יבמות 96 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Is it not possible [that he referred] to the ruling 'DOES NOT DISQUALIFY'! Or else [it might be argued], whence is it proved that R. Huna's explanation is tenable? Is it not possible that R. Huna's explanation is altogether untenable and that they differ on the ruling of R. Hamnuna who stated that 'A woman awaiting the decision of the levir, who played the harlot, is forbidden to her levir'; Rab maintaining that she 'has the status of a married woman' and is consequently prohibited by reason of her immoral act, while Samuel maintains that 'she has not the status of a married woman' and does not therefore, become prohibited by reason of her immoral act? Or else [it might be replied] that they differ on the question whether betrothal of a sister-in-law is valid, Rab maintaining that she 'has the status of a married woman' and betrothal with her is, in consequence, invalid, while Samuel maintains that 'she has not the status of a married woman' and betrothal with her is, therefore, valid. But on this question they had already disputed once! — The one was stated as an inference from the other. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS TOLD 'YOUR WIFE IS DEAD AND HE MARRIED HER PATERNAL SISTER; [AND WHEN HE WAS TOLD] 'SHE ALSO IS DEAD', HE MARRIED HER MATERNAL SISTER; SHE TOO IS DEAD, AND HE MARRIED HER PATERNAL SISTER; 'SHE ALSO IS DEAD, AND HE MARRIED HER MATERNAL SISTER; AND LATER IT WAS FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL ALIVE, HE IS PERMITTED TO LIVE WITH THE FIRST, THIRD AND FIFTH, WHO ALSO EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS; BUT HE IS FORBIDDEN TO LIVE WITH THE SECOND OR THE FOURTH, AND COHABITATION WITH ONE OF THESE DOES NOT EXEMPT HER RIVAL. IF, HOWEVER, HE COHABITED WITH THE SECOND AFTER THE DEATH OF THE FIRST, HE IS PERMITTED TO LIVE WITH THE SECOND AND FOURTH, WHO ALSO EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS; BUT HE IS FORBIDDEN TO LIVE WITH THE THIRD AND WITH THE FIFTH, AND COHABITATION WITH ONE OF THESE DOES NOT EXEMPT HER RIVAL. A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY RENDERS [HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] UNFIT [FOR MARRIAGE] WITH HIS BROTHERS, AND HIS BROTHERS RENDER HER UNFIT FOR HIM, BUT WHILE HE RENDERS HER UNFIT FROM THE OUTSET ONLY, THE BROTHERS RENDER HER UNFIT BOTH FROM THE OUTSET AND AT THE END. IN WHAT MANNER? A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY WHO COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW RENDERS HER UNFIT [FOR MARRIAGE] WITH HIS BROTHERS; THE BROTHERS, HOWEVER, RENDER HER UNFIT FOR HIM WHETHER THEY COHABITED WITH HER, ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE OR SUBMITTED TO HER HALIZAH. GEMARA. Did not all those [marriages take place] after the death of the first wife! — R. Shesheth replied: [By this was meant]. AFTER THE ASCERTAINED DEATH OF THE FIRST WIFE. A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS etc. Does a boy of the age of nine years and one day cause unfitness [only where his act took place] at the outset, but if at the end he causes no unfitness? Surely R. Zebid son of R. Oshaia learnt: If [a brother] addressed a ma'amar to his sister-in-law, his brother of the age of nine years and one day, cohabiting with her afterwards, causes her to be unfit [for marriage with him]! — It may be replied: Cohabitation causes unfitness even [if it took place] at the end, while a ma'amar causes unfitness [only if it was addressed] at the outset, but if at the end, it causes no unfitness. But does cohabitation cause unfitness even [if it took place] at the end? Surely it was taught: BUT WHILE HE RENDERS HER UNFIT FROM THE OUTSET ONLY, THEY [RENDER HER UNFIT] BOTH FROM THE OUTSET AND AT THE END. IN WHAT MANNER? A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY WHO COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW etc! — Something, indeed, is here missing, and this is the proper reading: 'A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY RENDERS [HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] UNFIT [FOR MARRIAGE WITH HIS BROTHERS, if his action took place] AT THE OUTSET, but they RENDER HER UNFIT FOR HIM BOTH AT THE OUTSET AND AT THE END. This is applicable only in the case of a ma'amar, but cohabitation causes unfitness even [if it took place] at the end. IN WHAT MANNER? A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY WHO COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW RENDERS HER UNFIT FOR MARRIAGE WITH HIS BROTHERS. Has his ma'amar, however, any validity at all? Surely it was taught: A boy of the age of nine years and one day renders [his sister-in-law] unfit for his brothers by one kind of act only, while the brothers render her unfit for him by four kinds of acts. He