Yevamot

from the impossible.  Let Beth Hillel, then, make the inference from Moses! — They can answer you: Moses did it with His consent.  For it was taught: Moses did three things on his own initiative and his opinion coincided with that of the Omnipresent. He separated himself from his wife,  broke the Tables of Testimony  and added one day. 'He separated himself from his wife'; what exposition did he make?  — He said, 'If to the Israelites, with whom the Shechinah spoke only for a while and for whom a definite time was fixed, the Torah nevertheless said, Come not near a woman,  how much more so to me, who am liable to be spoken to at any moment and for whom no definite time has been fixed'. And his view coincided with that of the Omnipresent; for it is said, Go say to them: Return ye to your tents; but as for thee, stand thou here by Me. 'He broke the Tables of Testimony'; what exposition did he make?  — He said, 'If of the Paschal lamb, which is only one of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, the Torah said, There shall no alien eat thereof,  how much more should this apply to the entire Torah when all Israel are apostates'. And his view coincided with that of the Omnipresent; for it is written, Which thou didst break  and Resh Lakish explained: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, 'I thank you for breaking them'. 'He added one day' on his own initiative. What exposition did he make?  — 'As it is written, And sanctify them to-day and to-morrow  [It implies that] to-day shall be the same as to-morrow; as to-morrow includes the previous night  so to-day must include the previous night. As, however, to-day's previous night has already passed away,  it must be inferred that two days exclusive of to-day must be observed'. And his view coincided with that of the Omnipresent, for the Revelation did not take place  before the Sabbath. It was taught: R. Nathan stated: Beth Shammai ruled: Two males and two females;  and Beth Hillel ruled: A male and a female.  Said R. Huna: What is the reason which R. Nathan assigns for the opinion of Beth Shammai? Because it is written, And again she bore his brother Abel  [which  implies:] Abel and his sister; Cain and his sister.  And it is also written, For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel;  for Cain slew him.  And the Rabbis? She was merely expressing her gratitude. Elsewhere it was taught: R. Nathan stated that Beth Shammai ruled: A male and a female;  and Beth Hillel ruled: Either a male or a female. Said Raba: What is the reason which R. Nathan assigns for the view of Beth Hillel? — Because it is said, He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited,  and he  has obviously helped it to be inhabited. It was stated: If a man had children while he was an idolater and then he became a proselyte, he has fulfilled, R. Johanan said, the duty of propagation of the race; and Resh Lakish said: He has not fulfilled the duty of propagation of the race. 'R. Johanan said: He has fulfilled the duty of propagation', since he had children. 'And Resh Lakish said: He has not fulfilled the duty of propagation' because one who became a proselyte is like a child newly born. And they  follow their views.  For it was stated: If a man had children while he was an idolater and then he became a proselyte, he has, R. Johanan said, no firstborn in respect of inheritance,  since he already had  the first-fruits of his strength.  Resh Lakish, however, said: He has a firstborn son in respect of inheritance, for a man who became a proselyte is like a child newly born. And [both statements  were] necessary. For if the first only had been stated [it might have been assumed that] only in that state- ment did R. Johanan maintain his view, since formerly he  was also subject to the obligation of propagation,  but in respect of inherit- ance, since [the proselyte's former children] are not entitled to heirship, it might have been presumed that he agrees with Resh Lakish. And were only the second stated [it might have been assumed that] only in that did Resh Lakish maintain his view but that in the former he agrees with R. Johanan. [Hence both were] necessary. R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish. At that time Berodach-baladan the son of Baladan, King of Babylon etc.!  — The other replied: While they are idolaters they have legally recognized ancestry, but when they become proselytes they have no longer any legally recognized ancestry. Rab  said: All agree that a slave has no legally recognized relatives, since it is written, Abide ye here with  the ass,  people who are like the ass. An objection was raised: Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants!  — R. Aba b. Jacob replied: Like a young bullock.  If so, [the same reply could be given] there also!  — There it is different, since Scripture mentioned his  own name as well as his father's  name, while here  [the son's names] were not specified. If you prefer I might say: They  were elsewhere ascribed to their father and their father's father; as it is written, And King Asa sent them to Ben-hadad, the son of Tabrimmon, the son of Hezion, the King of Aram, that dwelt at Damascus, saying. It was stated: If a man had children and they died, he has fulfilled, said R. Huna, the duty of propagation. R. Johanan said: He has not fulfilled it. 'R. Huna said: He fulfilled' because [he follows the tradition] of R. Assi. For R. Assi  stated: The Son of David  will not come before all the souls in Guf  will have been disposed of, since it is said, For the spirit that unwrappeth itself is from Me etc.  And 'R. Johanan said: He has not fulfilled the duty of propagation' because we require [the fulfilment of the text] He formed it to be inhabited,  which is not the case here. An objection was raised: