3. The School of Shammai say:7 They may bring Peace-offerings [on a Festival-day] and not lay the hands thereon, but they may not bring Whole-offerings. And the School of Hillel say: They may bring both Peace-offerings and Whole-offerings and lay their hands thereon.
4. If the Feast of Pentecost fell on the eve of a Sabbath, the School of Shammai say: The day for slaughtering8 is after the Sabbath. And the School of Hillel say: It needs no other day for slaughtering.9 But they agree that if [the Feast] fell on a Sabbath, the day for slaughtering is after the Sabbath.10 The High Priest maynot put on his high-priestly vestments," and mourning and fasting are permitted, to lend no support to the words of them that say, ‘Pentecost falls on the day after the Sabbath’.12 5. For [the eating of food that is] unconsecrated or [Second] Tithe13 or Heave-offering,14 the hands need but to be rinsed;,s and for Hallowed Things16 they need to be immersed;17 and in what concerns the Sin-offering water,18 if a man’s hands are unclean his whole body is deemed unclean.
* On him and the other ‘Pair*’, see Ab. i44*.
♦ Cf. Lev. i4. The controversy turns on whether it is permissible on a Festival-day (to which apply the same rules about work as apply to the Sabbath, except for the preparing of necessary food) to lay the hands on the beast that is to be sacrificed, since this act is per¬ formed with a man’s whole weight, so that he ‘makes use of an animal in making it bear his burden, to profaning the Sabbath rule.
5 Into king Herod’s service. According to another tradition he became an Essene.
• The Re’tyyah Whole-offering. According to die School of Shammai it could not be offered on the Festival-day itself nor on the following Sabbath. Therefore Pentecost, though lasting but one day, is, for purpose of offerings, to be prolonged.
* Since it is permissible to slaughter it on the Festival-day. Some texts add: ‘after the Sabbath’.
10 Since, among private offerings, only the Passover-offering overrides the Sabbath.
11 The eight mentioned in Yom. 7*.
14 i.e. the Sadducees, who maintained that it must always fall on a Sunday, because (Lev. 23“*.) it is said that the Omer is offered on ‘the morrow after the Sabbath’, after which they were to number fifty days ‘unto the morrow of the seventh Sabbath’, when they keep the feast of Pentecost. Cf. Men. io*. They took ’Sabbath’ literally, and not, aa the Pharisees, in the sense of the first Festival-day of Passover. " See p. 73, n- 6.
'* Washed in the manner prescribed in Yad. i1.
16 Such that need to be offered in the Temple, and are partly or in their entirety devoted to the Altar, and may only be consumed within the Temple Court.
17 In a valid Immersion-pool containing forty seahs of undrawn water. See tractate Mikwaoth.
214 SECOND DIVISION: MOED 6. If a man immersed himself to render himself fit to eat of unconsecrated produce, and his intention was confined to unconsecrated produce, he may not touch [Second] Tithe. If he immersed himself to render himself fit to eat of [Second] Tithe, and his intention was confined to [Second] Tithe, he may not touch Heave-offering. If he immersed himself to render himself fit to eat of Heave-offering, and his intention was confined to Heave-offering, he may not touch Hallowed Things. If he immersed himself to render himself fit to eat of Hallowed Things, and his intention was confined to Hallowed Things, he may not touch Sin-offering water. If he immersed himself for the sake of what has a higher degree of sanctity, he is permitted to touch what is of lower degree. If he immersed himself but without special intention, it is as though he had not immersed himself at all.
7. For Pharisees' the clothes of an Am-haaretz 2 count as suffering mrdrar-uncleanness;3 for them that eat Heave-offering* the clothes of Pharisees count as suffering mafrar-uncleanness; for them that eat of Hallowed Things the clothes of them that eat Heave-offering count as suffering midrar-uncleanness; for them that occupy themselves with the Sin-offering water the clothes of them that eat of Hallowed Things count as suffering wm/rar-uncleanness. Joseph b. Joezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet for them that ate of Hallowed Things his apron counted as suffering mtdrar-uncleanness. Johanan b. Gudgada always ate [his common food] in accordance with [the rules governing] the cleanness of Hallowed Things, yet for them that occupied themselves with the Sin- offering water his apron counted as suffering midrm-uncleanness.
3. 1. Greater stringency applies5 to Hallowed Things than to Heave-offer¬ ing; for vessels within vessels may be immersed together for Heave¬ offering, but not for Hallowed Things. The outside and inside and handle [of vessels are deemed separate]6 for Heave-offering, but not for Hallowed Things. He that carries aught that has contracted mi</rar-uncleanness may carry7 Heave-offering but not Hallowed Things. For [them that eat of] Hallowed Things the clothes of them that eat Heave-offering count as suffering midrar-uncleanness. The rule [for the immersion of garments] for [them that would eat of] Heave-offering is not like the rule for [them that would eat of] Hallowed Things, since for Hallowed Things [a knot] must be unloosed and dried and immersed and then re-tied; but for Heave¬ offering it may be immersed while it is yet untied.
2. Utensils that have been completed and kept free of uncleanness require immersion before their use for Hallowed Things, but not before their use for Heave-offering. With Hallowed Things a vessel unites8 all that is therein, but it is not so with Heave-offering. Hallowed Things can be rendered invalid [by uncleanness] at a fourth remove,9 but Heave- 1 Those who accept the Law according to its strictest interpretation; to their body belong those ‘who undertake to be Associates'; cf. Dem. z\ 1 Lit. 'people of the land’. See App. I. 3.
3 App. I. 26. Cf. Dem. 25. ♦ Priests. * In the eleven cases that follow.
6 If one of these parts was made unclean by contact with an unclean liquid the others are not accounted unclean. See Kel. 25**.
7 At the same time a vessel containing Heave -offering. But he must not touch the Heave¬ offering.
s If one portion is unclean it renders everything in the vessel unclean, even when they are not in contact.
offering only at a third remove. With Heave-offering, if one hand of a man contracted uncleanness, the other remains clean; but with Hallowed Things he must immerse them both, for the one hand renders the other unclean for Hallowed Things but not for Heave-offering.
3. Dry foodstuffs that are Heave-offering may be consumed with un¬ washed hands, but it is not so with Hallowed Things. He that mourns his near of kin1 [even though he has not contracted corpse uncleanness] and he whose atonement is yet incomplete,* needs to immerse himself for Hallowed Things, but not for Heave-offering.
4. Greater stringency may apply to Heave-offering, for in Judea they are deemed trustworthy throughout the year in what concerns the cleanness of wine and oil,3 but in what concerns Heave-offering [they are deemed trustworthy] only at the seasons of wine-presses and olive-vats.4 If the season of the wine-presses and olive-vats was passed, and they brought to the priest a jar of Heave-offering wine, he may not accept it; howbeit [the owner] may leave it until the next season. But if he5 had said to him, ‘I have set apart a quarter-log as a Hallowed Thing’,6 he is deemed trust¬ worthy.7 They may be deemed trustworthy concerning jars of wine and jars of oil that are mixed with Heave-offering8 during the season of wine¬ presses and olive-vats and seventy days9 before the season of wine-presses.
5. From Modiith10 and inwards" men may be deemed trustworthy12 in what concerns earthenware vessels; from Modiith and outwards they may not be deemed trustworthy. Thus, if the potter himself sold the pot and came in hither from Modiith, in what concerns himself the potter, the selfsame pots, and the selfsame buyers,'3 he may be deemed trustworthy. If he went out [beyond Modiith] he may not be deemed trustworthy.
6. If tax-collectors entered a house14 (so, too, if thieves restored [stolen] vessels), they may be deemed trustworthy if they say, ‘We have not touched’. In Jerusalem men may be deemed trustworthy in what concerns Hallowed Things and, at the time of a Feast,15 in what concerns Heave-offering also.
