Yerushalmi Yevamot 11:7 ירושלמי יבמות י״א:ז׳

MISHNAH: [A woman] did not wait three months after [the death of] her husband, married, and gave birth, and it is not known whether it is a nine months’ child of the first or a seven months’ child of the second. If she had sons from the first and the second, they perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate¹⁴⁰If the questionable child married and died childless, the widow needs ḥalîṣah from both sides. She cannot marry any one of them since her husband might have been the son of the other man and the marriage would then be incestuous.. Similarly, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate¹⁴¹If he had only one brother on one side and that one died childless, he must perform ḥalîṣah for the widow but is forbidden levirate.. If he had brothers from the first or from the second not from the same mother, he may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate¹⁴²It is obvious that he is not a candidate for either ḥalîṣah or levirate if there is another brother who could marry or release a widow without complication. If there was only one brother on one side who died childless, his widow either is a sister-in-law who can be married by the levir or she is an unrelated woman free to marry any man. and they may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate¹⁴³In the Babli and a number of independent Mishnah mss.: “One performs ḥalîṣah and one may marry in levirate.” In that version, if the questionable son dies childless, a brother from one side must perform ḥalîṣah; then one of the other side either may perform ḥalîṣah or marry in levirate since either the widow is his sister-in-law or she is unrelated and free to marry any man. One must assume that the version of the Yerushalmi (and a group of independent Mishnah mss.) is shorthand for the version of the Babli..
If one was an Israel and the other a priest¹⁴⁴The two husbands., he may marry a woman appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile himself for the dead, but if he became defiled he does not suffer forty lashes¹²⁵In order to punish one of them for wilfully desecrating himself, the court would have to prove that the culprit is a Cohen. Since this is impossible, neither of them can ever be punished for any infraction of priestly rules.. He may not eat heave but if he ate, he does not have to pay its value and additional fifth¹²⁶Since the monetary penalty for unauthorized use of heave has to be given to a Cohen (Mishnaiot Terumot 6:1, 7:1), and no Cohen can successfully sue any of them for payment by proving that he is not a Cohen, they do not have to pay.. He cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor. He has to sell his heave but the money is his¹²⁷They may not eat heave since the eater may be the former slave. They keep the money since they cannot be sued for it, cf. Note 126.. He has no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give him sacrifices but one cannot take his from him¹²⁸Since a Cohen has the right to sacrifice in the Temple even if he is not on duty there, they have the right to hand over their sacrifices to any certified Cohen and are not obligated to give it to the group of Cohanim currently serving there.. He is exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach¹²⁹The gift to the Cohanim from profane slaughter, Deut. 18:3.. His firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish¹³⁰An unblemished firstborn animal must be given to a Cohen to be sacrificed in the Temple and eaten by the Cohen. Once it is blemished it can be slaughtered locally and eaten by anybody, Deut. 15:19–23.. One charges him with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim¹³¹This gives the rationale for the entire Mishnah..
If both¹⁴⁴The two husbands. were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them and they for him¹⁴⁵On the day of death of one of his possible fathers, he is forbidden to serve in priestly functions. If he dies, both possible fathers are barred. The disability of a priest on the day of death of a close relative is inferred from the command given to Aaron and his sons on the day Nadab and Abihu died (Lev. 10:6) to continue their Temple service. If it were not forbidden in general, no special permission would have been needed.. He may not defile himself for them, they may not defile themselves for him. He does not inherit from them¹⁴⁶He cannot prove to the other heirs that he is the son of the deceased. but they inherit from him¹⁴⁷If he dies without issue, his father should inherit his property. Since neither of them can prove that he is the father, they split his estate between them.. He is not prosecutable if he injures or curses either one of them¹⁴⁸The prosecutor cannot prove that he cursed or injured his father.. He may serve on the watch of either one but does not participate in distributions¹⁴⁹He is a Cohen for the divine service but has no property rights since he cannot prove his claim if the fathers belong to different watches.. If both were of the same watch, he takes one part.

HALAKHAH: “[A woman] did not wait three months,” etc. “If both were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them,” etc. Where do we hold¹⁵⁰Under which circumstances did she separate from the first husband?? It is impossible after death [of the first] since we have stated: “He has to mourn intensely for them and they¹⁵¹Including the first husband, who then must be alive. for him.” One understands that he does not defile himself for the second [husband], I say that he is the son of the first. But why does he not defile himself for the first one? It must be that he divorced. Then, as you take it, if he is his son, he should defile himself for him. If he is not his son, he is desecrated, and what happens if he defiles himself¹⁵²If the second husband married a divorcee, his child is not a Cohen and not under the disabilities of Cohanim.? It must be that he¹⁵³The second man is not a husband; then he did not marry a divorcee and his son is a Cohen. The Babli, 100b, expands on the same arguments and concludes that the first might have been a husband who married after an invalid betrothal, whose wife may walk out on him without a divorce. raped. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah that a rape victim does not have to wait three months¹⁵⁴Chapter 4, Note 166.? Should we say, following the rabbis, but we follow Rebbi Yose¹⁵⁵The Mishnah follows the opinion that a rape victim does have to wait three months before marrying but practice does not follow this opinion.!

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One mourns deeply and defiles himself in a case of doubt¹⁵⁶From the following it seems that this covers two different kinds of doubt: A doubt of paternity and a doubt whether a child is a stillbirth or not. The second problem arises when a child is born after eight months of pregnancy and does not live for 30 days (cf. Chapter 4, Note 70).. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “He has to mourn intensely for them and they for him.” Rebbi Ashian bar Yaqim had a case¹⁵⁷Of an 8-months’ child who did not live.. He asked Rebbi Yose, who told him, you do not have to. He said to him, but did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say, one mourns deeply and defiles himself in a case of doubt? His signs were clear¹⁵⁸R. Ḥiyya requires full mourning if the child had hair and fingernails (following Rebbi in Tosephta Sabbath 15:7). In the Babli, 80b, complete hair and fingernails prove that the child is a living seven-months’ baby who just lingered in the womb.. But did not the colleagues say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not act on the signs of an eight months’ child¹⁵⁹The signs does not prove that the child is able to live.? He had a sign that he had intercourse and then separated¹⁶⁰The husband went on a trip after having the last intercourse and did not return before the pregnancy was visible, which gives a lower bound for the duration of pregnancy which came to 8 months and 1 day, i. e., 9 months..

An eight months’ child is like a stone¹⁶¹Tosephta Sabbath 15:5; Babli Sabbath 135a, Yebamot 80a, Baba Batra 20a. He is considered to be dead. and one does not move him on the Sabbath, but his mother lies down beside him and nurses him. Rebbi Yose asked: May one push aside the Sabbath for babies that are in doubt¹⁶²May a child which possibly may be an eight-months’ child be circumcised on the Sabbath if he was born on the Sabbath? It is clear that the Toseptha Sabbath 15:5 was not known to the Yerushalmi since it clearly states: In case of doubt whether it is a seven or an eight months’ child, one does not push aside the Sabbath.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is fine. How you take it, if he is a nine months’ child, he must be circumcised. If he is an eight months’ child, it is as if he cut flesh without need. The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Jacob ben Dositheos¹⁶³It seems that he was an Amora of the fourth generation. In other sources, he is called בן דוסאי, בן דוֹסתאי. asked, who permitted to cut flesh without need¹⁶⁴They answer the question in the negative; one has to wait until after the Sabbath. It is clear from the next paragraph that one has to wait 30 days to circumcise an eight months’ baby. The Babli, Sabbath 136a, in the name of R. Ada bar Ahava, follows R. Yose bar Abun here and explains the Tosephta (Note 162) that one may not push aside the Sabbath if one forgot to bring the necessary implements and would have to carry them in the public domain on the Sabbath.?

It was stated¹⁶⁵Tosephta Sabbath 15:7; Babli Sabbath 135a.: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, any human who lives for thirty days is not a still birth, “all redeemed you shall redeem at the age of one month¹⁶⁶Num. 18:16.;” and an animal which lives for eight days is not a still birth, “from the eighth day and further it will be welcome as a sacrifice, a gift to the Eternal¹⁶⁷Lev. 22:27..” There¹⁶⁸Babli Sabbath 136a. The rabbis hold that any child born alive frees his mother from levirate and ḥalîṣah., they say that practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Abba said, where do they disagree? If he was not born in his months¹⁶⁹7 or 9 months. The disagreement is only about an 8 months’ child which does not have hair and fingernails. The Babli agrees.. But if he was born in his months, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree.

“If he injured one and then injured the other, or cursed one and then cursed the other, he cannot be prosecuted.”¹⁷⁰Tosephta 12:7; Babli 101a, Makkot 16a, Ḥulin 82b, 91a. Rebbi Ḥanania asked, does that not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan? Since they disagree about the second day of holidays in the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forwarning in a case of doubt, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forwarning in a case of doubt¹⁷¹The argument is presented in detail in Pesaḥim 5:4 (fol. 32c), Nazir 8:1 (fol. 57a); derived from the point of view of R. Jehudah in Babli Makkot 16a.. Rebbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rebbi, there is no disagreement. There, it would have been possible to make a determination, here it is impossible to make the determination.

“If he injured both of them at the same time or cursed them at the same time, he is guilty. Rebbi Jehudah frees him.”¹⁷²In the Babylonian tradition, the position of R. Jehudah is uncertain; cf. Tosephta 12:7, readings of Erfurt ms. and editio princeps, and Babli 101a. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Is not the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? As we have stated there: ¹⁷³Mishnah Ḥulin 7:3, speaking of the sinew of the hip which is forbidden as food (Gen. 32:33). He ate from both sides but did not know which piece was from what side. For the majority it makes no difference since the sinews on both sides are forbidden. For R. Jehudah, the singular used in the verse, “the sinew of the hip” implies that only one is forbidden; in the opinion of the Babli this must be the one on the right hand side. The Yerushalmi must hold that R. Jehudah holds that clearly one of the two sinews is forbidden but it is not decided which one it is. R. Jehudah holds that since he certainly ate a piece of the forbidden sinew, he is guilty. Then the question is why should the eater be prosecutable when the prosecution could not show which piece was the forbidden one?“If he ate the volume of an olive of one of them and the volume of an olive of the other, he absorbs eighty [lashes]; Rebbi Jehudah says, he absorbs only forty [lashes].” Rebbi Crispus said, it is not inverted. There, it was in doubt what is forbidden. Here, it was certain¹⁷⁴If his mother had waited the prescribed three months, there never would have been any problem. but it became doubtful for him. Rebbi Judan asked: If it is so, in case carcass meat was mixed up with slaughtered meat, since it was certain but became doubtful for him, should he be free if he ate it¹⁷⁵Would R. Jehudah hold that a person who ate all of a portion of meat, of which it was known that it contained both kosher and non-kosher meat, could not be held responsible and would not have to bring a purification sacrifice?? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah agrees for all other prohibitions that he is (free)¹⁷⁶One has to read “guilty”. The text here is an erroneous copy from Halakhah 1 (Note 61).. But here, Rebbi Jehudah is interpreting verses: “His father,” certain but not uncertain, “his mother”, certain but not uncertain¹⁷⁷Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(8), on Lev. 20:9..

“He may serve in the watch of either one”. He should not serve¹⁷⁸Why cannot each watch tell him that he does not belong?. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Yasa, because of the damage to the family¹⁷⁹If it were known that a certain Cohen was not accepted for service in the Temple, nobody would marry any daughter of that family.

It was stated: Only if they both belong to the same clan¹⁸⁰This refers to the last statement in the Mishnah, that the son may receive part of the sacrifices if both putative fathers belonged to the same watch. Since each watch was divided into six clans of which one each was serving one day and received all the gifts of that day, he may receive a share only if the fathers belonged to the same clan. Only on the Sabbath they all served together but received no gifts.
The Babli, 101a, agrees to this ruling..