Ievamot — Talmud Ierușalmi

Ievamot

Ievamot — Talmud Ierușalmi pe Beth HaMidrash: textul ebraic și traducerea lui în română, cu Rași și marii comentatori. Gratuit, online.

משנה: חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּבּוּם עַד סוֹף העוֹלָם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנוֹ בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו אֲחוֹתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ.MISHNAH: Fifteen [categories of] women. 25:5 requires that the widow of any man who died without legitimate or illegitimate issue be married by the man’s brother. If, however, that brother is forbidden one of the deceased’s wives by the incest prohibition of Lev. 18 or the rules of Deut. 25:5–10, she may not be married by the brother to whom she is forbidden. free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever polygamous brothers; n arbitrary.. They are the following: one’s daughter.). Legitimate children are covered by Lev. 18:17. However, the Yerushalmi (Note 135) does not make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate daughters.Sadducees (followed by Karaites and Christians) did forbid marriage with a niece since marriage with an aunt is a biblical prohibition and they held that the incest prohibitions of Lev. 18 are gender symmetric. Pharisaic opinion is that “one does not introduce punishable offence by argument;” what is written is forbidden, what is not written is not (biblically) forbidden., his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter. 18:10., his wife’s daughter and her daughter‘s daughter and her son’s daughter. 18:17: “The genitals of a women and her daughter (including mother-in-law and wife) you may not [both] uncover, her son’s daughter (wife’s granddaughter or wife as paternal grandmother’s daughter) or her daughter’s daughter (this forbids the wife’s maternal grandmother) you may not marry to uncover her genitals; they are relatives, it is tabu.”, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister. 18:9) married to a paternal halfbrother. It will be established that the levirate applies only to paternal brothers; the first marriage of the halfsister was legitimate. and his maternat aunt. 18:13. and his wife’s sister. 18:18., his maternal halfbrother’s wife. 18:16. It is assumed that the halfbrother died or divorced his wife who then married a paternal halfbrother of the man in question to whom she was not related. The earlier marriage to the maternal halfbrother forbade her permanently to the levir, the brother-in-law on the husband’s side.Since in Deut. 25, “brother” is assumed to mean “paternal brother”, it needs some discussion in the Halakhah why in Lev. 18 “brother” may mean “maternal or paternal brother” since the usual stance is that in legal texts one word can have only one meaning., the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family., and his daughter-in-law. 18:15) except for the case that the son had died and his widow married a brother of her father-in-law unrelated to her. The prohibition of 18:15 is permanent; the earlier marriage to the son forbade her permanently to the father-in-law..

הלכה: חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן כול׳. כְּתִיב מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה.HALAKHAH: “Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives”, etc. 2(9–10); another version of 2(10) in Babli Yebamot 39b. The basis of the argument is the 12th exegetical rule of R. Ismael [Introduction to Sifra (2)]: If anything was in some set and was removed from it for another purpose, you cannot return it to that set unless the verse returns it explicitly. See Midraš Gen.rabba 85(6) for a formulation of 2(10) referring more directly to the rule. (For an introduction to these rules, see H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196; Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–161.) What exactly was permitted, became forbidden, and is now commanded is a matter of interpretation in the next paragraphs. It is written. 6:9, speaking of the leftovers of cereal offerings in the Tabernacle. These leftovers must be eaten by priests, in the holy precinct, and unleavened, after the prescribed rites were performed. “unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted and then forbidden, when it became permitted again should one think it returned to its prior permission? The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted and then forbidden, when she became permitted again should one think she returned to her prior permission? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָה. מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישָׁהּ. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל אוֹכֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְנֶאֶסְרָה קָרַב קוּמְצָהּ וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל אוֹכֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס כּוֹנֵס. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ כוֹנֵס. נִשֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וְנֶאֶסְרָה וּמֵת אָחִיו בְּלֹא בָנִים חָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס כּוֹנֵס. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ כוֹנֵס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה.Rebbi Yose 40a, the parallel arguments, in inverse order, are attributed to Rava, a preeminent authority. He is known sometimes to represent Yerushalmi positions, cf. צבי דוֹר, תוֹרת ארץ ישׂראל 1971. בבבל, דביר, תל אביב explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat. When he dedicated it became forbidden. When the fistful. 6:8, brought to the altar to be burned. Once the offering starts to burn, the remainder is permitted to the priests. was brought it became permitted again; should one think it returned to its prior permission? If he wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat. and Lev.? The verse states “unleavened it must be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment to marry her whether he likes her or not..

רִבִּי הוּנָא פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵירָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישָׁהּ. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל חָמֵץ אוֹכֵל. מַצָּה אוֹכֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס לְשֵׁם תּוֹאָר כּוֹנֵס. לְשֵׁם מָמוֹן כּוֹנֵס. נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וְנֶאֶסְרָה. מֵת אָחִיו בְּלֹא בָנִים חָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס לְשֵׁם תּוֹאָר כּוֹנֵס. לְשֵׁם מָמוֹן כּוֹנֵס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה.Rebbi Huna. c. 39b) this is the opinion of Rav Isaac ben Eudaimon, a minor figure. Here also, the author R. Huna of this paragraph does not have the authority of R. Yose of the preceding paragraph. explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it leavened, he eats it, unleavened, he eats it. The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her brother-in-law shall come upon her” as commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

אַתְיָא דְרִבִּי חוּנָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. דְּתַנָּא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ לְשׁוּם נוֹי אוֹ לְשׁוּם דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעִילַת זְנוּת וְקָרוֹב לִהְיוֹת הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר.It turns out that Rebbi Ḥuna follows Abba Shaul, as we have stated: “Abba Shaul says, one who brings his sister-in-law into his house because of beauty or another reason commits intercourse of prostitution and the child is close to be a bastard. 23:3..”

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot.1.1