Talmud for Yevamot 13:17

¹⁰⁶This and the next paragraph are also in Yebamot 13:2 (fol. 13 c/d). It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meїr: His heave is never heave unless he grew two pubic hairs¹⁰⁷As a sign of puberty. Growing pubic hair is the accepted standard of the onset of puberty, the end of childhood, and the start of responsibility to keep all religious obligations (Bar Miẓwah). In all matters of biblical commandments, this standard cannot be relaxed.. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of the rabbis (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you.¹⁰The root both of “thought”, מחשבה, and “being accounted for”, נחשב, is חשב.” Anybody for whom “thought” is written may give heave. But anybody for whom “thought” is not written cannot give heave. They objected: But “thought” is not written for a Gentile, and he may give heave¹⁰⁸Since a Gentile is not bound by the laws of the Torah (except for the commandments given to Noah), no verse requiring intent can apply to a Gentile. On the other hand, Mishnah 3:9 states that voluntary heave given by a Gentile is heave and subject to all its laws and requirements.! Rebbi Jehudah¹⁰⁹He is Rebbi Yudan. in the name of Rebbi La (Num. 18:32): “You should not carry guilt because of it.¹¹⁰The verse refers to the heave of the tithe. The Levites will be free of guilt if they give heave of the tithe before eating their part of the tithe. The rule established here is then also transferred to the Great Heave.” He who may carry guilt can give heave, he who cannot carry guilt cannot give heave. They objected: But a Gentile cannot incur guilt¹¹¹His heave is purely voluntary; even if he gives heave but mishandles it, he will not incur guilt. This shows that the second argument cannot be true; in this respect, the laws of the Great Heave cannot be derived from those of the heave of the tithe since no Gentile possibly can give heave of the tithe. One is stuck with the first explanation., and he may give heave! And did not Rebbi Hoshaia state that Gentiles have no “thought”? That is for preparation, here we talk about heave¹¹²Since a Gentile cannot become impure in biblical law, he cannot make anything impure in biblical law, and his intentions are irrelevant and inactive in preparing food for impurity, cf. Notes 7,9. But since heave must be declared, we must hold that the Gentile may validly declare some of his produce to be heave. This proves that the first objection is invalid: Even though the intentions of the Gentile are never required by biblical law, his voluntary intentions are accepted for heave..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari⁶⁶Galilean Amora of the early fourth generation, student of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and R. La. were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai⁶⁷His name appears only here, and nothing more is known about him. understood it from the following⁶⁸Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 2:7. For most severe impurities it is not enough that the impure person immerse himself in water; after the immersion, as ṭevul yom “immersed during the day”, he is pure only for profane food. For heave, and certainly for sacrifices, he becomes pure only at sundown. If in the period between his immersion and sundown he touches heave, it becomes unusable; this is classified as “impure in the third degree”. If the ṭevul yom touches a stream of heave fluid (wine or oil) poured from one vessel to the other, in the opinion of the Sadducees the entire fluid in both vessels becomes unusable (MMT lines 55–58). In rabbinic tradition, only the part touched by the ṭevul yom becomes unusable; the fluid cannot be used because unusable heave is contained in it, but it can be repaired by the usual lifting of one out of 101.: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others⁶⁹The Sages, who always represent the tradition of the House of Hillel. teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer⁷⁰Which the House of Hillel could have given to the House of Shammai, in addition to the argument presented in the Mishnah., following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment⁷¹Which is classified as a misdemeanor, rather than a felony. for Cohanim.

⁷⁶This paragraph is explained by R. Nissim Gerondi, Commentary to Alfasi Chapter 6, #510. If she is definitively married, she but not her father⁷⁷The Mishnah which gives the father the right to receive the bill of divorce of his adolescent, preliminarily married daughter, excludes the definitively married daughter over which the father has no power and who can be divorced only by direct delivery of the bill to her.. An underage girl, her father but not she⁷⁸To divorce a preliminarily married underage girl, the bill must be delivered to the father.; if she is definitively married, both she and her father⁷⁹The definitively married underage girl who lacks understanding (as defined in this paragraph by R. Joḥanan) cannot be divorced since her standing is the same as her father’s. Since her father cannot receive her bill of divorce because by definitive marriage she became emancipated from him, so she cannot receive her bill of divorce, as explained in the Mishnah.. If she has understanding, she but not her father. Who is an underage girl who needs to be divorced [by herself]? Rebbi Joḥanan said, any female who is given her bill of divorce together with something else and she produces it after some time.

