Jewamot 6:1 Odniesienia do Talmudu: Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot, Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin & Jerusalem Talmud Terumot

הַבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג, בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס, בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן, אֲפִלּוּ הוּא שׁוֹגֵג וְהִיא מְזִידָה, הוּא מֵזִיד וְהִיא שׁוֹגֶגֶת, הוּא אָנוּס וְהִיא לֹא אֲנוּסָה, הִיא אֲנוּסָה וְהוּא לֹא אָנוּס, אֶחָד הַמְעָרֶה וְאֶחָד הַגּוֹמֵר, קָנָה, וְלֹא חָלַק בֵּין בִּיאָה לְבִיאָה:

Jeśli ktoś mieszka z jego yevamah, (nabywa ją) —czy to nieświadomie [myśląc, że jest inną kobietą], rozmyślnie [bezmyślnie, a nie ze względu na micwę], z przymusem lub świadomie. Nawet jeśli on jest nieświadomy, a ona umyślna; on, świadomie i ona, nieświadomie; on, ograniczony, a ona, nieskrępowany; ona, skrępowana, a on nieskrępowany. [Nie tylko (została nabyta), kiedy zamierza micwę; ale nawet tam, gdzie oboje nie zamierzają micwy, jak wtedy, gdy on zamierza inną kobietę, a ona zamierza akt rozwiązłości, on ją nabywa, jak jest napisane (Księga Powtórzonego Prawa 25: 5): „Jej yavom przyjdzie na nią”— w każdym razie.] Czy jest ma'areh [jeśli nie dokończy swojego stosunku, ale po prostu wstawi samą koronę (Dotykanie korony bez wejścia nazywane jest neshikah, „całowanie”), czy dopełnia czynność, nabywa [I dziedziczy (swojego zmarłego brata) i musi dać jej nagrodę, jeśli chce ją odesłać.] I nie dokonano rozróżnienia między jednym rodzajem stosunku a innym [czy to normalnym, czy nienormalnym (analnym) stosunkiem , jest napisane (Księga Kapłańska 18:22): „teksty” kobiety, Pismo mówi o dwóch „kłamstwach” kobiety].

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

“Her levir shall come upon her¹²Deut. 25:5.”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”¹³A better translation, if one identifies biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, would be: “Acquires her as a wife for himself”, by giving her some valuables as for legally valid qiddushin.. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final¹⁴Cohabitation makes the widow his wife; her marriage to him can be terminated only by death or by a bill of divorce. “Bespeaking” does not remove the obligation of ḥalîṣah if the levir changes his mind, in contrast to qiddushin which can be undone only by a bill of divorce.
Tosephta 3:1: “Qiddushin are final, ‘bespeaking’ is not final”.
The Babli, 54a, formulates: “Cohabitation is final, money or a document are not final.” Cohabitation is final even if in error or unintentional (Mishnah 6:1); money or a document are not final even if given as qiddushin and not as “bespeaking”.; the verse says “and act as levir towards her.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers¹⁵After “bespeaking”, she remains forbidden to the other brothers even if the “bespeaker” changes his mind..

Zapytaj rabinaBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

It was stated³³Tosephta 5:1, quoted in Babli 28a.: “Abba Shaul says, the House of Hillel made this easy³⁴In his opinion, the House of Hillel permit the sisters to the brothers without problems, not only if they married without asking; they are more lenient than the House of Shammai..” Is that a criticism? It is a praise, since people were saying, what is the prohibition here³⁵If candidacy without “bespeaking” has no influence, there is no reason why the two brothers should not marry the two sisters in levirate since no biblical precept could be violated.? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon³³Tosephta 5:1, quoted in Babli 28a.: “If they jumped the gun and married, they should keep them.” But that is only if they had intercourse at the same time³⁶Since levirate is valid only through intercourse (Mishnah 6:1), and R. Simeon has doubts whether “bespeaking” makes the woman a wife (Halakhah 2:1), he will require to do away with “bespeaking” and marriage ceremony. If each brother has intercourse with the corresponding sister at the same time, they both become wives of the respective brothers and neither of them is an impediment to the other’s marriage.. In the opinion of Abba Shaul it is permitted to have intercourse without asking. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon only if he transgressed and had intercourse. If the first [brother] married and had intercourse, he tells the second also to have intercourse. If that one did not have intercourse, the first [brother] is forbidden to have intercourse a second time³⁷Which does not fulfill the biblical requirement to marry the widow of the childless brother.; maybe one of them will die and it turns out that he had intercourse with the sister of his³⁸The one who from the start was a candidate to be taken by him in levirate. Then both of them are forbidden to him. sister-in-law. It was stated: If the second [brother] died, the first one had to divorce his wife with a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥalîṣah³⁹The wife of the first brother becomes forbidden as the sister of a woman who is a candidate for levirate with him. This Tanna holds that since the levirate of the first sister was illegal, it does not exclude the second sister from becoming a candidate. The expression “his brother’s wife” means “his brother’s potential wife”. If the second brother had taken the second sister in levirate, the problems would have disappeared and when he died childless, his widow would be free of levirate or ḥalîṣah without problems.. Even if the second one died? Does this not follow Rebbi Simeon? But Rebbi Simeon frees the second [sister] from ḥalîṣah and levirate⁴⁰Mishnah 3:4. The second sister should be able to marry outside the family without any formality.! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I confirmed this: Any sister-in-law who was to be freed by ḥalîṣah will never be permitted without ḥalîṣah⁴¹Since both sisters did require ḥalîṣah when they became widows, the intervening incomplete action by one of the brothers cannot remove that requirement..

Zapytaj rabinaBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

Rebbi Yose asked: What is the legal status of “touching”⁵⁵If the two persons’ genitals are touching. This is the definition of a sex act for criminal and marriage laws (Yebamot, 4:2 Note 59; 6:1, Note 11 ff.) a male? What is the legal status of “touching” an animal? Were not all incest prohibitions inferred from the menstruating woman⁵⁶Not the prohibition, but the technicalities which make the act prosecutable. It is spelled out in Lev. 20:18 that in the case of the menstruating woman, “touching” establishes the criminality of the act. Therefore, for Jews “touching” is the equivalent of completed intercourse in criminal law. The Babli, Yebamot 54b, seems to reject the equation of bestiality with homosexual activity.? The male is included; the animal is included. So far, for Israel. For Gentiles? Rebbi Mana said, not from this: “He shall cling to his wife”? Not in any way to somebody else’s wife, not in any way to a male or an animal.

Zapytaj rabinaBookmarkShareCopy