לערב אל תנח ידך

The graves of gentiles do not render items impure through a tent, as it is stated: “And you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men [adam]” (Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that you, the Jewish people, are called men [adam] but gentiles are not called men [adam]. Since the Torah introduces the halakha of ritual impurity of a tent with the words: “When a man [adam] dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), this halakha applies only to corpses of Jews but not those of gentiles. The Gemara raises an objection based upon the verse with regard to captives taken during the war against Midian: “And the persons [nefesh adam] were sixteen thousand” (Numbers 31:40), which indicates that gentiles are also referred to as adam. The Gemara answers: They are given this title due to the need to distinguish the people taken captive from the animals that were taken as spoils of war. The Gemara raises another difficulty based upon a verse with regard to the city of Nineveh: “Wherein are more than one hundred and twenty thousand men [adam] that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle” (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara answers: There, too, the gentiles are given this title due to the need to distinguish them from the animals mentioned in the verse. The Gemara continues to question Rabbi Shimon’s ruling based upon a verse pertaining to the war against Midian: “Whoever has killed anyone, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves” (Numbers 31:19). This indicates that gentile corpses convey ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: Perhaps a Jew was killed, and the concern was for impurity caused by his corpse. And the Rabbis reply that the verse attests: “Not one man of us is missing” (Numbers 31:49). No Jewish soldiers fell in battle, and therefore the concern for impurity must have been due to the corpses of gentiles. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai responds: The intent of that verse is that not one man of us is missing due to transgression, i.e., none of them sinned. Ravina said that the explanation above is unnecessary: Granted, the verse excluded gentiles from rendering items impure through a tent, as it is written: “When a man [adam] dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14); but did the verse exclude them from rendering items impure via touching and carrying? Since gentile corpses convey impurity in these ways, they could have rendered impure the Jews involved in the war with Midian, even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. MISHNA: If a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her. And there was an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos, a widow, and the king subsequently appointed him to be High Priest, and he nevertheless married her. Conversely, in the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who happened before a common priest, i.e., the priest was her yavam, and he was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, then even if he had already performed levirate betrothal with her, he may not marry her, because she is a widow. GEMARA: The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, that he may marry her? The verse states: “Shall he take for a wife” (Leviticus 21:14), an inclusive phrase that indicates that he may marry her in this situation despite the general prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara asks: If so, a widow waiting for her yavam should also be permitted to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: The word “wife” indicates that this does not include a yevama, who was not initially his wife but his brother’s. The mishna related an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla. The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king appointed him, yes, but not that he was worthy of being appointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here, as this was clearly not a proper appointment by the priests and the Sanhedrin but rather a political appointment, as Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos brought a vessel the size of a half-se’a [tarkav] full of dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest. MISHNA: A High Priest whose brother died without children performs ḥalitza and he does not perform levirate marriage, as he may not marry a widow. GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna teaches this halakha categorically, indicating that it is no different if she is his brother’s widow from betrothal, and it is no different if she is his widow from marriage. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Granted, she is forbidden to him if she was widowed from marriage, as, if he were to marry her, it would be a violation of both the positive mitzva that the High Priest marry a virgin and the prohibition for him to marry a widow. And a positive mitzva, i.e., levirate marriage, does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva together. However, if she was a widow from betrothal and is therefore still a virgin, the positive mitzva of levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara answers: By Torah law, levirate marriage is permitted in this case. However, there is a rabbinic decree prohibiting their first act of intercourse due to their second act of intercourse. After they have engaged in intercourse once, they have fulfilled the mitzva of levirate marriage, and any subsequent act of intercourse would constitute a violation of the prohibition without the fulfillment of a mitzva. MISHNA: A common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, unless he already has a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. And the Rabbis say: The only women in the category of zona, who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are a female convert, a freed maidservant, and any woman who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a man she is prohibited from marrying. GEMARA: The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: What is the reason for the halakha that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? It is because he is obligated to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Is it only priests who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but Israelites were not commanded? Why does the mishna specify that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? Rav Huna said to him: This halakha does in fact apply even to Israelites, and the tanna mentions priests because he wants to teach it in a way that would parallel the latter clause of the mishna, which states that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife and he has children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. It is priests who were commanded not to marry a zona, but Israelites were not commanded this. It is due to that reason that he taught the first clause of the mishna about a priest, even though that halakha applies equally to Israelites. Rav Huna said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “And they shall eat, and not have enough, they shall commit harlotry, and shall not increase” (Hosea 4:10). He expounds the verse as follows: Any intercourse that does not have the possibility to increase the population because the woman is incapable of having children, is nothing other than licentious sexual intercourse. § It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A priest may not marry a minor. Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: Go and investigate this halakha, as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling. He went and investigated it, and arrived at the following conclusion: Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabba explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that one must be concerned for the minority. Rabbi Meir does not allow one to assume that an unknown case is similar to the majority of cases. Consequently, one must take into account the possibility that a minor will turn out to be sexually underdeveloped, although this will not be true of most individuals. And he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a sexually underdeveloped woman is a zona and therefore forbidden to a priest. The Gemara challenges Rabba’s explanation: And does Rabbi Eliezer hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: A boy minor and a girl minor may not perform ḥalitza or levirate marriage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: You spoke well when you said that they may not perform ḥalitza, as the term “man” is written in the passage of ḥalitza (Deuteronomy 25:7–10), which limits the halakha to an adult male, and we compare a woman to a man and therefore limit ḥalitza to an adult woman. However, what is the reason that they may not perform levirate marriage? Rabbi Meir said to them: A boy minor may not perform levirate marriage lest he be found to be a eunuch, i.e., one who is incapable of fathering children for his late brother. Similarly, a girl minor may not perform levirate marriage lest she be found to be sexually underdeveloped when she grows up. In either case, the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply, and they turn out to have encountered a forbidden relative. And it was taught in a different baraita: A girl minor enters into levirate marriage but does not perform ḥalitza; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. This proves that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with Rabbi Meir and is not concerned that a girl may turn out to be sexually underdeveloped. The Gemara continues to challenge Rabba’s explanation of Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling. And does Rabbi Eliezer hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Wasn’t it is taught in a baraita: The zona forbidden to a priest is as the name zona implies, i.e., a married woman who committed adultery; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: A zona is a woman, even an unmarried woman, who is available to all, i.e., she has intercourse with whoever is interested. Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash says: Even if her husband went to make her drink the bitter waters after she disregarded his warning not to seclude herself with a certain man, and he had intercourse with her on the way, he has thereby caused her to become a zona because she was forbidden to him at the time, despite the fact that she is his wife. Rabbi Yehuda says: A zona is a sexually underdeveloped woman. And the Rabbis say: The term zona applies only to a female convert, a freed maidservant, and one who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse. Rabbi Elazar says: Even in the case of an unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage, he has thereby caused her to become a zona. This baraita proves that Rabbi Eliezer does not agree with Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that a priest may not marry a minor must be explained differently: Here we are dealing with a High Priest, and the problem is as follows: When can he acquire her as his wife? Only when she is grown up. However, if they had started living together as husband and wife when she was a minor, then when she is grown up and the marriage can legally take effect, she is already a non-virgin, and a High Priest is commanded to marry a virgin. Rava said: This explanation is without reason. If her father betrothed her to her husband, her husband acquired her from that time, as betrothal that a father carries out on his daughter’s behalf when she is a minor is effective by Torah law. And if the minor betrothed herself, is this Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion and not that of the Rabbis? The Rabbis would certainly agree that a High Priest may not marry a minor under these circumstances. Rather, Rava said: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling includes a common priest, and the reason he cannot marry a minor is that we are concerned lest she be seduced by another man, due to her tender age and naïveté, while married to him. The Gemara asks: If so, the same concern should apply to an Israelite also. The Gemara answers: The seduction of a minor is considered rape, and a rape victim remains permitted to her husband in a case where she is married to an Israelite, but not if she is married to a priest. Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling applies specifically to a High Priest, and it is the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that when the verse states: “A virgin of his own people shall he take for a wife [isha]” (Leviticus 21:14), one might have thought a High Priest may marry a minor; the verse therefore states that he must marry a woman [isha], i.e., an adult. If he must marry a woman, one might have thought it means a grown woman. The verse therefore states that he must marry a virgin, which excludes a grown woman, who is considered only a partial virgin because her hymen is not fully intact. How so? He must marry a woman who has left the class of minority but who has not yet reached the class of grown womanhood, i.e., he must marry a maiden. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The High Priest must marry a virgin, and the term virgin refers only to a maiden. And a verse similarly states: “And the maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, and no man had known her” (Genesis 24:16). The baraita cited above mentioned that Rabbi Elazar says: In the case of an unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage, he has caused her to become a zona. Rav Amram said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. MISHNA: A man may not neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply unless he already has children. Beit Shammai say: One fulfills this mitzva with two males, and Beit Hillel say: A male and a female, as it is stated: “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 5:2). GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna’s wording that if he already has children he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but he may not neglect the mitzva to have a wife. This supports what Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even if a man has several children, it is prohibited to remain without a wife, as it is stated: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). And some say a different version of the inference from the mishna: If he already has children, he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply and he may also neglect the mitzva to have a wife. Shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of what Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said? The Gemara responds: No, it means that if he does not have children he must marry a woman capable of bearing children, whereas if he has children he may marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. A practical difference between a man who has children and one who does not is whether he is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a woman capable of having children. This is permitted only for one who does not yet have children. § The mishna states that Beit Shammai say that one fulfills the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply when he has two males. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? The Gemara answers: We learn this from Moses as it is written: “The sons of Moses, Gershom and Eliezer” (I Chronicles 23:15). Since Moses did not have any other children, two sons must be sufficient to fulfill the mitzva. And the reason of Beit Hillel is that we learn from the creation of the world, as mankind was created male and female. The Gemara asks: And Beit Shammai, let them learn from the creation of the world as well. The Gemara answers that Beit Shammai could say to you: We do not derive a case where it is possible

Grandchildren are considered like children. This indicates that if one’s children have passed away, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply only if they had children of their own, as they are considered like his own children. The Gemara responds: When that baraita is taught it is with regard to completing the required number of children, e.g., if he had only a son, but his son had a daughter, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from another baraita: Grandchildren are considered like children. If one of a man’s children died or was discovered to be a eunuch, the father has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. This directly contradicts Rav Huna’s statement that one fulfills the mitzva even if his children die. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is indeed a conclusive refutation. § It was taught in the baraita that grandchildren are considered like children. Abaye thought to say that if one’s children die, he fulfills the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply through grandchildren, provided a son was born to his son and a daughter to his daughter, and all the more so if a son was born to his daughter, as his grandchildren take the place of his children in these cases. However, if a daughter was born to his son, no, she cannot take the place of her father. Rava said to him: We require merely fulfillment of the verse: “He formed it to be inhabited,” and there is fulfillment in this case, as the earth is inhabited by his descendants. The Gemara comments: In any event, everyone agrees that if one has two grandchildren from one child, no, he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, even if he has both a grandson and a granddaughter. The Gemara asks: And has he not? Didn’t the Rabbis say to Rav Sheshet: Marry a woman and have sons, as you have not yet fathered any sons, and Rav Sheshet said to them: The sons of my daughter are my sons? This indicates that one can fulfill the mitzva through grandchildren even if he did not have a son and daughter of his own. The Gemara answers: There, Rav Sheshet was merely putting them off. The real reason he did not want to get remarried was because Rav Sheshet became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse. Rav Huna’s discourses were so lengthy that Rav Sheshet became impotent after waiting for so long without relieving himself. Rabba said to Rava bar Mari: From where is this matter that the Sages stated derived, that grandchildren are considered like children? If we say it is derived from the fact that it is written in Laban’s speech to Jacob: “The daughters are my daughters and the children are my children” (Genesis 31:43), which indicates that Jacob’s children were also considered to be the children of their grandfather Laban, if that is so, does the continuation of Laban’s statement: “And the flocks are my flocks” (Genesis 31:43), indicate that so too, Jacob’s flocks were considered as belonging to Laban? Rather, Laban was saying that you, Jacob, acquired them from me. Here too, with regard to the children, Laban was saying: You acquired them from me, i.e., it is only due to me that you have children. Rather, the proof is from here: “And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir, the father of Gilead…and she bore him Segub” (I Chronicles 2:21), and it is written: “Out of Machir came down governors” (Judges 5:14), and it is written: “Judah is my governor” (Psalms 60:9). Consequently, the governors, who were from the tribe of Judah, were