Gibeonite woman is commonplace either. Therefore, since the likelihood of taking a mamzeret in levirate marriage is so small, there is no danger that one might think it is permitted to marry a mamzeret even where the mitzva does not apply. Rather, Rava said that it is necessary to reject the previous suggestion and to offer a different reason: The first act of intercourse is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the likelihood of a second act of intercourse. Although intercourse the first time with the yevama is the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, which does override the prohibition, once the mitzva is fulfilled with that act there is no longer any positive mitzva involved. Afterward, this yevama becomes prohibited because there is no longer a positive mitzva to override the prohibition. Therefore, due to the possibility that one might engage in intercourse a second time with this woman, the Sages decreed that even the first act is prohibited. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If one of those yevamin who may not marry their yevama due to a prohibition engaged in intercourse with her, he acquired her with the first act of intercourse; however, it is prohibited to retain her for a second act of intercourse. The Gemara continues with a retraction from Rava: Rava then said, and some say it was actually Rav Ashi who said: That which I said, that the reason for the rabbinic decree was to prevent a second act of intercourse, is not correct, as there is a simpler explanation. As Reish Lakish said about the same matter: In every place that you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition applying to the same matter, if you can fulfill both of them together, this is best, and the positive mitzva does not override the prohibition. And if there is not any possibility of fulfilling both, then let the positive mitzva come and override the prohibition. Here, too, in the case of levirate marriage, it is possible, by way of ḥalitza, to fulfill the positive mitzva and not to transgress the prohibition prohibiting marriage to these women. The Gemara raises an objection to this last statement by Rava from that which is taught in a baraita: And if one of those yevamin engaged in intercourse, he acquired her as a wife. This shows that although it is possible to perform the mitzva by way of ḥalitza, if he nevertheless performs levirate marriage then the positive mitzva overrides the prohibition and the yevama is thereby acquired as his wife. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation, and Rava’s last explanation is rejected. The previous explanation is the correct one: The prohibition is due to rabbinic decree. § On the same subject, it was stated with regard to the case of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow who was his yevama requiring levirate marriage that the amora’im Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disputed the matter. One said that intercourse does not exempt her rival wife who had also been married to the High Priest’s brother, since the act was prohibited, and one said that it does exempt her rival wife, because although intercourse was forbidden, it is nevertheless a valid enactment of levirate marriage, and so her rival wife is thereby exempt.

(1) It is a positive biblical command that a man shall take in levirate marriage his paternal brother's wife if he died childless whether after wedlock or after betrothal.— —

(2) If he or she refuses levirate marriage, he should give her ḥalitzah; then she is permitted to marry another man.— —

(3) The biblical expression and he leaves no son (Deuteronomy 25:5) means son or daughter, or even the offspring of either son or daughter. If he has left any offspring whatever, whether from this wife or another, he exempts his wife from ḥalitzah and yibbum (levirate marriage).— —

(4) However, his son by a bondmaid or a non-Jewish wife does not exempt his wife, because the children coming from a bondmaid are slaves, and those from a non-Jewess are non-Jews; they are regarded as nonexistent.— —

(8) Men who adopted the Jewish faith and slaves who were set free have no legal relationship with their brothers and are like strangers to one another.— —

(6) If a man died and left many brothers, it is the duty of the eldest to marry the childless sister-in-law or to give her ḥalitzah, as it is written: "The first son that she bears" (Deuteronomy 25:6). This has been traditionally interpreted to refer only to the firstborn among the brothers; that is, the eldest of the brothers "shall succeed to the position of the dead man." The phrase that she bears denotes that the mother bore, and does not mean that the sister-in-law will bear.

(7) If the eldest brother refuses to perform the levir's duty, we must go around from one brother to the other. If they refuse, we must come back to the eldest and say: "It is your duty, either give ḥalitzah or marry her." The brother-in-law should not be coerced to perform the levir's duty, but should be compelled to give ḥalitzah.

(1) How is the Mezuzah^*Sections of Scripture placed on doorposts. written? Two sections of the Pentateuch, those beginning, "Hear, O Israel" (Deuteronomy 6:4) and, "And it shall come to pass" (Deuteronomy 11:13) are written in a single column on one slip of parchment. A space of half a nail's breadth is left as a margin above and below the column. If the Pentateuchal sections were written in two or three columns, the Mezuzah is fit for use. They must not however be written in the shape of a tail (broad at the top line and gradually narrowing to a point), or of a circle, or of a tent (narrow at the top and broadening to the base). A Mezuzah written in any of these forms is unfit for use. If the text was written out of order, for example, if the second section was in front of the first, it is unfit for use. If it was written on two slips of parchment, even though these were sewn together, the Mezuzah is unfit for use. A Scroll of the Law that has become worn out or phylacteries that are worn out may not be used for a Mezuzah. Nor may margins cut off from a scroll of the Law be so used; for anything dedicated to a sacred purpose may not be degraded from a higher to a lower degree of sacredness.

(2) It is a Mitzvah (an act of piety) to separate the section beginning, "Hear, O Israel" from that beginning, "And it shall come to pass" by a "closed" space (blank of nine letters). If the division between the two sections was an "open" one (the second section beginning a new line), the Mezuzah is fit for use, as, in the Pentateuch, the second section does not immediately follow the first. Special heed should be paid to the tittles in the Mezuzah. The following are the tittles which are made in the Mezuzah.

