|  |  | Previous Folio / Yebamoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth ### Folio 114a lead forth some boys and girls [to the spot] and let them take a walk1 there, for if they find [the keys] they will bring them back'. [From this] it is clearly evident that he2 is of the opinion that if a minor eats nebelah,3 it is not the duty of the Beth din to take it away from him.4 May it be suggested that the following provides support for his view? A man must not say to a child, 'Bring me5 a key', or 'bring me5 a seal'; but he may allow him to pluck or to throw!6 Abaye replied: 'To pluck' [may refer] to a non-perforated plant-pot,7 and 'to throw' [may refer] to a neutral domain,8 [acts which are no more than prohibitions] of the Rabbis.9 Come and hear: If an idolater came to extinguish [a fire],10 he is not to be told either. 'Put it out' or 'Do not put it out', because it is not the duty of the Israelites present11 to enforce his Sabbath rest. If a minor [Israelite], however, came to extinguish [the fire], he must be told, 'Do not put it out', since it is the duty of the Israelites present11 to enforce his Sabbath rest!12 R. Johanan replied: [The child is inhibited only] where he [appears to] act with his father's approval.13 Similarly, then, in respect of the idolater,14 [it is a case] where he acts with the approval of an Israelite? Is this, however, permitted!15 — An idolater acts on his own initiative.16 Come and hear: If the child of a haber 17 was in the habit of visiting his mother's father who was an 'am ha-rez,18 there is no need to apprehend that [the latter] might feed him with [levitically] unprepared foodstuffs;19 and if fruit20 was found in his21 possession, it is not necessary [to take it from] him!22 — R. Johanan replied: The law was relaxed in respect of demai.23 The reason, then,24 is because [the fruit was] demai,23 but [had its prohibition been] certain25 it would have been necessary to tithe it;26 but, surely [it may be objected] R. Johanan said27 that [a child is inhibited only] where he [appears to] act with his father's approval28 — But [the fact is that] R. Johanan was in doubt. When, therefore, he dealt with the one subject29 he rebutted the argument30 and when he dealt with the other29 he [again] rebutted the argument.30 Come and hear: If the child of a haber 31 who was a priest was in the habit of visiting his mother's father who was a priest and an 'am ha-arez,32 there is no need to apprehend that [the latter] might feed him with unclean terumah; and if fruit was found in his33 possession it is not necessary [to take it away from] him!34 — [This refers only] to Rabbinical terumah.35 Come and hear: An [Israelite] child may be regularly36 breast fed by an idolatress or an unclean beast, and there is no need to have scruples about his sucking from a detestable thing;37 but he must not be directly fed with nebeloth,38 terefoth,39 detestable creatures or reptiles. From all these, however, he may suck, even on the Sabbath,40 though this is forbidden to an adult.41 Abba Saul stated: It was our practice to suck from a clean beast on a festival.42 At any rate it was here stated that 'there is no need to have scruples about his sucking from a detestable thing'!43 — [The permissibility] there is due to [the presence of] danger.44 If so, an adult also [should be permitted]!45 — [Permissibility for] an adult is dependent on medical opinion.46 [Permissibility for] a child also should be made dependent on medical opinion!47 — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: The ordinary child is in danger when deprived of his48 milk. 'Abba Saul stated: It was our practice to suck from a clean beast on a festival'. How is one to understand this?49 If danger was involved, [the sucking should be permitted] even on the Sabbath also; and if no danger was involved, it should be forbidden even on a festival! — This can only be understood as a case where50 pain51 was involved, [Abba Saul] being of the opinion [that sucking]52 is an act of indirect53 detaching.54 [In respect of the] Sabbath, therefore, where the prohibition55 [is one involving the penalty] of stoning, the Rabbis have instituted a preventive measure;56 [in respect of] a festival, however, where the prohibition55 [is only that of] a negative precept,57 the Rabbis have not instituted any preventive measure. Come and hear: These ye shall not eat,58 for they are a detestable thing 59 [is to be understood60 as] 'you shall not allow them to eat',61 this being a warning62 to the older men concerning the young children. Does not this imply63 that [minors] must be ordered, you shall not eat [such things']!64 — No; that [adults] may not give them65 with their own hands.66 Come and hear: No soul of you shall eat blood 67 implies68 a warning62 to the older men concerning the young children. Does not this signify63 that [minors] must be told,69 'Do not eat [blood]'!70 — No; that [adults] must not give them with their own hands.66 Come and hear: Speak … and say 