7. If a man opened his jar [of wine] or broke into his dough [to sell them] for the needs of the Feast,'6 R. Judah says: He may finish [selling them after the Feast]. But the Sages say: He may not finish.17 When the Feast p. 137, n. 1 «; App. IV. 3ff.) and touches B, and B touches C, and C touches D, if D is a Hallowed Thing it becomes invalid; and if C is Heave-offering it becomes invalid; but if D was Heave-offering it would not become invalid. 1 See p. 147, n. 6.
I See Ker a*. They are such who, having passed through the time of uncleanness pre¬ scribed in their case, have duly immersed themselves and awaited sunset, but have not yet brought their prescribed offerings.
J If an Am-haaretz averred that he had prepared them in conditions of cleanness they are reckoned valid for drink-offerings and Meal-offerings.
4 When it is assumed that all has been done in cleanness, because of the sanctity of the Heave-offering. See Toh. q*. * The Am-haaretz to the priest.
6 ‘I have put so much wine in this vessel to be used as a drink-offering.’
7 As to its cleanness.
8 Which must be sold to a priest at the price of Heave-offering, except for the value of the Heave-offering, which is the priest's by right. See Ter. slB.
7 When they begin to clean the vessels for the wine.
10 Pcs. q*. 11 Towards Jerusalem.
II The Am-haaretz is to be believed if he avers that they have been prepared in cleanness.
ts Who themselves saw him come in and bought from him. 14 Cf. Toh. 7*.
»* When all are assumed to be in a condition of cleanness.
»® When men could buy from him (although he was an Am-haaretz) without fearing that his wares had been rendered unclean by him or others.
17 i.e. the scrupulous may not buy from him afterwards, since it can no longer be assumed that the wares remain clean.
2l6 SECOND DIVISION: MOED was over, they entered upon the cleansing of the Temple Court;* but they did not do so if the Feast ended on a Friday because of the honour due to the Sabbath. R. Judah says: Nor yet on a Thursday, for the priests had not [as yet] the leisure.2 8. How did they enter upon the cleansing of the Temple Court? They used to immerse the vessels that were in the Temple and say [to the priests],3 ‘Take heed lest ye touch the table4 and render it unclean’. For all the uten¬ sils that were in the Temple they had a second and a third set, that if the first contracted uncleanness they might bring a second in their stead. All the utensils that were in the Temple required immersion, excepting the altar of golds and the altar of bronze,6 for they were reckoned as like to the ground.7 So R. Eliezer. But the Sages say: Because they were plated [with metal].8 1 Rashi: ‘They used to remove the utensils from the Temple Court’, to clean them lest they had been touched by any priest who was an Am-haaretz.
2 They must first clear the Altar of ashes.
3 Who were suspected of not being clean.
4 The table of the Shewbread is meant. Some texts add: ‘And the Candlestick’.
7 And as such they were not susceptible to uncleanness. Cf. Shebi. io7: Uktz. 3*0.
THIRD DIVISION NASHIM (‘women’) YEBAMOTH KETUBOTH NEDARIM NAZIR SOTAH GITTIN KIDDUSHIN YEBAMOTH (‘SISTERS-IN-LAW’) 1. i. Fifteen women [being near of kin to their deceased childless husband’s brother]1 render their co-wives,2 and the co-wives of their co¬ wives (and so on, without end) exempt from halitzah and levirate marriage; and these are they: his daughter, his daughter’s or son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter and her son’s or daughter’s daughter, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother, his father-in-law’s mother, his sister by the same mother and his mother’s sister, his wife’s sister and the wife of his brother by the same mother, and the wife of his brother who did not live at the same time as he, and his daughter-in-law; these render their co-wives, and the co-wives of their co-wives (and so on, without end) exempt from halitzah and levirate marriage. But if any among these died, or exercised right of Refusal,3 or were divorced, or were found sterile, their co-wives are not exempt. Howbeit, thou canst not say of a man’s mother- in-law or mother-in-law’s mother or father-in-law’s mother that they were found sterile or that they exercised right of Refusal.
2. How comes it that they ‘render their co-wives...exempt’? If a man’s daughter, or any women within the forbidden degrees, was married to his brother, who had yet another wife, and [this brother] died, then as his daughter is exempt so is her co-wife exempt. If his daughter’s co-wife went and married a second [surviving] brother, who had yet another wife, and [this brother] died, then as his daughter’s co-wife is exempt, so is the co-wife of the co-wife of his daughter exempt [and so on] even if they are a hundred [brothers]. How comes it that ‘if they died...their co-wives are not exempt’? If a man’s daughter, or any woman within the forbidden degrees, was married to his brother who had yet another wife, and his daughter died or was divorced, and afterward his brother died, her co-wife is not exempt [from halitzah and levirate marriage]. Any that had power to exercise right of Refusal but did not, [and her husband died], her co¬ wife must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage.
3. To six [other] women within the forbidden degrees greater stringency applies than to these, since they may only be married to others;4 and their co-wives are permitted [in marriage to the deceased husband’s brother]: namely, his mother, his father’s wife, his father’s sister, his sister by the same father, his father’s brother’s wife, and the wife of his brother by the same father.
4. The School of Shammai5 permit [levirate marriage] between the co¬ wives6 and the [surviving] brothers; but the School of Hillel forbid it. If * This tractate treats of the laws of ‘levirate marriage' ( levir, a brother-in-law) of Deut. as4"**, which require a man to take to wife his brother’s widow if his brother had died childless. She may not be married to another unless he has refused to marry her. If he refuses he must submit to the ceremony of halitzah, ‘the drawing-off’ of the shoe, in the manner prescribed in Deut. 25*'. He must, however, have lived, no matter how short a time, in his deceased brother’s lifetime. The widow must not be among those enumerated (Lev. iS*-'7) among the ‘forbidden degrees’. Furthermore if the deceased husband had two or more wives of whom one was within the degrees forbidden to the surviving brother, she renders the other wives exempt from the obligation of levirate marriage, without need of halitzah. This limitation is deduced by interpretation of Lev. 18’*. On the prevalence of the custom of levirate marriage cf. Bekh. i7.
* See Lev. 18“; 1 Sam. 1*, where the word is rendered ‘rival’.
4 They were unlawfully married to the deceased brother (Maim.).
5 Eduy. 4’. • Enumerated in par. 1.
they had performed halitzah the School of Shammai declare them ineligible to marry a priest,1 but the School of Hillel declare them eligible. If they had been taken in levirate marriage the School of Shammai declare them eligible,2 but the School of Hillel ineligible.1 Notwithstanding that these forbid what the others permit, and these declare ineligible whom the others declare eligible, yet the [men of] the School of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the families of] the School of Hillel, nor the [men of] the School of Hillel from marrying women from [the families of] the School of Shammai. Despite all the disputes about what is clean and unclean wherein these declare clean what the others declare unclean, neither scrupled to use aught that pertained to the others in matters con¬ cerned with cleanness.
2. 1. How comes it that ‘the wife of his brother who did not live at the same time as he’ [exempts the co-wife]? If there were two [married] brothers, and the first one died [childless] and a [third] brother was then born; and afterward the second brother took in levirate marriage his deceased brother’s wife and then himself died; the wife of the first brother is exempt [from levirate marriage with the third brother] in that she was ‘the wife of his brother who did not live at the same time as he’, and the wife of the second brother [is exempt from levirate marriage with the third brother] in that she was her co-wife. If the second brother had only bespoken her4 for himself and then died, his [first] wife must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage [with the third brother], 2. If there were two [married] brothers and the first one died [childless] and the second took in levirate marriage his deceased brother’s wife; and afterward a [third] brother was bom and then the second brother died; the wife of the first brother is exempt [from levirate marriage with the third brother] in that she was ‘the wife of his brother who did not live at the same time as he’, and the wife of the second brother is exempt in that she was her co-wife. If the second brother had only bespoken her for himself and then died, his [first] wife must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage [with the third brother]. R. Simeon says: He may contract levirate marriage with which of them he will, or submit to halitzah from which of them he will.
3. A general rule have they laid down about a childless brother’s widow: if she is exempt by virtue of the forbidden degrees, she need neither perform halitzah nor contract levirate marriage; if she is exempt by virtue of an ordinance [of the Scribes] or by virtue of the holiness [of the levir] she must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage; if her sister is also her sister-in-law5 she may either perform halitzah or contract levirate marriage.
4. ‘Exempt by virtue of an ordinance [of the Scribes]’ — to wit, the secondary grades [of forbidden degrees] enjoined by the Scribes.6 ‘By « Lev. 21’. Such count, according to the School of Shammai, as 'put away', divorced.
1 If widowed.
J Since the levirate marriage was invalid they count as harlots (Lev. 21’).
* i.e. had not consummated the levirate union (as required by Deut. 25s) but had formally, before witnesses, accepted her as betrothed to him. _ s See below, 3s.
THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM virtue of the holiness [of the levir]’ — to wit, a widow [is forbidden in marriage] to a High Priest,1 a divorced woman or one that had performed halitzah [is forbidden] to a common priest,2 a woman that is a bastard3 or a Nethinah 4 [is forbidden] to an Israelite,5 and a daughter of an Israelite [is forbidden] to a Nathin or a bastard.
5. If a man has any kind of brother,6 such a brother imposes on his brother’s wife the duty of levirate marriage, and he counts as his brother in every respect7 unless he was the son of a bondwoman or a gentile woman.8 If a man has anv kind of son, such a son renders the wife of his father exempt from levirate marriage, he is culpable if he strikes or curses his father,9 and he counts as his son in every respect unless he was the son of a bondwoman or a gentile woman.
6. If a man betrothed one of two sisters and he does not know which of them he betrothed, he must give a bill of divorce to each of them; if he died and had but one brother, such a one must submit to halitzah from each of them; if he had two brothers, one of them must submit to halitzah [from the one] and the other may [then] contract levirate marriage [with the other]; though if the two brothers had already taken them in marriage none can take them from them.
7. If two men betrothed two sisters and neither of them knows which of the two he betrothed, each of them must give two bills of divorce. If they died, and each had a brother, each of these must submit to halitzah from the two sisters. If one had one brother and the other two brothers, the one brother must submit to halitzah from both sisters, and of the two brothers one must submit to halitzah [from the one] and the other may [then] contract levirate marriage [with the other]; but if the two brothers had already taken them in marriage none may take them from them. If each of the two men [that died] had two brothers, then a brother of the first must submit to halitzah from one of the sisters and a brother of the second must submit to halitzah from the other of the sisters; and the other brother in each case may then contract levirate marriage with the sister at whose hands his brother submitted to halitzah; though if the two brothers of the first man had already submitted to halitzah the other two brothers may not then both contract levirate marriage, but the one must submit to halitzah and the other may [then] contract levirate marriage; but if they had already taken the two sisters in marriage none can take them from them.
8. The duty of levirate marriage falls on the elder [surviving brother], but if the younger brother forestalls him his marriage is valid. If a man was suspected of intercourse with a slave who afterward was freed, or with a gentile woman who afterward became a proselyte, he may not marry her; but if he married her none can take her from him. If a man was suspected of intercourse with a married woman and [the court] dissolved her marriage with her husband, even though he married her they must take her from him.10 ♦ On the ground of Deut. 7. See App. I. 29. * A non-priest. 6 Even a bastard.
1 He can inherit from him and, if he is a priest, can (Lev. 21*) contract uncleanness because of him. * In both cases the child has only the mother’s status.
* Ex. atu* ". 10 According to Sot. 5* she is forbidden also to the paramour.
q. If a man brought a bill of divorce from [a man] beyond the sea,1 and said: ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence’, he may not marry the man's wife. [If he said,] ‘He is dead, [or] ‘I killed him’, [or] ‘We killed him’, he may not marry the man’s wife. R. Judah says: [If he said,] ‘I killed him’, she may not marry [again], [but if he said,] ‘We killed him’, she may marry [again].
10. If a Sage pronounced a woman forbidden to her husband because of her vow,2 the Sage may not marry her. If in her presence she exercised right of Refusal or performed halitzah, he may marry her, since he was [but a member of] the court.3 And in every case, if they had wives and these [afterward] died, the [other] women may be married to them. And in every case if the women were married to others and [afterward] were divorced or became widows, they may be married to them; and in every case they may be married to their sons or brothers.4 3. 1. Ifstwoof four brothers married two sisters, and the two that married the two sisters died, the sisters must perform halitzah and may not con¬ tract levirate marriage; and if the brothers had already married them they must put them away. R. Eliezer says: According to the School of Shammai they may continue the marriage, but according to the School of Hillel they must put them away.
2. If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers by virtue of the forbidden degrees,6 he may not marry her, but he may marry her sister;7 the second brother may not marry either. If one of the sisters was forbidden by virtue of an ordinance [of the Scribes] or by virtue of the holiness [of the levir] she must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage.
3. If one of the sisters8 was forbidden to one of the brothers by virtue of the forbidden degrees, and the other sister was forbidden to the other brother by virtue of the forbidden degrees, the sister forbidden to the first brother is permitted to the second, and the sister forbidden to the second is permitted to the first. This is the case whereof they have said: If her sister is also her sister-in-law she may either perform halitzah or contract levirate marriage.® 4. If two of three brothers married two sisters, or a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her daughter’s daughter, or a woman and her son’s daughter [and the two brothers died childless], the two widows must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage [with the third brother]. R. Simeon declares them exempt [even from halitzah ]. If one of the sisters was forbidden to him by virtue of the forbidden degrees, he is forbidden to her but he is not forbidden to the other; but if by virtue of an ordinance [of the Scribes] or by virtue of the holiness [of the levir], she must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage.
5. If10 there were three brothers, two married to two sisters and one unmarried, and one of the married brothers died and the unmarried one bespoke11 the widow, and then his second brother died, the School of * Includes »ny place beyond the borders of the land of Israel.
* She vowed that he should have no benefit from her, and the husband did not annul the vow (Num, 30*). 8 Of three; see Sanh. 1*.
* Of the messengers, witnesses, or Sages.
s Eduy. 5*. * If, e.g., she was his mother-in-law.
7 Since she is not a sister to one bound to him by the levirate tie.
222 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM Shammai say: His [bespoken] wife abides with him and the other is free as being the wife’s sister. And the School of Hillel say: He must put away his [bespoken] wife both by bill of divorce and by halitzah, and his brother’s wife by halitzah. This is the case whereof they have said, ‘Woe to him because of [the loss of] his wife! and woe to him because of [the loss of] his brother’s wife.’1 6. If there were three brothers, two married to two sisters and the other to a woman not near of kin, and the husband of one of the sisters died and the brother married to the woman not near of kin married the widow and then died, the widow is free [from levirate marriage with the surviving brother] in that she is the sister of his wife, and the woman not near of kin is free in that she was her co-wife. If he had only bespoken her for himself and then died, the woman not near of kin must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage [with the surviving brother]. If there were three brothers, two married to two sisters and the other to a woman not near of kin, and the brother married to the woman not near of kin died and the husband of one of the sisters married the widow and then died, the first woman is free [from levirate marriage with the surviving brother] in that she is the sister of his wife, and the other woman in that she was her co¬ wife. If he had only bespoken her for himself and then died, the woman not near of kin must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage [with the surviving brother].
7. If there were three brothers, two married to two sisters and the other to a woman not near of kin, and the husband of one of the sisters died and the husband of the woman not near of kin married the widow and then the wife of the other husband died, and afterward the husband of the woman not near of kin died also, then she2 is forbidden to him for all time since she was forbidden to him during a certain time. If there were three brothers, two married to two sisters and the other to a woman not near of kin, and the husband of one of the sisters divorced his wife and the brother married to the woman not near of kin died, and then the brother who divorced his wife married the widow and then died; such is a case whereof they have said,3 ‘If any among them died...or were divorced...their co- wives are not exempt.’