Talmud sobre Yevamot 7:7

Rebbi Eleazar explains the reason given in the Mishnah, that if he has a complaint about virginity he can quickly go to court¹⁶His explanation is given later, by R. Hila. He insists that the Mishnah does not refer only to the fact that if he married a girl supposed to be a virgin and he found her lacking virginity that he can divorce her without paying but he can claim “erroneous acquisition” and ask the court to void the marriage without bill of divorce.. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Since the time of danger¹⁷Tosephta 1:1, Babli 3b. As S. Lieberman points out (Tosefta ki-Fshutah vol. 6, p. 187), “danger” always refers to the persecutions after the war of Bar Kokhba, when Jewish observances were forbidden and, therefore, marrying on Wednesday would have been a capital crime. (The Babli explains otherwise.) they used to marry on Tuesdays and the Sages did not object; about Monday one does not listen to him, but if it was because of a danger it is permitted. What is “because of a danger”? because of sorcery¹⁸If somebody is afraid that sorceresses will put a spell on him to make him impotent if he marries on a day known to be a day for marrying, one lets him marry on any other day.. What is the difference between Monday and Tuesday? One who waits one day cannot be compared to one who waits two days. Why not let him wait two days? That his acquisition should not be sweet for him. Why should his acquisition not be sweet for him? One cannot tolerate it, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful¹⁹Here סוֹטָה means “unfaithful, deviant” in a general sense, not in the technical sense discussed in Tractate Soṭah. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife (Mishnah Soṭah 5:1) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a, the same argument is quoted in his name.. Could we not suspect that she was raped²⁰If a married woman is raped, the husband does not have to divorce her unless he is a Cohen.? A rape is public knowledge. And even if you suspect that she was raped, there is no other doubt²¹In editio princeps: לֹא סָפֵק אֶחָד “is there not only one doubt?” It is a generally recognized principle in both Talmudim that a single doubt referring to biblical precepts has to be judged restrictively, a double doubt leniently. Cf Yebamot 7:2, Note 73; Babli Beṣah3a.. There is a doubt whether she was raped or whether she was [willingly] opened²²If she was a willing partner to adultery. This only applies to a girl which has the status of adolescent since “the seduction of a minor is rape” (Babli Yebamot 33b).. From the words of the Torah one has to be stringent. Rebbi Yose said, if you suspect that she was raped, there are two doubts. There is a doubt whether she was raped or whether she was [willingly] opened; there is a doubt whether it happened after she was preliminarily married or before. From the words of the Torah, with two doubts one has to be lenient²³The husband who claims that his bride was not a virgin is not obligated to divorce his wife against his will; R. Eleazar’s interpretation of the Mishnah is rejected by R. Yose..

“A Samaritan.” That follows him who said, a Samaritan is a like full Jew. But for him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, it is not so. As they disagreed²⁰Cf. Demay 3:4, Note 98; Berakhot 7:1, Note 59.: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect. Even if you say, a Samaritan is like a Gentile, why are Samaritans disqualified? Not because of a Gentile and a slave²¹Since 2K.17, 24ff. clearly states that the settlers from Babylon, Kuta, etc. at the start were idolators; if they intermarried with the remainders of the Israelite populations there, their descendants all acquired the status of descendants of Gentiles (or slaves) from Israelite mothers.? If a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard²²This is the argument of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish in Yebamot 7:6, Note 129; it is rejected there since the child of a Jewish woman from a Gentile, together with her mother, is disqualified from priesthood but not a bastard (Notes 130,131).. But a bastard girl can claim a fine! For restrictions or family relations you consider him a Gentile or a slave who had intercourse with a Jewish woman; the child is a bastard. But for a fine you consider this as a Jew having intercourse with a Gentile woman, in which case the child is a Gentile²³The separation from Samaritans is purely one of practice, with no theoretical basis, and disapproved of by the Mishnah. In the Babli, 29b/30a, the argument (attributed to R. Meïr) is rejected, in order not to reward a sinner (the rapist or seducer.).

