Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 17, 2016 | 讝壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Gittin 35

A widow who comes to collect聽her ketuba money form the orphans, must swear that the husband didn’t give her any of the ketuba money in his lifetime (just like all creditors need to do to collect from orphans on their father’s debts). 聽The Rabbis were concerned she may swear falsely and therefore would not allow her to swear. 聽Since they could no longer collect聽their ketuba money, Rabban Gamliel instituted that a woman could take a vow instead of swearing. 聽Why is the concern only for widows? 聽Why is a vow better than swearing in terms of concern for lying? 聽Historically, Rav would not allow women to collect their ketubot because he saw that people didn’t take vows seriously. 聽This lead to a woman getting very angry and caused the death of a Rabbi and as a result,聽Rav Yehuda make a public declaration endorsing Shmuel’s opinion against聽Rav. 聽Why is there not a concern that a woman’s husband will cancel her vow or she will go to a chacham to annul the vow?

诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 讗拽讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 讙讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Due to the increased desirability that this would bring her when trying to remarry, since this would ensure she would bring assets with her into a new marriage, the Sages were lenient with her, as the Sages issued several decrees in connection with the marriage contract in order to enable women to collect more easily. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not the case.

谞诪谞注讜 诪诇讛砖讘讬注讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转 砖讛驻拽讬讚 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讗爪诇 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讛谞讬讞转讜 讘讻讚 砖诇 拽诪讞 讜讗驻讗转讜 讘驻转 讜谞转谞转讜 诇注谞讬

搂 The mishna taught that the court refrained from administering an oath to her. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they refrained from administering oaths to widows? If we say that it is because of the statement of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana says, and some say that it was Rav Yehuda who says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a person during years of famine who deposited a gold dinar with a widow, and she placed the gold dinar in a jug of flour and unwittingly baked it in a loaf of bread along with the flour, and she gave the bread as charity to a poor man.

诇讬诪讬诐 讘讗 讘注诇 讛讚讬谞专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛讘讬 诇讬 讚讬谞专讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讬讛谞讛 住诐 讛诪讜转 讘讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬讛 砖诇 讗讜转讛 讗砖讛 讗诐 谞讛谞讬转讬 诪讚讬谞专讱 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讬诪讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉 注讚 砖诪转 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬讛 讜讻砖砖诪注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讚讘专 讗诪专讜 诪讛 诪讬 砖谞砖讘注 讘讗诪转 讻讱 讛谞砖讘注 注诇 砖拽专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

After a period of time, the owner of the dinar came and said to her: Give me my dinar. She said to him: May poison benefit, i.e., take effect on, one of the children of that woman, i.e., my children, if I derived any benefit from your dinar. It was said: Not even a few days passed until one of her children died, and when the Sages heard of this matter, they said: If one who takes an oath truthfully is punished in this way for sin, one who takes an oath falsely, all the more so.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬注谞砖讛 讚讗讬砖转专砖讬 诇讛 诪拽讜诐 讚讬谞专

The Gemara first clarifies the details of the incident: What is the reason that she was punished if she in fact did not derive any benefit from the dinar? The Gemara answers: Because she benefited [ishtarshi] from the place of the dinar, as the dinar took up space in the bread, enabling her to use less flour. Therefore, she did derive some small benefit from the dinar.

讜诪讗讬 诪讬 砖谞砖讘注 讘讗诪转 讻诪讬 砖谞砖讘注 讘讗诪转

The Gemara asks: If she in fact did derive benefit from the dinar, then what is meant by the statement: One who takes an oath truthfully? Wasn鈥檛 her oath actually false? The Gemara answers: It means that she was like one who took an oath truthfully, as her oath was truthful to the best of her knowledge. In any case, this woman was punished severely for a small mistake. The severity of taking a false oath, even inadvertently, is why the Sages ceased administering oaths to widows.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙专讜砖讛 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讙专讜砖讛 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

The Gemara questions if this could be the reason for the ordinance: If they refrained from administering oaths due to this reason, then why would this be limited specifically to a widow? Even a divorc茅e should not be allowed to take an oath to collect her marriage contract as well. Why then does Rabbi Zeira say that Shmuel says: They taught this only with regard to a widow; however, with regard to a divorc茅e, the court does administer an oath to her? Why would this concern not apply in the case of a divorc茅e as well?