(3) In the first section, there are seven letters, each of which should have above it three upright lines in the shape of the letter Zain. They are the Shin and Ayin in Shema; Nun in Nafshecha; the two Zain in Mezuzoth; the two Teth in Totafoth. The second section has six letters, each of which should have above it three Zain-shaped lines. They are the Gimel in Degancha; the two Zain in Mezuzoth; the two Teth in Totafoth; the Tzadi in Ha-aretz. If the tittles were omitted or if they are more or less than those specified, the Mezuzah has not been rendered unfit for use. But if it was written without the lines having been ruled, or if the scribe paid no heed to plene or defective letters, or if he added in the text even a single letter, the Mezuzah is unfit for use.

(4) It is a universal custom to write the word Shaddai (Almighty) on the other side of the Mezuzah, opposite the blank space between the two sections. As this word is written on the outside, the practice is unobjectionable. They, however, who write names of angels, holy names, a Biblical text or inscriptions usual on seals, within the Mezuzah, are among those who have no portion in the world to come. For these fools not only fail to fulfill the commandment but they treat an important precept that expresses the Unity of God, the love of Him, and His worship, as if it were an amulet to promote their own personal interests; for, according to their foolish minds, the Mezuzah is something that will secure for them advantage in the vanities of the world.^*A reproof to those who sell Mezuzoth to be worn as amulets !

(5) It is a Mitzvah (act of piety) to write Al Ha-aretz (the last two words) on the last line, either at the beginning or in the middle of the line. All the scribes follow the custom of writing the Mezuzah in twenty-two lines, and (the last two words) Al Ha-aretz at the commencement of the last line. The following are the words in order, which begin each of the lines: (See the Hebrew text on the corresponding right-hand side, page 127b.)

(6) When the Mezuzah is folded, it is rolled up from the end of the line to the beginning, so that anyone opening it is able to read it from the beginning to the end of the line. After it has been rolled up, it is placed in a cylinder of reed, wood or other material, which is attached to the doorpost with a nail; or else a cavity is hollowed out in the doorpost, into which the Mezuzah is inserted.

(7) Before one affixes it to the doorpost, he recites the blessing, "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments, and commanded us to affix the Mezuzah". No blessing is recited at the time when it is written, because the affixing of it constitutes the fulfillment of the precept.

(8) If one suspended it on a staff, it is unfit, for this is not affixing it (to the doorpost). If one placed it behind the door, he has not fulfilled the precept. If he perforated the door and forced the Mezuzah into it like a nail, as a bolt is inserted in the staple-ring, it is unfit. If it was placed in a hollow of the doorpost at a depth of a hand-breadth, it is unfit. If one cut a stick, put a Mezuzah on it, attached this stick to other sticks and made of them all a doorpost, it is unfit, because the affixing of the Mezuzah preceded the erection of the doorpost.

(9) The Mezuzah of a private dwelling is examined once every seven years; that attached to a public building twice in the Jubilee (fifty years). The object is to ascertain whether a letter has been torn away or obliterated; because owing to the Mezuzah being affixed to walls, it is liable to decay.

(10) The fulfillment of the precept of the Mezuzah is incumbent upon all Israelites, including women and slaves (of Israelites). Children under the age of thirteen years are trained to affix the Mezuzah to their rooms. One who rents a dwelling outside the Holy Land, or lodges at an inn in the Holy Land is exempt from the obligation of affixing a Mezuzah for a period of thirty days after beginning his occupancy. But if one rents a home in the Holy Land, the duty of affixing a Mezuzah devolves immediately.

(11) If one lets a dwelling to another person, the duty devolves upon the lessee to bring a Mezuzah and attach it, even if he has to pay for doing so, for the precept of the Mezuzah is the personal obligation of the occupant and not an obligation attaching to the structure. When he surrenders possession, he must not, on quitting the premises, remove the Mezuzah. But if the owner is a non-Israelite, the Jewish tenant, when leaving, takes it away.

(3) Regarding the capacity of nine kavvim,⁵A Kav is equal to 24 Kabeitza or 16 Revi’is. See Glossary. there are diverse opinions (It is best to take about twenty four quarts, one liter according to the Polish measurements.) It is not necessary that all the water be contained in one vessel; but even two or three vessels can be combined to make up nine kavvim. It is however necessary that the second vessel be poured before the first is emptied, and the third one be poured before the second is emptied. Even when pouring from one vessel, the flow must not be interrupted. However, four vessels, even if they are poured simultaneously, cannot be combined.

(4) Afterwards, an egg is beaten with wine. The egg is beaten together with its shell, to symbolize that fortune is like a revolving wheel in the world. (Where wine is not available water may be used.) The head of the deceased is washed with this mixture. The custom in some places that each one takes a little of the mixture and sprinkles it upon the deceased is improper, and the custom should be abolished because it resembles the customs of the gentiles. Rather it should be used only to wash his head.

(5) Care should be taken that the fingers of the deceased do not remain closed. The custom in some places to close his fingers, should be abolished. The belief of those who say that by doing so, they symbolize sacred names, is a mere fabrication. Similarly the custom of placing twigs in his hand generally called forks, is a foolish custom.⁶According to Chassam Sofer the custom should be upheld as it is an old, accepted custom. See Chassam Sofer Yora Deiah 175. If they insist on placing them, they should be put alongside the deceased.

(6) After the deceased has been cleansed he should not be left in the place where the purification took place, but should be placed opposite the door inside the house. One should not turn over the board upon which the deceased has been washed, for it may be dangerous to do so.

(7) A parent should not kiss his dead children, as it is very dangerous. All the more so, one should not grasp the hand of the deceased and say that he should take him along.