71 conveys a warning62 to the older [Priests] concerning the [priests who are] minors. Does not this imply that minors must be ordered not to defile themselves!72 — No; that [adults] must not defile them with their own hands.66 And [all the Scriptural texts cited are] required. For if we had been informed concerning detestable things only, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Or, 'let them play' (Rashi). R. Pedath, who saw no objection to the children's desecration of the Sabbath. V. Glos. Symbolic of any religious transgression. Lit., 'to separate him'. On the Sabbath, from a public domain. If he does that of his own accord. Which proves that though a child may not be ordered to break a religious law he need not he interfered with if he does it on his own account. The plants in which draw no nourishment from the ground and cannot consequently he regarded as attached to it. Karmelith [H] neither a public nor a private domain. V. Glos. In the case of Pentateuchal prohibitions, however, a child must he stopped even if he acts quite innocently. On the Sabbath when labour is forbidden to an Israelite. Lit., 'upon them'. Shab. 121a. Which shews, contrary to the opinion of R. Pedath, that even where a child acts in pure innocence, he must he prevented from transgressing a law. I.e., if his father is present at the time he commits the transgression. The father's silence is interpreted as approval and encouragement of the child to continue his forbidden act. Hence the rule that he must he prevented from the desecration of the Sabbath. When, however, the child acts in the absence of his father it is no one's duty to restrain him. Mentioned in the same context (Shab 121a). Surely not. Whatever an Israelite is forbidden to do on the Sabbath he must not ask an idolater to do for him. He does not wait for the Israelite's encouragement, since he well knows that after the Sabbath he will he duly rewarded for his labour. Hence it is not necessary for any Israelite to prevent him from acting as he desires. [H], lit., 'associate' (v. Glos). One who observes all religious laws including those relating to the priestly and Levitical gifts, which were occasionally neglected by the 'am ha-arez. [H], lit., 'people of the land' (v. supra n. 12). Produce of the land on which the levitical dues have not been given. I.e., any land produce, liable to levitical dues. The child's. I.e., he may eat of it, though, as the fruit of an 'am ha-arez, on which the necessary dues may not have been given, it is forbidden for consumption. From this it follows that there is no need to prevent a child from transgression. An objection against those who hold the contrary view! [H], land produce belonging to an 'am ha-arez (v. Glos.), since the prohibition of such produce is due to suspicion only. It is not certain that the prescribed dues were not given by the 'am ha-arez. Why the child is not prevented from the consumption of the fruit mentioned. If, for instance, it had been definitely known that it had not been tithed. Before the child could be allowed to eat of it. Supra, in explanation of the citation from Shab. 121a. Why, then, should the child, where he acts in all innocence and where his father's approval is not in question, be prevented from eating of the levitically unprepared fruit? Lit., 'standing here'. Lit., 'thrusts', thus preventing his disciples from drawing any definite, and possibly erroneous, conclusion, V. supra p. 801, n. 12. V. loc. cit. n. 13. The child's. Cf. supra note, mutatis mutandis. The consumption of unclean terumah is forbidden Pentateuchally (cf. supra 73b)! That which is given from the fruit of the trees (apart from vine and olive trees) which is Pentateuchally exempt. Lit., 'and goes'. Which is forbidden to adults. Cf. Lev. XI, 10ff. Plural of nebelah (v. Glos.). The sing. is terefah q.v. Glos. When sucking is under certain conditions forbidden, as explained infra. The milk of an unclean beast is for adults Pentateuchally forbidden. Cf. Bek. 6b. When the restrictions on work are not as rigid as those of the Sabbath. Though he is eating a Pentateuchally forbidden food (v. supra n. 6 and cf. supra p. 802, n. 4)! Without food the child's life is endangered. When life is in danger any religious law may be infringed. Lit., 'requires an estimate'. Before he is allowed to eat of the forbidden food it is necessary to obtain medical opinion that delay until the conclusion of the Sabbath, for instance, would involve him in danger. Cf. supra n. 11. Lit., 'at'. The circumstances in which Abba Saul and his friends were permitted to commit an apparently forbidden act. Lit., 'not necessary (but)'. Not danger to life. From the breast. Or 'unusual'. [H] lit., 'as if by the back of the hand'. [H] (rt. [H] in Pi'el, 'break down', 'detach') Milking an animal with one's hands is regarded as direct detaching which on the Sabbath is Pentateuchally forbidden (cf Shab. 95a); releasing the milk by sucking is an unusual, or indirect unloading and is only Rabbinically forbidden. For actual unloading. Forbidding also sucking which is indirect unloading. Involving no death penalty. [H] (Kal of [H]). V. infra n. 7. Lev. XI, 42. Since the prohibition of such food for adults has already been mentioned elsewhere. [H] (Hif. of [H]). Lit., 'to warn', 'caution', 'admonish'. Lit., 'what not?' Even if they act on their own. An objection against R. Pedath (cf. supra p. 801, n. 7)! BaH. Cur. edd., 'him'. Cf. supra. 