Gemara Clarity

Yevamos 14b

יבמות י״ד ע״ב

Yevamot 14b

Learn Yevamos 14b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Yevamos 14b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Did בית שמאי act on their view about צרות, and did the two schools warn each other? Also רבי אלעזר's rule that a ממזר comes only from a union of ערוה with כרת

Overview

The גמרא finishes a proof from the laws of טהרות that בית שמאי and בית הלל told each other when something was a problem in the other's view. It explains that this proof was needed because a צרה marriage might be so well known that no warning would be given. It then turns to רבי אלעזר's statement that both schools agree a ממזר comes only from a union of ערוה punishable by כרת. Its point is to reject רבי עקיבא, who holds that a union forbidden only by a לאו also produces a ממזר. Next the גמרא brings a ברייתא: despite many disputes about marriage and divorce, the two schools still married each other, out of love and friendship. From רבי שמעון's words, that they held back only in certain cases, the גמרא proves that בית שמאי acted on their view. It explains that for בית שמאי the holding back was about the צרה herself. It then rereads רבי שמעון's word 'doubtful' as 'unspecified': since the schools warned each other, silence meant there was no problem. Finally it begins a new proof from רבי יוחנן בן נורי, who sees a problem in following either school and starts to propose an enactment for the צרות; his words continue on the next amud.

Opening lines

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּמוֹדְעִי לְהוּ —

Granted, if you say that they informed them,

מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא נִמְנְעוּ,

that is why they did not hold back.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּלָא מוֹדְעִי לְהוּ,

But if you say that they did not inform them,

בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִבֵּית הִלֵּל לֹא נִמְנְעוּ —

granted, Beit Shammai did not hold back from Beit Hillel's items,

The steps (21)

  1. ProofProof from purity: if they were not told, בית שמאי could still use בית הלל's items
  2. ConclusionWhy didn't בית הלל avoid בית שמאי's items? So they must have been told
  3. QuestionWhat does the purity proof add beyond the marriage case?
  4. ResponseA צרה marriage is well known, so we might have thought no warning was needed
  5. Statementרבי אלעזר: a ממזר comes only from ערוה with כרת
  6. QuestionWho agrees with whom?
  7. ChallengeIf בית שמאי agree with בית הלל, that is obvious
  8. ChallengeThe other reading also fails: for בית הלל the case is כרת
  9. Resolutionרבי אלעזר's point is to reject רבי עקיבא
  10. ProofA new proof begins: a ברייתא listing the disputes of בית שמאי and בית הלל
  11. ProofDespite their disputes, the two schools still married each other
  12. Statementרבי שמעון: they held back only in certain cases
  13. ProofHolding back proves בית שמאי acted on their view
  14. ChallengeEven if they acted, only בית הלל's holding back makes sense
  15. ChallengeWhy would בית שמאי hold back, if the children are כשרים?
  16. ResolutionThe holding back was about the צרה herself
  17. ChallengeA doubtful case is also forbidden
  18. ResolutionRead it as 'unspecified', not 'doubtful'
  19. ChallengeIsn't this the same as the first part?
  20. ResolutionThe whole ברייתא is רבי שמעון
  21. Proofרבי יוחנן בן נורי: a problem either way