Theoretical debate or divergent practices TB Yevamot 15

We know that if a man dies childless his wife marries the deceased’s brother in order that his line will be perpetuated. This is a levirate marriage. If the man doesn’t want to marry his deceased’s brother’s wife, he has to perform the ceremony of halitza to dissolve their bonds. We also know that if that wife is one of the prohibited marriages then she is completely exempt from the levirate marriage. Now the co-wife of such a woman who was completely exempt from levirate marriage because of a prohibited marriage is called in Hebrew tzarat ’ervat, צרת ערווה. For example, if an uncle marries his brother’s daughter as well as another woman and dies without children, his surviving brother is forbidden to marry his daughter. The other wife is called a tzarat ’ervat. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree on the status of the tzarat ’ervat. Beit Shammai holds that a tzarat ’ervat must marry the deceased’s brother or perform the ceremony of halitza to dissolve their bonds. Beit Hillel holds that a tzarat ‘erva is considered an ’erva just like her co-wife and needs neither to marry the deceased’s brother nor perform the ceremony of halitza.

This difference of opinion has profound effects upon the unity of the Jewish people. According to Beit Hillel anybody following Beit Shammai’s opinion, the ensuing children will be considered mamzarim because they are the result of a prohibited marriage with the penalty of karet. These children can never ever enter the community of Israel. According to Beit Shammai anybody following Beit Hillel’s opinion, the children are b’nai lavim, a product of a negative commandment, but still Jewish.

Although the halakha follows Beit Hillel’s understanding. TB Yevamot 15 wants to know whether this was a theoretical debate between the two schools of thought or did Beit Shammai put their ruling into practice. Between dappim TB Yevamot 14 and 16, the Gemara brings 11 different cases as proofs that Beit Shammai put the rulings into practice. One proof shows that some things never change. People with power can ruin a person’s life who crosses them.

“Come and hear a different proof. They asked Rabbi Yehoshua: What is the halakha with regard to the rival wife of a daughter? He said to them: It is a matter of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. They continued to ask him: And in accordance with whose statement is the halakha? He said to them: Why are you inserting my head between two great mountains, i.e., between two great disputing opinions, between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel? I fear lest these two mountains break my skull.

“However, I shall testify to you about two great families that were in Jerusalem, the Beit Tzevo’im family who came from the town of Ben Akhmai, and the Beit Kofai family from the town of Ben Mekoshesh: They were the descendants of rival wives who married others, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and from them came High Priests who served on the altar. Accordingly, I can testify that this was the accepted halakhic practice throughout the generations.

“The Gemara infers from this statement: Granted, if you say that Beit Shammai acted in accordance with their opinions, this is why Rabbi Yehoshua said: I fear, since a conclusive halakhic ruling would mean that certain children are mamzerim, and the descendants of that family might take vengeance upon him. However, if you say that they did not act in accordance with their opinions, why did he say: I fear? The Gemara retorts: And even if Beit Shammai did act in accordance with their rulings, what is the reason that he said: I fear?

“Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua say that in his opinion a mamzer is only someone born from a union of those liable to receive the court-imposed capital punishments, not from those liable to receive karet. If so, in the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the children of rival wives who entered into levirate marriage would not be mamzerim at all, and therefore he had no reason to fear reprisals. The Gemara answers: Even if this is the case, nevertheless, he had something to fear, as, although the child of a rival wife would not be a mamzer, he would nevertheless be of flawed lineage and disqualified from the priesthood.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Even though some of the proofs that Beit Shammai follow their own ruling even though the halakha was according to Beit Hillel was deflected, the preponderance of examples prove that bet Shammai really did follow their own ruling.