Talmud sobre Sotá 2:5

Both the rabbis and Rebbi Simeon agree to the following²¹Two different reasonings lead to the same practical result.. According to the rabbis, the aspect which “bespeaking” acquires is forbidden in the co-wife, the aspect which “bespeaking” does not acquire is permitted in the co-wife; therefore, the latter has to have ḥalîṣah but not levirate²²Since “bespeaking” is neither final nor useless, the wife of the brother becomes possibly a co-wife of his sister-in-law; if he dies she is excluded from levirate since that is possible only for a woman certainly permitted to the (newly born) levir. She cannot leave the family without ḥalîṣah since she was not a full co-wife of the forbidden woman.. According to Rebbi Simeon, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are permitted²³If “bespeaking” preceded the birth of the next brother, the widow of the first brother already was the wife of the second and after his death will be permitted to the third. If the birth of the next brother preceded bespeaking, both are forbidden: the first as widow of a brother who did not live in his world, the second as her co-widow. Whether one wants to emend the text here, from “permitted” to “forbidden”, depends on which case one chooses.. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second one permitted. Out of doubt, she has to have ḥalîṣah but not levirate. What is the difference between them²⁴Is there any case where there is a practical difference between the rabbis and Rebbi Simeon?? If he slept with the second one²⁵If the third brother sleeps with the woman to whom he should give ḥalîṣah, this is to some degree incestuous intercourse, he cannot acquire her in levirate, and a child from this union is a bastard.. In the opinion of the rabbis, an incestuous intercourse because he²⁶The second brother. had “bespoken”. Therefore, if he had not “bespoken” she may have levirate and there is no candidacy at all²⁷The simple fact that the widow may not marry outside the family without ḥalîṣah does not establish a relationship with any one of the brothers. In the Babli, 17b, this is the minority opinion ascribed to Rav Huna in the name of Rav.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I explained that following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him²⁸Quoted many times affirmatively in the Yerushalmi (Yebamot 4:8, 4:16; Soṭah 2:5), rejected in the Babli, 17b.
The position of R. Simeon is not explained but is clear: The relationship is possibly incestuous, the child is only possibly a bastard and cannot be forbidden by the court to marry inside the congregation.. He had in her an interest of candidacy. When she died, the candidacy was eliminated. And here, when he died, the candidacy was eliminated²⁹Rejected in the Babli, 18a: “Candidacy cannot disappear without action.”.

HALAKHAH: “The father is exiled for the son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Binah stated: Even though it be written³⁵Num. 35:19., the redeemer of the blood³⁶The closest family member of the murder victim is required to lead the execution of the duly convicted murderer. Num. 35:30 requires that the killing of the murderer be in the presence of witnesses; this implies that the killing be in execution of a court order (Sifry Num. 161). himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother³⁷The Babli 12a simply notes the existence of contradictory interpretations, without attaching names to the traditions. R. Eliezer ben Jacob probably is the second of this name, of the fourth generation of Tannaïm. R. Shila bar Binah (Avinna) belongs to the generation of transition from Tannaïm and Amoraïm.. And from where even if he said, I cannot face him³⁸That he is forced to witness the execution, Sifry Num. 160., the verse says³⁵Num. 35:19., when he comes upon him he shall kill him³⁶The closest family member of the murder victim is required to lead the execution of the duly convicted murderer. Num. 35:30 requires that the killing of the murderer be in the presence of witnesses; this implies that the killing be in execution of a court order (Sifry Num. 161)..

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can movables be taken into possession by dragging? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, what is his problem? With hard hides⁵¹⁴Which are too heavy to be lifted.. But soft hides are not taken into posession until lifted⁵¹⁵Movables which can be lifted are taken into possession only by being picked up and then moved; heavy movables can be taken into possession simply by being moved on the ground.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If somebody steals another person’s pouch and removes it on the Sabbath, he is obligated since he already is obligated for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath⁵¹⁶Tosephta Baba qama 9:19. A person committing two crimes simultaneously can be prosecuted only for the more serious crime even if this prosecution is impossible because of external circumstances (for example, if the rabbinic court has only civil but no criminal jurisdiction, or if the civil offense can be proven by the standards of civil procedure but the criminal act cannot be proven by the stricter standards of criminal law; cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 51–71, paralleled in Ketubot3:1, Note 30.)
Since the thief incurred the liabilities for his theft the moment he took the pouch in his victim’s room but he violated the Sabbath prohibition only when he left and transported the pouch from a private to the public domain, the capital crime of violating the Sabbath is not connected with the theft. Paralleled in Babli Šabbat 91a, Ketubot31a, where some unconnected problems are raised about the Sabbath prohibition of moving between domains; Baba batra 86a, Sanhedrin72a; a different version in Baba qama3:4 (3c 1. 58ff.).. But if he was dragging it until he left, he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution fall on him simultaneously⁵¹⁷Dragging a person’s pouch in that person’s domain does not transfer possession to the person dragging.. Therefore, if the obligations of capital crime and restitution do not fall on him simultaneously he is obligated⁵¹⁸If the theft happened on a weekday and the thief only dragged, never lifted, the pouch, he nevertheless is obligated for double restitution. He cannot be liable for double restitution unless he took possession. This seems to contradict R. Abba bar Mamal.. Rebbi Mattania said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged⁵¹⁸If the theft happened on a weekday and the thief only dragged, never lifted, the pouch, he nevertheless is obligated for double restitution. He cannot be liable for double restitution unless he took possession. This seems to contradict R. Abba bar Mamal..