Talmud zu Dewarim 25:7

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari, Crispus, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “The dead man’s wife should not be outside, to a strange man⁵⁸Deut. 25:5. “To be” referring to a woman means “to be married”, Deut.24:2. זר “strange” means “outside the clan”, cf. Num. 17:5. This is interpreted here to mean “outside her marriage group”, e. g., the High Priest for the widow..” That is a wife who is a stranger to him. The Torah said, she should not be his wife even in case of a commandment. That being, she should not need ḥalîṣah! Rebbi Jeremiah⁵⁹In the differently formulated Babli parallel, 20a, the author is Rav. It seems therefore that one should read “Rav Jeremiah” (first generation Babylonian) rather than “Rebbi Jeremiah” (fifth generation Galilean). said: “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah⁶⁰Deut. 25:7 reads: “If the man does not want to take his sister-in-law, then his sister-in-law shall go to the elders at the gate and she shall say: My levir refuses to sustain his brother’s name in Israel, my levir does not agree.” The second “sister-in-law” seems unnecessary; if it were written “then she shall go” it would have the same meaning. Since we hold that no word in the Torah is unnecessary, R. Jeremiah concludes that there is a sister-in-law who goes even though the levir did not refuse but Heaven refused for him. This is the subject of the next paragraph.! If from “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, did the Torah not increase the cases of levirate⁶¹Since Deut. 25:7 also repeats “levir”, should there not be a levir who marries his sister-in-law even though the union otherwise would be forbidden?? Rebbi Ismael stated⁶²Sifry Deut. #289. There, the second “levir” is used to express what R. Jeremiah concluded from the first part of the verse: “My levir does not agree,” to exclude the case that the Omnipresent does not agree.: “My levir refuses”. That is, my levir refused, not that Heaven refused for him. In that case, she should not need ḥalîṣah! That means, the statement of Rebbi Jeremiah is needed, “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah!

There⁹⁶Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:1. The “appearance” is the assembly of all of Israel at the feast of Tabernacles during the Sabbatical year (Deut. 31:10–13); one derives from this the rules of appearance at all festivals of pilgrimage., we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn⁹⁷The spelling is not masoretical..” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak⁹⁸He should be obligated.? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach⁹⁹The first conjugation verb could also be vocalized as a causative. The same argument is given in the Babli (Ḥagigah 3a) where it is noted that the second clause, “and learn”, would be superfluous if one excluded only the deaf but not the mute.. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles¹⁰⁰In the language of the Babli: One does not make inferences from general principles, even when the exceptions are enumerated., since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not⁹⁴Reading of the parallel in Ḥagigah 1:1 (fol. 75d). ḥereš¹⁰¹Since he is not mentioned in the Mishnah.. But we have stated¹⁰²Mishnah Yebamot 12:5, speaking of the ceremony of ḥaliẓah, the taking off of one shoe, which frees the widow of a childless man from having to marry her brother-in-law (Deut. 25:4–10). The formalized statements by widow and brother-in-law before the court as described in the verses are an integral part of the proceedings.: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.¹⁰³Hence, the person who is deaf but not mute can perform a valid procedure. This is also the position of the Babli, Yebamot 104b.” We also have stated: “A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute¹⁰⁴This contradicts the formulation of the Mishnah in Yebamot..” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

¹⁰⁴This is from Terumot 1:2, Notes 94–102. There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak isḥereš. But we have stated: “Ḥalîṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or for an underage male.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.