also called the sons of Machir, who was from the tribe of Manasseh. This must be because they were the children of Machir’s daughter and Hezron, indicating that grandchildren are considered like children. § The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: If a man married a woman in his youth, and she passed away, he should marry another woman in his old age. If he had children in his youth, he should have more children in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not withhold your hand; for you do not know which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both alike shall be good” (Ecclesiastes 11:6). This verse indicates that a man should continue having children even after he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse should be understood as follows: If one studied Torah in his youth he should study more Torah in his old age; if he had students in his youth he should have additional students in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, etc.” They said by way of example that Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students in an area of land that stretched from Gevat to Antipatris in Judea, and they all died in one period of time, because they did not treat each other with respect. And the world was desolate of Torah until Rabbi Akiva came to our Rabbis in the South and taught his Torah to them. This second group of disciples consisted of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. And these are the very ones who upheld the study of Torah at that time. Although Rabbi Akiva’s earlier students did not survive, his later disciples were able to transmit the Torah to future generations. With regard to the twelve thousand pairs of Rabbi Akiva’s students, the Gemara adds: It is taught that all of them died in the period from Passover until Shavuot. Rav Ḥama bar Abba said, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: They all died a bad death. The Gemara inquires: What is it that is called a bad death? Rav Naḥman said: Diphtheria. Rav Mattana said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that one must attempt to have more children even if he has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. § Apropos the discussion with regard to the mitzva to have children, the Gemara cites statements about marriage in general. Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Ḥanilai said: Any man who does not have a wife is left without joy, without blessing, without goodness. He proceeds to quote verses to support each part of his statement. He is without joy, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26), which indicates that a man is in a joyful state only when he is with his household, i.e., his wife. He is without blessing, as it is written: “To cause a blessing to rest in your house” (Ezekiel 44:30), which indicates that blessing comes through one’s house, i.e., one’s wife. He is without goodness, as it is written: “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18), i.e., without a wife. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: One who lives without a wife is left without Torah, and without a wall of protection. He is without Torah, as it is written: “Is it that I have no help in me, and that sound wisdom is driven from me?” (Job 6:13), indicating that one who does not have a wife lacks sound wisdom, i.e., Torah. He is without a wall, as it is written: “A woman shall go round a man” (Jeremiah 31:22), similar to a protective wall. Rava bar Ulla said: One who does not have a wife is left without peace, as it is written: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation and shall miss nothing” (Job 5:24). This indicates that a man has peace only when he has a tent, i.e., a wife. On the same verse, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever knows that his wife fears Heaven and she desires him, and he does not visit her, i.e., have intercourse with her, is called a sinner, as it is stated: And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A man is obligated to visit his wife for the purpose of having intercourse when he is about to depart on a journey, as it is stated: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace, etc.” The Gemara asks: Is this last statement derived from here? It is derived from there: “And your desire shall be to your husband” (Genesis 3:16), which teaches that a wife desires her husband when he is about to depart on a journey. Rav Yosef said: The additional derivation cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is necessary only near the time of her set pattern, i.e., when she expects to begin experiencing menstrual bleeding. Although the Sages generally prohibited intercourse at this time due to a concern that the couple might have intercourse after she begins bleeding, if he is about to depart on a journey he must have intercourse with her. The Gemara asks: And how much before the expected onset of menstrual bleeding is considered near the time of her set pattern? Rava said: An interval of time, i.e., half a daily cycle, either a day or a night. The Gemara comments: And this statement that a man must have intercourse with his wife before he departs on a journey applies only if he is traveling for an optional matter, but if he is traveling in order to attend to a matter pertaining to a mitzva, he is not required to have intercourse with his wife so that he not become preoccupied and neglect the mitzva. § The Sages taught: One who loves his wife as he loves himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time when they reach maturity, about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace. As a result of his actions, there will be peace in his home, as it will be devoid of quarrel and sin. One who loves his neighbors, and who draws his relatives close, and who marries the daughter of his sister, a woman he knows and is fond of as a family relative and not only as a wife,

Although a man has fulfilled the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, he is bound by a Rabbinic commandment not to refrain from being fruitful and multiplying as long as he is physically potent. For anyone who adds a soul to the Jewish people is considered as if he built an entire world.Similarly, it is a mitzvah of our Sages that a man should not live without a wife, so that he will not be prompted to [sexual] thoughts. Similarly, a woman should not live without a man, so that she will not be suspected [of immoral conduct].