Yevamot 6:4 Related Passages

⁶³This paragraph is missing in ms. A and in the text reproduced by Rashba (Note 55). A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: ⁶⁴Mishnah 4:7.“If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.⁶⁵All relatives of his wife forbidden to a husband are forbidden to the levir who performs ḥalîṣah. Therefore, it seems that ḥalîṣah turns the widow into an ex-wife.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her⁶⁶This sentence is unintelligible and none of the commentators has an acceptable explanation. The only sensible way is to translate שכבר נראה not in the singular, “since he already is available”, but “since they (both brothers) are available” and neither has an advantage over the other as participant in ḥalîṣah. The question raised by the text is not answered since the prohibition is clearly rabbinic and independent of the nature of ḥalîṣah.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁶⁷Mishnah 4:8. The widow is biblically permitted to her levir but rabbinically forbidden; therefore, she needs ḥalîṣah. If ḥalîṣah were acquisition, she would be freed without ceremony.“If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together⁶⁸Since everybody knows that one cannot be married to two sisters simultaneously.? Explain it, after her⁶⁹If the first sister died, the second one is permited. Then one does not understand why she cannot have levirate. death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains⁷⁰If the first widow was alive when the second husband died, the second widow cannot have levirate. If then the first widow died, the situation is not changed for R. Eleazar.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁷¹Mishnah 3:5.“Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him⁷²The House of Shammai hold that “bespeaking” acquires like a betrothal; parallel the opinion of R. Eleazar ben Arakh (Halakhah 5, cf. Halakhah 1). Therefore, the first widow is his wife; the second is forbidden to him biblically and leaves the family without formality. and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah⁷³The House of Hillel hold that “bespeaking” is purely rabbinical and that the only legal consequence of “bespeaking” is to forbid the sister-in-law to the other brothers. Therefore, now the “bespoken” and the new widow have conflicting claims on him; he has to give ḥalîṣah to both of them and in addition a rabbinic bill of divorce for the rabbinic betrothal to the first widow.. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]⁶²It is clear that one must read פטור instead of קיניין. The next sentence is missing in ms. L; it is clear that the scribe of ms. L already had the error before him since ms. A also reproduces it. The sentence in brackets is only in ms. A, it is missing in ms. L since its scribe left out a sentence from קיניין to קיניין. It is unlikely that the insertion in A is a deliberate correction.. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁷⁴Mishnah 4:9, explained in Notes 7–9.“If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁷⁵Mishnah 6:4. The High Priest may marry only a virgin. The verse (Lev. 21:14) reads: “A widow, a divorcee, a harlot, and a desecrated one he shall not acquire …”. Since marriage is formulated in terms of acquisition, if ḥalîṣah were acquisition, the widow of the High Priest’s brother either should be free without ḥalîṣah or never could be freed.“If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? ⁷⁶Mishnah 3:4. The second widow has to have ḥalîṣah if the first widow did. If the first was married in levirate, the second goes free without ceremony.“Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

“Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement,” etc.]¹⁸⁹The beginning of the discussion of Mishnah 5 is noted only in B. ¹⁹⁰Sifra Emor Parašah 2(7), on Lev. 21:13. Since the High Priest was mentioned in the preceding verses, the pronoun is unnecessary by the rules of grammar. It is added for emphasis; only the High Priest is restricted to marrying a virgin.He, not the king. He, not the chieftain¹⁹¹Since the king was mentioned separately, נָשִׂיא here cannot be identified as the king; it must be a tribal chieftain.. He, to include the priest Anointed for War¹⁹²Since the rules of the High Priest were tied in Lev. 21:10 to wearing the High Priest’s garments and the Anointed for War is required to wear these when asking the oracle, he is bound by all rules enumerated in vv. 10–15.. A woman in her virginity he shall marry; this excludes an adult whose hymen has atrophied. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon qualify the adult¹⁹³Lev. 21:14. The parallels in the Babli, Yebamot 59a, Ketubot 97b, identify the first opinion as R. Meïr’s. It is agreed that if a girl is fully grown, the breaking of her hymen may not be noticed by the man.. ¹⁹⁴The interpretation of this paragraph depends on whether one considers the texts of L and B as two different texts or that the correct text is that of B, except for the name tradition identical with Terumot 8:2, Notes 29–31, with the text of L badly corrupted. Since in the characterization of the sacrifice, the text of L is certainly corrupt, the second alternative has much to commend itself. In the text itself, the crucial point is whether to read אחר as אַחֵר “another” or אַחַר “after”. Since the text of L, but not that of B, refers to the High Priest, in the absence of a clear solution both texts are presented and explained.
In the text of L one refers to the statement in the Mishnah that an acting High Priest and a deposed one are equal in all but the service of the Day of Atonement. The question is whether the acting High Priest may take the required fist full of incense and the deposed one then may bring the incense to the inner altar and burn it there; or the acting High Priest receive the blood of his sacrifices and the deposed one sprinkle of the blood on the walls of the altar. The question is not asked anywhere else and the positive answer is difficult to accept. Therefore, it is better to accept the text of B, even though it does not refer to the High Priest, as necessary introduction to the following paragraph which does.
That text reads:
Rebbi Isaac asked, does this apply to the remaining actions? He took the fist full and afterwards burned it; he received and afterwards threw it, he burned and afterwards sprinkled? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a robbed purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that if he took the fistful afterwards he burns it, if he received [the blood] afterwards he throws [it on the walls of the altar], he burned [the red cow] he afterwards sprinkles [water with its ashes to purify others].
As explained in Terumot, the question is asked about a Cohen who is informed that he is disbarred from the priesthood because of his birth from a woman forbidden to priests when he had completed one sacral action which by necessity must be followed by a different one. The answer is that the desecrated son of a Cohen who innocently started officiating may officiate to the end even though in the future he will be barred from officiating. Rebbi Isaac asked, are these things so in all other things? He takes the fist full and the other burns it; he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a (great) [robbed]¹⁹⁵The reference is to Mishnah Gittin 5:5, as explained in Terumot. The text of L is in parentheses, the correct text in brackets is from B. The point of the argument is missing here in both texts, that the purification offering is acceptable (i., e., that the Temple authorities are prohibited from inquiring into the way the offerer acquired his animal.) purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that he takes the fistful and the other burns it, he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles. ¹⁹⁶Terumot 8:2, Notes 32–33,40. If the High Priest after his elevation was found to be desecrated by his birth and thereby is removed, is this considered to be his death as far as the Sanctuary is concerned and releases any homicide sentenced during his tenure of office from the city of refuge or is his tenure as High Priest erased from the annals of the Sanctuary (Makkot 2:10–11)? No answer is given here; the first eventuality is chosen in Terumot.Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: Rebbi Isaac asked. If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman having received ḥaliṣah, how do you treat him? [As if]¹⁹⁷Text of B. he had died and the homicide might return to his home town or should he be treated as one whose trial had been concluded without a High Priest and he never can leave from there?

MISHNAH: The High Priest shall not marry a widow, whether a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage⁷¹The prohibition of the widow is in Deut. 21:14. Since qiddushin are the marriage in criminal law, they can be dissolved only by a bill of divorce which makes the recipient a divorcee. Consequently, if the groom dies between betrothal and marriage, she becomes a widow.. He shall not marry an adult; Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon enable the adult⁷²Lev. 21:13 is interpreted to mean “he shall take a woman with an intact hymen.” It is held that an adult, older than 12.5 years, has a softened hymen so that the act of deflowering might not be recognizable.. He shall not marry one injured⁷³Her hymen injured. by a piece of wood. If he gave qiddushin and afterwards was elected High Priest, he shall marry her⁷⁴Since qiddushin are the acquisition understood by the root לקח in the verses, she has already been acquired when he was appointed and verses 13–14 do not apply to him.; it happened that Joshua ben Gamla had given qiddushin to Martha bat Boetos⁷⁵The richest woman of her time, from a priestly family. According to the Babli, 61a, she bought her husband’s the appointment from king Agrippa I for 3 qab, about 6.5 liter, of gold denars. In Midraš Ekha Rabbati 1(50), her name is Miriam bat Boethos. Elsewhere in the Babli (Giṭṭin 56a, Ketubot 104a), her name is that of a legendary superrich woman.
A different story appears in Jesephus Antiquities xv, 320 ff., where king Herod dismisses the incumbent High Priest from office and replaces him with Simon ben Boethos, because he wants to marry Simon’s daughter (the granddaughter of a Boethos).
In addition to the similarities of names and subject, the sources also agree about the prevailing corruption. The note that the High Priest was appointed, not elected by his fellow priests, is an intended slur. when the king appointed him as High Priest and he married her. If a woman was waiting for her Cohen levir when he was elected High Priest, even though he “bespoke” her, he may not marry her⁷⁶“Bespeaking” is only rabbinical. Since he has the possibility to fulfill all biblical requirements by ḥalîṣah, he may not marry the widow.. If the brother of a High Priest died, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.