There, we have stated: ¹⁴³This paragraph is from Giṭtin 4:4 where the few differences in spelling are noted and which is explained there in Notes 75–78, 120–130.“A slave whom his master gave as mortgage¹⁴⁴Greek ὑποθήκη. to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage¹⁴⁴Greek ὑποθήκη., if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

Why are Samaritans disqualified¹²⁰Why does one not intermarry with Samaritans?? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are lions’ proselytes¹²¹The originally Gentile part of the population of Samaria adopted the worship “of the local god” because they were attacked by lions, 2K. 17:24–41. In the Babli, Qiddušin 75b, this is identified as the teaching of R. Ismael.. But if somebody converted not for Heaven’s sake and then converted for Heaven’s sake, does one not accept him¹²²That argument may have had validity in the first few generations after the destruction of Samaria, but in talmudic times the Samaritans had been monotheists for at least 700 years.? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Eleazar¹²³In Jebamot 7:6 (Note 129), “R. Ismael”. In the Babli, loc.cit., identified as teaching of R. Aqiba.: Because the child is a bastard if a Gentile or a slave have intercourse with a Jewish woman¹²⁴Assuming that the deportees from Cutha and Media who were resettled in Samaria were mostly male. When they intermarried with local Jewish women, in this opinion the children were all bastards.. But did not Rebbi Aqiba say, they are genuine proselytes¹²⁵Even if the preceding opinion were generally accepted, which it is not, it would be irrelevant concerning Samaritans. Agreed to in the Babli, loc.cit.? Because they require levirate marriage from the preliminarily married and free the definitively married¹²⁶Jebamot 1, Notes 192–196. Pharisaic tradition frees the preliminarily married woman and obligates the definitively married one. The Samaritan ruling had its partisans among the rabbinic school of Shammai (Jebamot 1:6, Note 193.). But do not the rabbis say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law¹²⁷Even if a childless widow flouts the rules and marries an unrelated man without ḥalîṣah, the child is not a bastard and can marry in the congregation (Mishnah Jebamot 4:15). Therefore even a Samaritan who is the offspring of a rabbinically forbidden marriage should be an acceptable marriage partner.? Because they are not conversant with the fine points in writing bills of divorce¹²⁸There could be women divorced according to Samaritan rules who would not be considered divorced by rabbinic rules and, therefore, their children in a second marriage would be bastards not eligible for marriage with Jews.. But does not Rabban Gamliel accept their bills of divorce¹⁰⁶Kafr ‘Uthnay, a village near Megiddo on the Southern border of Jewish Galilee (Mishnah 7:7). While the Mishnah speaks only of a Samaritan witness, Rabban Gamliel accepted two Samaritans.? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they intermingled with the priests of the High Places: “He chose priests from the borderline of the people,¹²⁹1K. 12:31. The root קצה “to be distant, of the elite” of מקצת is identified with קוץ, קצץ “to cut, to chop off”, one of whose derivatives is קוֹץ “thorn”. (The same explanation is in the Babli, loc.cit., of R. Joḥanan following R. Ismael.) In any case, there is no reason to exclude marriages with Samaritans other than general convention; but cf. Demay 3:4, Note 98.”. Rebbi Ila said, from the “thorns” of the people, i. e., from the disqualified of the people.

From where that the intercourse of a disabled disables⁹⁰Disables a woman of the priestly clan (a wife or a daughter) from eating sanctified food such as heave; cf. Yebamot 7:5.? What are we talking about? If about a married woman, there is a serious [offense].⁹¹Adultery is a capital crime. If about a widow married to the High Priest, it already is written “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.⁹²Cf. Note 87. Mishnah 1 already stated that a forbidden wife is not counted as a wife and we just have established that the intercourse with a man who cannot be legally married bars a woman from priesthood.” What is equal between them is: Everybody’s intercourse disqualifies those whose descendant would be disqualified⁹³The child of the otherwise married woman is a bastard, the child of the widow married to the High Priest is desecrated.. ⁹⁴This text is from Yebamot 7:5, Notes 111–116. These are: “A child of nine years and one day, an Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, or Egyptian proselyte, or a bastard, desecrated, Gibeonite, Samaritan, and Gentile who had intercourse with the daughter of a Cohen, a Levite, or an Israel, disqualified her for the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies those whose descendant would be disqualified; his intercourse does not disqualify those whose descendant would not be disqualified. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in all cases, if his daughter is permitted to you, so is his widow; if his daughter is not permitted to you, neither is his widow.”

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten²⁰⁷Lev. 6:16.;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money²⁰⁸Lev. 22:11. The verse states that slaves of a Cohen may eat of his sanctified food and we hold (cf. Yebamot 7:1) that the slaves of a Cohen’s daughter may eat if and only if she can eat. Should the mention of the masculine form “Cohen” not exclude the daughter of a Cohen. Accepted without discussion in Babli 23b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(4).,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;²⁰⁹Lev. 6:15. Verse 16 is an appendix to a paragraph speaking only of the (male) High Priest. The son of a Cohen’s daughter belongs to his father’s clan, not hers.” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.