801, n. 8, final clause. Lev. XVII, 12. V. supra note 6 Lit., 'they say to them'. Cf. supra p. 801, n. 7. Lev. XXI, 1, a repetition of the rt. [H]. Lit., 'he tells them, Do not be defiled'. An objection against R. Pedath (cf. supra p. 801, n. 7)! Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Yebamoth 114b it might have been assumed [that the law1 applies to them], because their prohibition applies2 to even the minutest [objectionable creature]3 but not to blood the minimum quantity of which4 must be no less than5 a quarter [of a log].6 And if we had been informed concerning blood only, it might have been assumed [that the law7 applies to this] because [the eating of it] involves the penalty of kareth, but not to reptiles. And if we had been informed concerning these two,8 it might have been assumed [that the law7 applies to these] because their prohibition applies equally to all but not to uncleanness.9 And had we been informed concerning uncleanness it might have been assumed [that the law7 applies only here because] priests are different [from other people], since more commandments have been imposed upon them,10 but not to these.8 [Hence the three Scriptural texts were] required. Come and hear: IF TWO BROTHERS ONE OF WHOM WAS OF SOUND SENSES11 AND THE OTHER DEAF WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS WHO WERE OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE SISTER OF SOUND SENSES, DO? — [NOTHING; SINCE HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] IS EXEMPT AS BEING HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? HE MUST RELEASE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE WHILE HIS BROTHER'S WIFE IS FORBIDDEN FOREVER [TO MARRY AGAIN]. Now, why should he RELEASE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE? Let her continue to live with him [since he is only like] a minor who eats nebelah.12 — On account of the prohibition imposed upon her.13 Come and hear: IF TWO BROTHERS OF SOUND SENSES WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS ONE OF WHOM WAS OF SOUND SENSES14 AND THE OTHER DEAF, AND THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER. DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? [NOTHING; SINCE HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] IS EXEMPT AS HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES. DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DO? — HE MUST DIVORCE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE, AND [RELEASE] HIS BROTHER'S WIFE BY HALIZAH. But why must he DIVORCE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE? Let her continue to live with him [since she is only like] a minor who eats nebelah!15 — Owing to the prohibition that is imposed upon him.16 Raba said, Come and hear: IF TWO BROTHERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS OF SOUND SENSES14 AND THE OTHER DEAF, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DIED, WHAT SHOULD [THE BROTHER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? [NOTHING; SINCE THE WIDOW] IS RELEASED BY VIRTUE OF HER BEING HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DO? HE RELEASES HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE, WHILE HIS BROTHER'S WIFE IS FOREVER FORBIDDEN [TO MARRY AGAIN]. Now here, surely, no prohibition is involved either for him or for her, and yet it was stated, HE RELEASES HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE!15 — R. Shemaia replied: This is a preventive measure against the possibility of allowing a sister-in-law to marry a stranger.17 ## CHAPTER XV MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN AND HER HUSBAND WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA [AT A TIME WHEN THERE WAS] PEACE BETWEEN HIM AND HER AND [WHEN THERE WAS ALSO] PEACE IN THE WORLD, AND SHE CAME BACK AND SAID, MY HUSBAND IS DEAD', SHE MAY MARRY AGAIN; AND IF SHE SAID, 'MY HUSBAND IS DEAD [AND HAS LEFT NO ISSUE]' SHE MAY CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. [IF, HOWEVER, THERE WAS] PEACE BETWEEN HIM AND HER, BUT WAR IN THE WORLD, [OR IF THERE WAS] DISCORD BETWEEN HIM AND HER, BUT PEACE IN THE WORLD, AND SHE CAME BACK AND SAID, 'MY HUSBAND IS DEAD', SHE IS NOT BELIEVED.18 R. JUDAH SAID: SHE IS NEVER BELIEVED UNLESS SHE COMES WEEPING AND HER GARMENTS ARE RENT. THEY,19 HOWEVER, SAID TO HIM: SHE MAY MARRY IN EITHER CASE.20 GEMARA. Mention was made of21 PEACE BETWEEN HIM AND HER22 because it was desired to speak of23 DISCORD BETWEEN HIM AND HER, and PEACE IN THE WORLD was mentioned24 because it was desired to mention23 WAR IN THE WORLD. Raba stated: What is the reason [why a wife is not believed in a time] of war? Because she speaks from conjecture. 'Could it be imagined' [she thinks]25 'that among all those who were killed he alone escaped!' And should it be contended that since there was peace between him and her she would wait until she saw [what had actually happened to him]. it may sometimes happen [It may be retorted] that he was struck by an arrow or spear and she would think that he was certainly dead, while in fact someone night have applied an emollient26 [to his wound] and he might have recovered Raba was [at first] of the opinion27 that famine is not like war, since [in the former case] she does not speak from conjecture. [Later. however]. Raba changed his opinion. stating that famine is like war. For a woman once appeared before Raba and said to him, 'My husband died during a famine'. 'You have acted well', he remarked to her.28 'in that you saved your own life,29 since it could hardly be imagined that he would survive on the little remnant of flour that you left for him'. 'The Master then'. she replied. 'also understands that in such circumstances he could not survive'.30 After this31 Raba ruled: Famine27 is worse than war; for whereas in the case of war it is only when the wife states, 'My husband died in the war', that she is not believed, but [if her statement is that]. 'He died in his bed', she is believed, in the case of famine she is not believed unless she states, 'He died and I buried him'. A ruin27 is regarded as war, for [in this case also] she speaks from conjecture. A visitation of serpents or scorpions27 is regarded as war, for [here also a wife] speaks from conjecture. As to pestilence. some hold that it is like war, while others hold that it is not like war. 'Some hold that it is like war', because a wife, they maintain. speaks from conjecture; while 'others hold that it is not like war' because, they maintain, a wife relies upon the common saying.32 'A pestilence may rage for seven years but none dies before his time'.33 The question was raised:34 What is the law if it was she who established that there was a war in the world?36 Do we apply the argument. 'What motive could she have for telling a lie?'36 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Which included minors in the prohibition. To adults. So according to Tosaf. (s.v. [H] a.l.) contrary to Rashi. Involving a penalty. Lit., 'until there is'. V. Glos. Which included minors in the prohibition. Reptiles and blood. Which applies to priests only. Cf. Lev. XXI, 1ff. As their adults were more restricted than others, greater restriction may have been imposed upon their minors also. The order in our Mishnah is slightly different. V. Glos. A deaf-mute is no more responsible for his actions than a minor, and no more punishable than a minor. An objection against R. Pedath (cf. supra p. 801, n. 7)! His wife who, as a woman in the possession of her senses and faculties, is subject to punishment if she continues to live with him. The order in our Mishnah is slightly different. Cf. supra p. 805. n. 9. He is of sound senses and in possession of his faculties. Cf. supra p. 805, n. 10, mutatis mutandis. Were the deaf man and deaf woman allowed to continue living together, those who were unacquainted with the law that deaf-mutes are no more responsible for their actions than minors, might assume that their marriage was a valid one and that the sister-in-law, as the deaf levir's wife's sister, is exempt from the levirate marriage and halizah and, consequently, free to marry again. The reason why she is not believed in a time of war is given by Raba in the Gemara infra, while in a case of discord between herself and her husband she is suspected of a desire to get rid of him. The Sages. Lit., 'whether this or this', whether she shows signs of distress and mourning or not. Lit., 'he taught'. sc. in our Mishnah. Though this is superfluous. It being obvious that if a husband and wife lived in peace, her declaration that he is dead should be relied upon. Lit., 'to teach'. Cf. supra nn. 4 and 5 mutatis mutandis. Wanting in cur. edd., and inserted by BaH. Cf. Jast. 'A plaster', or 'bandage' (Rashi). In respect of accepting a wife's evidence as to the death of her husband in a country beyond the sea. Desiring to probe whether she had actually witnessed her husband's death or spoke from conjecture only. Leaving him to his fate in the famine-stricken area. She thus admitted that she had not actually witnessed her husband's death. Lit., 'he returned'. Finding that even in the case of famine a wife speaks from conjecture. Lit., 'on what men say'. Lit., and a man without (his full tale of) years does not depart'. [Rashi v. 115b s.v. [H] reads, He (Raba) raised the question]. [And she stated, 'He died in war' v. Rashi loc. cit.]. Where a person has no benefit from a lie he may obviously be presumed to be speaking the truth. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |