יבמות 7:2 — Soncino English Talmud

hence it was explicitly stated, 'As the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering': As the sin-offering requires application of the blood to, and burning of the prescribed portions upon the altar, so does the guilt-offering also require application of the blood to, and burning of the prescribed portions upon the altar. Had Scripture not restored it, however, it would have been assumed that it was singled out only in respect of what was explicitly specified but not in any other respect; so also here, I would assume, only a brother's wife who was explicitly mentioned [can be said] to be permitted but not any of the other forbidden relatives! But it might have been assumed that the law of a wife's sister should be deduced from what has been found in the case of a brother's wife; as a levir may marry his brother's wife so he may also marry his wife's sister. Are, however, the two cases similar? In the one case there is only one prohibition; in the other there are two prohibitions! — It might have been assumed that since she was permitted [in respect of one prohibition] she was also permitted [in the case of the other]. And whence is it derived that we assume that 'since something was permitted [in one respect] it was also permitted [in the other]'? — From what was taught: In the case of a leper whose eighth day [of purification] fell on the Passover eve, and who, having observed a discharge of semen on that day, had taken a ritual bath, the Sages said: Although no other tebul yom may enter [the Temple mount], this one may enter, for it is better that the positive precept, the non-observance of which involves kareth, shall supersede a positive precept the infringement of which involves no kareth. And in connection with this R. Johanan said: According to the Torah, not even [the infringement of] a positive precept is involved, for it is said, And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah … before the new court. What is meant by the new court? Rabbi replied: That they enacted therein new laws, ordaining that a tebul yom must not enter the camp of the Levites. And 'Ulla said: 'What is the reason?' Since he was given permission in respect of his leprosy, permission was also given to him in respect of his discharge of the semen. But is this case similar to that of 'Ulla? ^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ

^ᵃnote:Of a leper.
^ᵇnote:Zeb. 49a.
^ᶜnote:The leper's guilt-offering and brought it into line with other guilt-offerings.
^ᵈnote:Lit., 'to what it went out, it went out; and to what it did not go out, it did not go out'.
^ᵉnote:The case of the levirate marriage.
^ᶠnote:Lit., 'that was permitted is permitted'.
^ᵍnote:The question consequently arises again: What need was there for ''aleha' in Lev. XVIII, 18. (Cf. supra p. 30, n. s).
^ʰnote:The reason why a superfluous text (v. previous note) was needed.
^ⁱnote:For this reading v. BaH.
^ʲnote:Hence it was necessary to have the superfluous text, ''aleha' (v. supra n. 4) to shew that the law was not so.
^ᵏnote:Brother's wife and wife's sister.
^ˡnote:Lit., 'there', a brother's wife.
^ᵐnote:Lit., 'here', a wife's sister.
^ⁿnote:The prohibitions to marry (a) a brother's wife and (b) a wife's sister. How then could the one be deduced from the other?
^ᵒnote:A brother's wife who is also one's wife's sister and whose husband died childless.
^ᵖnote:By the positive precept of the levirate marriage.
^ᵠnote:That of marrying a brother's wife.
^ʳnote:The prohibition of marrying one's wife's sister. Hence etc. V. supra note 7.
^ˢnote:On which he completes the days of his purification and brings the prescribed sacrifices, presenting himself (whither as a leper he was till that day forbidden to enter) on the Temple mount at the entrance to the Nikanor gate of the Sanctuary, from where he extends his thumb and great toe into the Sanctuary (whither he is not yet allowed to enter) for the priest to apply to them some of the sacrificial blood, v. Nazir, Sonc. ed. p. 165ff.
^ᵗnote:When the paschal lamb is sacrificed to be eaten in the evening.
^ᵘnote:Such a discharge ordinarily disqualifies a man from entering the Temple mount.
^ᵛnote:[H] one who has had his ritual bath and is awaiting nightfall for the completion of his purification.
^ʷnote:Before nightfall.
^ˣnote:The leper in the circumstances mentioned.
^ʸnote:That of the paschal lamb.
^ᶻnote:That a leper like certain other unclean persons must be sent out from the Levitical camp in which the Temple mount is included.
^ᵃᵃnote:If he were not allowed to enter the Temple mount his purification from leprosy could not have been completed (cf. supra p. 31, n. 16) and he would in consequence have been prevented from participating in the paschal lamb. By allowing him to enter he is enabled to complete his purification, while nightfall would also terminate the uncleanness due to the discharge, and thus he is in a position to participate in the evening in the paschal lamb which during the day is prepared for him by a deputy.
^ᵃᵇnote:In allowing the leper in the conditions mentioned to enter the Temple court.
^ᵃᶜnote:II Chron. XX, 5, referring to a day when Israel completed a period of purification.
^ᵃᵈnote:This is the reading also in Zeb. 32b. Cur. edd. enclose in parentheses 'R. Johanan'.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᶠnote:Which proves that the prohibition for a tebul yom to enter the Levitical camp was not of Pentateuchal origin, having been first enacted in the days of Jehoshaphat.
^ᵃᵍnote:Why was a leper in the circumstances mentioned permitted to extend his hands into the Sanctuary whither an unclean person, according to 'Ulla, may not project even part of his body?
^ᵃʰnote:To project his hands into the Sanctuary.
^ᵃⁱnote:Despite the prohibition for an unclean person, though the days of his purification have been duly observed, to enter the Sanctuary even partially, prior to the offering of the prescribed sacrifices.
^ᵃʲnote:Thus it is proved that since something was permitted in one respect the permission remains in force even when another prohibition may be involved in another respect. The same argument might have also applied to a wife's sister or widow of a deceased brother. Hence the need of the text, ''aleha'.
^ᵃᵏnote:A brother's wife who is also one's wife's sister.