renders her unfit for the brothers by cohabitation, while the brothers render her unfit for him by cohabitation, by a ma'amar, by a letter of divorce and by halizah! — Cohabitation, which causes unfitness both from the outset and at the end, presented to him a definite law, [the law of the] ma'amar, however, which causes unfitness front the outset only but not at the end, could not be regarded by him as definite. So it was also stated: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: He has [the power to give] a letter of divorce. And so said R. Tahlifa b. Abimi: He has [the power to address] a ma'amar. It was taught likewise: He has [the right to give] a letter of divorce and he has [the right to address] a ma'amar; so R. Meir. Could R. Meir, however, hold the view [that such a boy] has [the power to give] a letter of divorce? Surely it was taught: Cohabitation with a boy of the age of nine years [and one day] was given the same validity as that of a ma'amar by an adult; and R. Meir said: The halizah of a boy of the age of nine years was given the same validity as that of a letter of divorce by an adult. Now, if that were so, it should have been stated, 'As that of his own letter of divorce'! — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: He has [the right], but [his divorce is of a] lesser validity. For according to R. Gamaliel who ruled that there is no [validity in a] letter of divorce after another letter of divorce, his ruling is applicable only [in the case of a divorce] by an adult after that of an adult, or one by a minor after that of a minor, but [a divorce] by an adult after that of a minor is effective, while according to the Rabbis who ruled that a letter of divorce given after another letter of divorce is valid, the ruling applies only to [a divorce] by adult after that of an adult, or one by a minor after that of a minor, but [a divorce by] a minor after [that of] an adult is not effective.^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^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ

^ᵃnote:The case of one's wife and brother-in-law-; Samuel indicating that in this case, and in this case alone, the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose that the sister-in-law is permitted to her first husband contrary to the view of the first Tanna who forbids her.
^ᵇnote:Supra 95b.
^ᶜnote:Rab and Samuel.
^ᵈnote:Cit. 80b, Sot 18b, supra 95a.
^ᵉnote:To the levir.
^ᶠnote:As a married woman is prohibited to her husband if she has committed such an act.
^ᵍnote:To a stranger before she had performed halizah.
^ʰnote:The validity of betrothal of a sister- in-law. V. supra n. 7.
^ⁱnote:Supra 92b. Why should they dispute the same point twice.
^ʲnote:By disciples. Rab and Samuel, however disputed the point only once.
^ᵏnote:His second wife.
^ˡnote:Who was thus a perfect stranger to the first wife.
^ᵐnote:His third wife.
^ⁿnote:A perfect stranger to the second.
^ᵒnote:The fourth.
^ᵖnote:A stranger to the third.
^ᵠnote:Since his marriage with her was valid.
^ʳnote:Who was a complete stranger to him when he married her (V. supra p. 652. n. 12). His previous marriage with her maternal sister (his second wife) had no validity because the latter was a sister of his first wife and was forbidden to him as 'his wife's sister'.
^ˢnote:Marriage with whom was valid since the marriage with her sister (the fourth) was invalid. Cf. supra n. 2, mutatis mutandis.
^ᵗnote:If the man died without issue and one of his surviving brothers contracted the levirate marriage with or submitted to halizah from one of these widows.
^ᵘnote:The validity of his marriage wife the first and third causes the second and the fourth to be prohibited to him as his wives' respective sisters. Cf. supra note 2.
^ᵛnote:By one of the levirs. Cf. supra note 4.
^ʷnote:The husband.
^ˣnote:I.e., it was proved that the first report of her death was true (Rashi).
^ʸnote:The death of the first wife has removed from the second the prohibition of wife's sister (since a wife's sister is prohibited only during the lifetime of the wife) marriage with whom becomes valid.
^ᶻnote:The marriage with the second having become valid (v. supra n. 9), that with the third (being now the man's wife's sister) becomes invalid and, consequently, the marriage with the fourth who is now a perfect stranger becomes valid.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. supra note 4.
^ᵃᵇnote:Cf. previous notes, mutatis mutandis.
^ᵃᶜnote:This will be explained in the Gemara infra.
^ᵃᵈnote:That were enumerated in the first clause of our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵉnote:Why then was 'AFTER THE DEATH OF THE FIRST' mentioned only in the second clause in the case where HE COHABITED WITH THE SECOND?
^ᵃᶠnote:V. supra n. 2.
^ᵃᵍnote:In the other cases death was only reported.
