Yevamot

IF THEY  PERFORM THE HALIZAH,  BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE TO MARRY A PRIEST,  AND BETH HILLEL DECLARE THEM TO BE ELIGIBLE.  IF THEY WERE MARRIED TO THE LEVIRS, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THEM ELIGIBLE [TO MARRY A PRIEST],  AND BETH HILLEL DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE.  THOUGH THESE FORBADE WHAT THE OTHERS PERMITTED, AND THESE REGARDED AS INELIGIBLE WHAT THE OTHERS DECLARED ELIGIBLE, BETH SHAMMAI, NEVERTHELESS, DID NOT REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN FROM [THE FAMILIES OF] BETH HILLEL, NOR DID BETH HILLEL [REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN] FROM [THE FAMILIES OF] BETH SHAMMAI. [SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF] ALL [QUESTIONS OF RITUAL] CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, WHICH THESE DECLARED CLEAN WHERE THE OTHERS DECLARED UNCLEAN, NEITHER OF THEM ABSTAINED FROM USING THE UTENSILS OF THE OTHERS FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD THAT WAS RITUALLY CLEAN. GEMARA. R. Simeon b. Pazzi said: What is Beth Shammai's reason?  — Because it is written, The outside  wife of the dead shall not be married unto one not of his kin;  'outside'  implies that there is also an internal,  and the All Merciful said, She shall not marry [unto one not of his kin].  And Beth Hillel?  — They require the text for the exposition which Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: Whence is it deduced that betrothal [by a stranger] is of no validity in the case of a sister-in-law?  For it is said in the Scriptures, The wife of the dead shall not be married  outside  unto one not of his kin;  there shall be no validity in any marriage of a stranger with her.  And Beth Shammai? — Is it written 'la-huz'?  Surely 'huzah'  was written. And Beth Hillel? — Since the expression used was huzah  it is just the same as if la-huz had been written; as it was taught: R. Nehemiah said, 'In the case of every word which requires a 'lamed' at the beginning  Scripture has placed a 'he'  at the end; and at the School of R. Ishmael the following examples were given:  Elim, Elimah;  Mahanayim, Mahanayimah;  Mizrayim, Mizraimah;  Dibelathaimah;  Yerushalaimah;  midbarah. Whence do Beth Shammai derive the deduction made by Rab Judah in the name of Rab? — It is derived from Unto one not of his kin.  Then let Beth Hillel also derive it from 'Unto one not of his kin'! — This is so indeed. What need, then, was there for 'huzah'? — To include one who was only betrothed.  And the others? — They derive it from the use of ha-huzah where huzah could have been used.  And the others? — A deduction from huzah ha-huzah does not appeal to them. Raba said: Beth Shammai's reason  is that one prohibition  cannot take effect on another prohibition.  This explanation is satisfactory in the case where the deceased had married first and the surviving brother married  afterwards, since the prohibition of marrying a wife's sister  could not come and take effect on the prohibition of marrying a brother's wife;  where, however, the surviving brother had married first  and the deceased married later,  the prohibition of 'wife's sister' was, surely, first!  — Since the prohibition of a 'brother's wife' cannot take effect on the prohibition of 'wife's sister', [any of the other widows] is the rival of a forbidden relative to whom  the precept of the levirate marriage is inapplicable, and is consequently permitted. IF THEY HAD PERFORMED THE HALIZAH, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE etc. Is not this obvious?  — [It had to be stated] in order to exclude [the instruction] of R. Johanan b. Nuri who said: Come and let us issue an ordinance that the rivals  perform the halizah but do not marry the levir.  Hence it was taught that Beth Hillel declare them eligible. IF THEY WERE MARRIED TO THE LEVIRS etc. BETH HILLEL DECLARE THEM INELIGIBLE. What need again was there for this? — Because it was taught, IF THEY PERFORM THE HALIZAH  it was also taught, IF THEY WERE MARRIED TO THE LEVIRS. We learned elsewhere: The Scroll of Esther  is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth or the fifteenth [of Adar].  but not earlier  or later.  Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: Apply here the text of Lo tithgodedu,  you shall not form separate sects!  (Is not Lo tithgodedu required for its own context, the All Merciful having said, 'You shall not inflict upon yourselves any bruise for the dead'?  — If so, Scripture should have said, Lo tithgodedu,  why did it say 'Lo tithgodedu'?  hence it must be inferred that its object was this.  Might it not then be suggested that the entire text refers to this only?  — If so, Scripture should have said, Lo thagodu;  why did it say 'Lo tithgodedu'? Hence the two deductions.)  — The former answered: Have you not yet learned,  'Wherever it is customary to do manual labour on the Passover Eve until midday it may be done; wherever it is customary not to do any work it may not be done'?  The first said to him: I am speaking to you of a prohibition, for R. Shaman b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: 'Scripture having said, To confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times,  the Sages have ordained for them different times,  and you speak to me of a custom!  But is there no prohibition there?  Surely we learned, 'Beth Shammai prohibit work during the night  and Beth Hillel permit it'!  — The other said to him: In that case,  anyone seeing [a man abstaining from work] would suppose him to be out of work.  But do not BETH SHAMMAI PERMIT THE RIVALS TO THE OTHER BROTHERS AND BETH HILLEL FORBID THEM!