“The House of Shammai say, one may not take¹²⁸On the holiday one may not take a pigeon to slaughter as food unless he took the bird in his hand and reserved it for that purpose before the start of the holiday. But for the House of Hillel a timely declaration of intent is enough. unless one had moved when it was still daylight.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted, as we have stated there¹³⁵Mishnah 4:7.: “In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, a person stands near the drying figs Friday afternoon in a Sabbatical year¹³⁶Since produce is ownerless in the Sabbatical year, no tithes do apply. The same statement would apply in a regular year if tithes had been given from the drying figs. But since the obligation of tithes applies only to produce ready to be used, fig cakes (and raisins) usually are tithed only if they are fully dry. Since no tithes are due, a declaration of intent is all that is needed to make the food usable on Sabbath or holiday; no physical action is required. and says, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” Is Rebbi Eliezer not a Shammaite¹³⁷And therefore his statement should be logically consistent with the Mishnah of the House of Shammai. A parallel to this paragraph is in Halakhah 4:7.? One is restrictive if living things are involved.

The blind woman and the she-ram¹⁸⁸A woman without secondary female sex characteristics, presumed to be infertile; cf. Yebamot 1:1, Note 65. are subject to claims of missing virginity. Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr that the blind woman is not subject to claims of missing virginity. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? I say, he found [her to be a virgin] and destroyed [the evidence]¹⁸⁹Since the blind woman cannot see what her husband does, she cannot see to it that the traces of her hymeneal blood are not destroyed, leaving her without defenses in court. R. Meïr assumes that she prefers to have an untouchable mina as ketubah over having 200 zuz with a chance of being deprived of it by a cheating husband.. What is the rabbi’s reason? She can catch him. What does Rebbi Meïr with this argument? He can cleanse it with spittle¹⁹⁰The Babli, 36a, connects the disagreement between R. Meïr and the rabbis to that of Rabban Gamliel and R. Joshua (Mishnaiot 1:8,9) whether her unsupported statement is credible or not. The rabbis follow Rabban Gamliel, R. Meïr follows R. Joshua. The Tosephta, 3:5, knows only of the rabbis’ position..

If it was doubtful whether he jumped or the wind pushed him? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he fell down immediately, it is a bill of divorce; if he fell after some time it is no bill of divorce. But is “immediately” not a case of doubt whether he jumped or the wind pushed him? This implies that in case of doubt whether he jumped or the wind pushed him, it is a bill of divorce¹²⁷The different versions of the Tosephta seem to disagree with the Yerushalmi (the topic is not treated in the Babli). Tosephta 4:7 (Lieberman) “If a healthy person said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, climbed on a roof, and fell down, one writes and delivers as long as he still is alive. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he jumped, it is a bill of divorce; if he fell down after some time, it is no bill of divorce since I may say that the wind pushed him.” Tosephta 6:9 (Zuckermandel): “If a healthy person said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, climbed on a roof, and fell down, one writes and delivers as long as he still is alive. If he fell down after some time, it is no bill of divorce since I may say that the wind pushed him.” Tosephta (quote of Rashba): “If a healthy person said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, climbed on a roof, and fell down, one writes but does not deliver since I may say that the wind pushed him.” A discussion of the different versions is in J. N. Epstein, ²מבוא לנוסח המשנה, p. 600–601..

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There²⁵⁸Mishnah 3:4., he says: “he has to repeat only for 30,” and here, he says so²⁵⁹If he becomes incapacitated, he has to repeat only for 30 days. If his sacrifice becomes invalid, why should he have to start everything anew?? Rebbi Joḥanan says, he has to repeat all his sacrifices²⁴⁸Not the nezirut, but all his sacrifices since he holds, against the Sages, that the sacrifices cannot be brought separately (cf. Mishnah 8:4).. It is obvious, if it would have been valid without him becoming impure, then why is it not valid if later he becomes impure²⁶⁰Why should R. Eliezer not agree that once part of the ceremony was performed correctly, he can replace any missing part?? Rebbi Ḥinena said, is that not Rebbi Eliezer’s? And Rebbi Eliezer follows the Shammaites, as it was stated²⁶¹Babli 46b (in different formulation), Yoma 61b; Tosephta 1:6. As the Babli explains, the House of Shammai require him to shave, but since he cannot shave he never can terminate his nezirut.: Concerning a nazir who lost all his hair, the House of Shammai say, he has to move a shaving knife over his head; the House of Hillel say, he does not need to move a shaving knife over his head.