^ᵃʰnote:Of his sister-in-law for his brothers.
^ᵃⁱnote:Before any of the adult brothers bad addressed a ma'amar to the widow.
^ᵃʲnote:After an elder brother had addressed to her a ma'amar.
^ᵃᵏnote:Of a deceased husband who died without issue.
^ᵃˡnote:Which shows that a boy of this age may cause unfitness even 'at the end'.
^ᵃᵐnote:On the part of the boy of the age of nine years and one day.
^ᵃⁿnote:Emphasis on COHABITED. Since the illustration is limited to an act of cohabitation only the general statement that the boy RENDERS HER UNFIT FROM THE OUTSET ONLY, on which the illustration apparently hangs must also be limited to cohabitation.
^ᵃᵒnote:On the part of the boy of the age of nine years and one day.
^ᵃᵖnote:Even at the end, i.e., after his brothers had addressed to her a ma'amar.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., 'has he a ma'amar'?
^ᵃʳnote:Cur. edd. insert 'for the brothers', which, with MS.M. and Pesaro ed. 1509, should be omitted. V. infra n. 5.
^ᵃˢnote:The last three words are wanting in cur. edd., but are rightly included in the Pesaro ed. V. supra n. 4.
^ᵃᵗnote:And by no other act.
^ᵃᵘnote:How then could it be said that the boy's ma'amar has any validity at all.
^ᵃᵛnote:[H] rt. [H] 'to cut', 'to decide', i.e., the law relating to cohabitation is definite and absolute. The act is always valid. Hence he mentioned it.
^ᵃʷnote:And being undesirous of entering into details of the law he preferred to omit it.
^ᵃˣnote:A boy of the age of nine years and one day.
^ᵃʸnote:His act is effective and causes his sister-in- law to be unfit for marriage to his brothers.
^ᵃᶻnote:Cf. Nid. 45a, supra 68a.
^ᵇᵃnote:That according to R. Meir the letter of divorce of a boy of the age of nine years and one day is valid.
^ᵇᵇnote:A boy the age of nine years and one day.
^ᵇᶜnote:To give a letter of divorce. V. supra p. 655. n. 11.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., 'and small'. Hence no comparison could be made between his halizah which is as valid as that of a divorce by on adult, and his own divorce which is not so valid.
^ᵇᵉnote:Since the divorce of the minor is of lesser validity.

²MISHNAH. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND THEN HIS BROTHER WHO WAS OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HER, [THE LATTER] RENDERS HER UNFIT FOR [THE FORMER]. R. SIMEON SAID: HE DOES NOT RENDER HER UNFIT. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND AFTERWARDS HE COHABITED WITH HER RIVAL, HE HAS RENDERED [THEREBY THE FIRST AS WELL AS THE SECOND] UNFIT FOR MARRIAGE WITH HIMSELF. R. SIMEON SAID: HE DOES NOT RENDER [THEM] UNFIT. GEMARA. It was taught: R. Simeon said to the Sages, 'If the first cohabitation was a valid act, the second cohabitation cannot have any validity; if, the first cohabitation, however, has no validity, the second cohabitation also should have no validity'. Our Mishnah cannot represent the view of Ben 'Azzai; for it was taught: Ben 'Azzai stated, 'A ma'amar is valid after another ma'amar where it concerns two levirs and one sister-in-law, but no ma'amar is valid after a ma'amar where it concerns two sisters-in-law and one levir.' MISHNAH. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND THEN DIED, SHE MUST PERFORM HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. IF HE HAD MARRIED [ANY OTHER] WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIED, SHE IS EXEMPT [FROM BOTH]. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW, AND AFTER HE HAD COME OF AGE HE MARRIED ANOTHER WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIED, IF HE HAD NOT [CARNALLY] KNOWN THE FIRST WOMAN AFTER HE HAD BECOME OF AGE, THE FIRST ONE MUST PERFORM HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, WHILE THE SECOND MAY EITHER PERFORM HALIZAH OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. R. SIMEON SAID: [THE SURVIVING LEVIR] MAY CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WITH WHICHEVER OF THEM HE MAY DESIRE AND SUBMITS TO HALIZAH FROM THE OTHER. [THE SAME LAW APPLIES] WHETHER HE IS OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY, OR WHETHER HE IS OF THE AGE OF TWENTY YEARS BUT HAD NOT PRODUCED TWO PUBIC HAIRS. GEMARA. Raba stated: With reference to the statement of the Rabbis that in the case of the levirate bond originating from two levirs [the sister-in-law] must perform halizah only but may not contract levirate marriage, it must not be assumed that this is applicable only where there is a rival, because [in that case] a preventive measure was necessary on account of the rival; for here there is no rival and yet [the sister-in-law] must perform halizah only but may not contract the levirate marriage. IF HE HAD MARRIED [ANY OTHER] WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIED etc. Here we learned what the Rabbis taught: If an imbecile or a minor married and then died, their wives are exempt from halizah and from the levirate marriage. A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS etc. AND AFTER HE HAD COME OF AGE etc. Let the cohabitation of the boy of nine be given the same validity as that of a ma'amar by an adult, and so let the rival [here] be debarred from the levirate marriage! — Now said Rab: The cohabitation of a boy of nine was not given the same validity as that of a ma'amar by an adult. Samuel, however, said: It was certainly given the same validity: and so said R. Johanan: It certainly was given the same validity. Then let the same validity be given here also! — This [question is a matter of dispute between] Tannaim. That Tanna [whose ruling is contained in the chapter] of the 'Four Brothers' enacted a preventive measure on account of the rival; and though he stated the law in respect of an adult the same law is applicable to a minor, the reason why he mentioned the adult being only because he was engaged on the question of the adult. The Tanna here however, is of the opinion that they were given the same validity, and he enacted no preventive measure on account of the rival; and though he spoke of the minor the same law applies to an adult, the reason why he spoke of the minor being only because he was dealing with the minor. R. Eleazar came and reported this statement at the schoolhouse but did not report it in the name of R. Johanan. When R. Johanan heard this he was annoyed. Thereupon R. Ammi and R. Assi came in and said to him: Did it not happen at the Synagogue of Tiberias that R. Eleazar and R. Jose disputed [so hotly] concerning a door bolt which had a knob at one end that they tore a Scroll of the Law in their excitement. 'They tore? Could this be imagined! Say rather 'That a Scroll of the Law was torn in their excitement'. R. Jose b. Kisma who was then present exclaimed, 'I shall be surprised if this Synagogue is not turned into a house of idolatry', and so it happened. [On hearing this] he was annoyed all the more. 'Comradeship too' he exclaimed. Thereupon R. Jacob b. Idi came in and said to him: 'As the Lord commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses; did Joshua, then, concerning every word which he said, tell them, "Thus did Moses tell me"? But, the fact is that Joshua was sitting and delivering his discourse without mentioning names, and all knew that it was the Torah of Moses. So did your disciple R. Eleazar sit and deliver his discourse without mentioning names and all knew that it was yours'. 'Why', he chided them, are you not capable of conciliating like the son of Idi our friend?' Why was R. Johanan so annoyed? — [For the following reason]. For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: What is the meaning of the Scriptural text, I will dwell in Thy tent for ever? Is it possible for a man to dwell in two worlds! But [in fact it is this that] David said to the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Lord of the Universe, May it be Thy will ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ^ᵈᵃ^ᵈᵇ^ᵈᶜ^ᵈᵈ

^ᵇᶠnote:The widow of his brother who died without issue.
^ᵇᵍnote:For the levirate marriage.
^ᵇʰnote:Because, as in the case of a ma'amar after a ma'amar, the act of either levir is valid and, as no two levirs may marry the same sister-in-law, the latter must divorce her; and a sister-in-law divorced by one of the levirs may never again be married by any of them.
^ᵇⁱnote:His reason is given in the Gemara, infra.
^ᵇʲnote:The widow of his brother who died without issue.
^ᵇᵏnote:Since levirate marriage may be contracted with one sister-in- law only. The first cohabitation constituting an imperfect kinyan, the second is effective to the extent of necessitating a divorce, and with a sister-in-law that was divorced by a levir, none of the levirs may subsequently contract levirate marriage. Cf. supra p. 656, n. 9.
^ᵇˡnote:His reason is given in the Gemara, infra.
^ᵇᵐnote:Of the first young levir.
^ᵇⁿnote:Constituting a kinyan of the sister-in-law.
^ᵇᵒnote:That of the second young levir.
^ᵇᵖnote:Since there is no validity in an act of cohabitation that follows an act of cohabitation (v. supra 50a), the second act is regarded as irregular intercourse with a stranger; and since it was committed unwittingly, the woman remains permitted to the first levir.
^ᵇᵠnote:Owing to the levir's tender age.
^ᵇʳnote:V. supra n. 8 and cf. supra 51b.
^ᵇˢnote:Which regards the cohabitation of a young levir as having the same validity as a ma'amar (cf. supra p. 656, n. 9), and yet rules that an act of cohabitation after another act of cohabitation is legally effective whether in the case of two levirs and one sister- in-law (first case) or two sisters-in-law and one levir (second case).
^ᵇᵗnote:The one as well as the other having addressed to the widow one ma'amar only.
^ᵇᵘnote:Because each levir (v. supra 51a) has equally the power to address such a ma'amar.
^ᵇᵛnote:The second ma'amar having no validity owing to the first ma'amar which had completely effected the kinyan of the first sister-in-law; and no levir is permitted to contract levirate marriage with more than one of the widows of his deceased childless brother.
^ᵇʷnote:The widow of his brother who died childless.
^ᵇˣnote:The act of the minor, while it is valid enough to subject his sister- in-law to the levirate bond of his surviving brothers, does not sever the first levirate bond which is due to her union with the first deceased brother. Being now subject to the levirate bond originating from two levirs, she is deprived (cf. supra 31b) of her right to the levirate marriage, and must perform halizah only.
^ᵇʸnote:Levirate marriage and halizah. The betrothal of a minor having no validity, the woman is not regarded as his wife in respect of the levirate. It is only in the case of a sister-in-law (v. supra n. 2) that his cohabitation is valid enough to subject the woman to the levirate bond.
^ᵇᶻnote:Because, as the minor did not cohabit with her since he became of age, she remained subject to the levirate bond originating from two levirs (cf. supra note 2).
^ᶜᵃnote:Being the deceased's lawful wife.
^ᶜᵇnote:R. Simeon does not admit the ineligibility for levirate marriage of a sister-in- law who is subject to the levirate bond originating from two levirs, V. supra 31b.
^ᶜᶜnote:Since they cannot be regarded as rivals, the marriage of the one does not exempt the other, Both, however, may not be taken in levirate marriage, as a preventive measure against erroneous comparisons with two sisters-in-law who were lawfully married.
^ᶜᵈnote:The marks of maturity. So long as these have not appeared he retains the legal status of a minor.
^ᶜᵉnote:V. supra 31b and cf. supra p. 658, n. 7 end.
^ᶜᶠnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᶜᵍnote:Cf. supra p. 658, n. 2.
^ᶜʰnote:Supra 69b, infra 112b. A minor and an imbecile have the same legal status, and our Mishnah, speaking of the minor confirms this ruling.
^ᶜⁱnote:Which (as stated supra 31b) debars the rival of the widow to whom the [ma'amar had been addressed, from the levirate marriage, though the rival's marriage with the deceased was in every respect a lawful union.
^ᶜʲnote:Why then was it stated that THE SECOND MAY EITHER PERFORM HALIZAH OR CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE?
^ᶜᵏnote:Lit., 'they made and they made'.
^ᶜˡnote:According to Samuel and R. Johanan.
^ᶜᵐnote:Lit., 'and let them make'. Cf. supra n. 6.
^ᶜⁿnote:The chapter which contains the Mishnah referred to is named after the first two words with which it begins. V. supra 260.
^ᶜᵒnote:Cf. supra 31b.
^ᶜᵖnote:Lit., 'stood'.
^ᶜᵠnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᶜʳnote:The cohabitation of a minor and the ma'amar of an adult.
^ᶜˢnote:Lit., 'they made'.
^ᶜᵗnote:Perhaps because R. Eleazar did not act in accordance with Aboth VI, 6, 'Whosoever reports a thing in the name of him who said it brings deliverance into the world'. V., however, the Gemara's explanation infra.
^ᶜᵘnote:Or, 'a fastening contrivance' (Jast.).
^ᶜᵛnote:R. Eleazar forbids its use on the Sabbath because it cannot be regarded as a 'vessel' and is consequently forbidden to be moved from its place; while R. Jose maintains that the knob at its end, whereby the bolt may occasionally be used as a pestle for crushing foodstuffs, imports to it the character of a vessel and it may. therefore. be used and moved on the Sabbath. V. 'Er. 101b.
^ᶜʷnote:The active form, [H], implies intentionally.
^ᶜˣnote:The Niph'al. accidentally.
^ᶜʸnote:Which permitted strife among its scholars.
^ᶜᶻnote:They compared his resentment against his disciple R. Eleazar to a dispute between colleagues, as if he and his disciple were school companions. 'The fellows (my pupils) too, are quoted against me?' (Jast.)
^ᵈᵃnote:Josh. XI, 15.
^ᵈᵇnote:R. Johanan.
^ᵈᶜnote:R. Ammi and R. Assi.
^ᵈᵈnote:Ps. LXI, 5; [H] lit., 'worlds'.