Talmud su Genesi 33:16

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers,” etc. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name ofNehorai: The reason of the House of Shammai, “the outside wife of the deceased shall not belong to a strange man¹⁹²Deut. 25:5. The verse reads לֹא־תִהְיָה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. In the masoretic text, הַחוּצָה is adverbial לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר and therefore is stressed on the penultimate syllable. The House of Shammai read an unlikely adjective לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. Following masoretic grammar, הַחוּצָה then should be stressed on the last syllable. As E. Y. Kutscher has shown in his study of the Isaiah scroll, one may assume that in the last century of the Jewish state the stress was penultimate irrespective of meaning. Therefore, in Mishnaic times there may not have been an audible difference between the two versions.
The House of Shammai would translate: “The deceased man’s wife who is outside [the family of the levir] shall not be to a strange man,” implying that only the widow who already belongs to the levir’s family is free from the obligations of the levirate. The argument is quoted in the Babli, 13b.,” the “outer one” should not be another man’s. It turns out that the House of Shammai hold like those Samaritans who perform levirate with the betrothed but remove the married, for they explain “outside” as “the outer one¹⁹³Having received qiddushin but not yet finally married, she is not yet part of the family. This interpretation avoids any appearance of conflict between Lev. 18:16, declaring relations with the brother’s wife incestuous, and Deut. 25:5, requiring marriage to the brother’s wife.
In rabbinic Hebrew, ארוסה “the betrothed one”, is a seldom used synonym of מקודשת “who had received qiddushin”..” How do the House of Shammai¹⁹⁴The commentators want to replace “House of Shammai” by “Samaritans”, but it was stated before that the House of Shammai accepts the reading of the Samaritans while giving it another interpretation. confirm “when he has no child¹⁹⁵Deut. 25:5. You do not expect a man to have a child before marriage.”? Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, “when he has no child” from the married one, “the outer one shall not belong outside to a strange man.¹⁹⁶In this interpretation, the “outside” wife is the woman betrothed, legally a wife, but not married to live in her husband’s family. For them, a woman widowed after marriage is never subject to levirate, only one becoming a widow from betrothal to a childless man. This eliminates any conflict between Deut. 25:5 and Lev. 18:16. The practice of the Samaritans is confirmed in the Babli, Qiddušin 75b–76a.” He said to him, will not the Samaritans love you that you confirm their interpretations! Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: I told the learned Samaritans, what did cause you to err? That you did not explain following Rebbi Neḥemiah, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: Anything which needs a ל as a prefix but did not get it, we give it a ה at the end, e. g., to the outside חוּצָה, to Se‘ir¹⁹⁷Gen. 33:16. שְׂעִירָה, to Succoth¹⁹⁸Gen. 33:17. סוּכּוֹתָה. They objected to Rebbi Neḥemiah, is it not written: “The wicked shall return to the pit לִשְׁאוֹלָה¹⁹⁹Ps. 9:18; one of the two signs of direction is superfluous..” Rabba bar Zabda said, to the lowest living space²⁰⁰Greek δίαιτα. in Sheol.

‘In which way should one honour his teacher’, etc.? It has been taught:¹⁹B.M. 86b-87a (Sonc. ed., p. 500). Michael came to bring good tidings to Sarah,²⁰That a son would be born to her. Gabriel to overthrow Sodom, and Raphael to heal Abraham.²¹Of the effects of his circumcision. Some say that Raphael came to bring good tidings to Sarah and to heal,²²Abimelech. as it is stated, And God healed Abimelech,²³Gen. 20, 17. Michael and Gabriel to overthrow Sodom. What is the reason for the first view? [Because it is stated,] And He overthrew those cities.²⁴ibid. XIX, 25, where the verb is singular. And what is the reason for the opinion of the others? [Because it is stated,] And the two angels came to Sodom.²⁵ibid. 1. Why is it that with Abraham [the angels said], So do, as thou hast said,²⁶ibid. XVIII, 5. but with Lot, Nay; but we will abide in the broad place all night?²⁷ibid. XIX, 2. R. Eleazar said: Infer from this that one may display reluctance²⁸By refusing his invitation. towards an inferior but not a superior. The Rabbis taught:²⁹Suk. 52b (Sonc. ed., p. 251), an explanation of the seven shepherds of whom Micah 5, 4. speaks. In the time to come the son of David will be in the middle, Adam, Seth and Methuselah on his right, and Abraham, Jacob and Moses on his left. Why is Isaac omitted? Raba said: Isaac is better than they because to him all Israel declare, For thou art our Father.³⁰Isa. 63, 16. For the allusion, cf. Shab. 89b (Sonc. ed., p. 426). If so, Esau ascended into Paradise.³¹Since he was Isaac’s son. That is why Scripture states, For thou art our Father: children are like their father—as the father did not repudiate the covenant so too the children. And whence do we know this? It is stated, I will prepare thee unto blood, and blood shall pursue thee; surely thou hast hated thine own blood, therefore blood shall pursue thee.³²Ezek. 35, 6. Ezekiel’s prophecy is directed against Mount Seir, the home of Esau (cf. Gen. 33, 16). Did Esau hate blood? Were not all his deeds connected with the shedding of blood, as it is stated, He is like a lion that is eager to tear in pieces, and like a young lion lurking in secret places?³³Ps. 17, 12. Like is dimyono in the Heb. and is spelt without the waw. Whence do you infer this? Perhaps he was only out to rob? No, since it states dimyeno and not dimyono;³⁴This form of the word is understood as being more closely connected with dam, ‘blood’. so draw this conclusion.