讗诇诪谞讛 砖讗谞讬 讚讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 讟专讞讛 拽诪讬 讚讬转诪讬 讗转讬讗 诇讗讜专讜讬讬 讛讬转专讗

The Gemara answers: A widow is different, as she continues to live in the house with the orphans and performs many services for them in the running of the home. Therefore, there is a concern that due to the benefit they receive from her as a result of the efforts she exerts for the orphans, she will rationalize and permit herself to take an oath that she had not collected any of her marriage contract, when in fact she had received a part of it.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讘诇 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 诇讗 诪讙讘讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗专诪诇转讗 拽砖讬讗

Rav Yehuda said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: It is Rav and Shmuel who both say that they taught only that an oath is not administered to the widow in court, as the oath that one takes in court is a severe oath, which involves the mentioning of God鈥檚 name and the holding of a sacred object. However, outside of court, where an oath is not taken in this manner, the judges administer an oath to her. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rav does not collect payment of a marriage contract for a widow because she has not taken an oath, which indicates that he also would not administer an oath to her outside of the court. The Gemara answers: This is difficult, as it contradicts the statement of Rav Yehuda.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讘谞讛专讚注讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讘诇 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜专讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

In the city of Sura they taught the statement with regard to the opinions of Rav and Shmuel like this, as stated above. However, in the city of Neharde鈥檃 they taught the statement with regard to the opinions of Rav and Shmuel like this: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says that they taught only that an oath is not administered to the widow in court; however, outside of court the judges administer an oath to her. And Rav says: Even outside of court as well, the judges do not administer an oath to her.

专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讙讘讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗专诪诇转讗 讜诇讬讗讚专讛 讜诇讬讙讘讬讬讛 讘砖谞讬 讚专讘 拽讬诇讬 谞讚专讬

The Gemara points out that according to this version of their statements, Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav does not collect payment of a marriage contract for a widow in any case. The Gemara asks with regard to Rav鈥檚 practice: Let him administer a vow to the widow, instead of an oath, and collect the marriage contract in accordance with the mishna, which states that a widow can take a vow in place of the oath. The Gemara answers: In Rav鈥檚 time vows were treated lightly, and Rav was concerned that widows would not treat the prohibition created by the vow with appropriate severity. This would result in the orphans losing out on part of their inheritance, and the widows violating the prohibitions created by their vows.

讛讛讬讗 讚讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讛 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讱 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讙讘讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗专诪诇转讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 讚诇诪讗 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诪讬讚讬 诪讻转讜讘转讬 讞讬 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讗诐 谞讛谞讬转讬 诪讻转讜讘转讬 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讘拽讜驻爪转

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain widow who came before Rav Huna and attempted to collect payment of her marriage contract from the orphans. He said to her: What can I do for you, as Rav does not collect payment of a marriage contract for a widow. The widow said to him: Isn鈥檛 the reason that I cannot collect payment only because of a concern that perhaps I already took some payment of my marriage contract? I swear as the Lord of Hosts lives that I did not derive any benefit from my marriage contract. Rav Huna says: Even though the court does not administer an oath to a widow, Rav concedes with regard to one who leaps and takes an oath of her own initiative that her oath is accepted, and she can collect payment of her marriage contract.

讛讛讬讗 讚讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讱 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讙讘讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗专诪诇转讗 讜讗讘讗 诪专讬 诇讗 诪讙讘讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗专诪诇转讗

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain widow who came before Rabba bar Rav Huna to collect payment of her marriage contract. He said to her: What can I do for you, as Rav does not collect payment of a marriage contract for a widow, and my father, my master, i.e., Rav Huna, does not collect payment of a marriage contract for a widow?

讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 诪讝讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讬讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

She said to him: If I cannot collect payment of the marriage contract, then provide sustenance for me from my husband鈥檚 property, to support me until I remarry. He said to her: You also do not have any right to sustenance, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who demands payment of her marriage contract in court has no right to receive sustenance any longer. The husband committed to provide for her sustenance only as long as she does not wish to remarry. Generally, once a widow demands payment of her marriage contract, she demonstrates that she wishes now to remarry and is no longer entitled to receive sustenance from her deceased husband鈥檚 property.

讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗驻讻讜讛 诇讻讜专住讬讛 讻讘讬 转专讬 注讘讚讗 诇讬 讛驻讻讜讛 诇讻讜专住讬讛 讜转专爪讜讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗讬驻专拽 诪讞讜诇砖讗

The widow became angry and said to Rabba bar Rav Huna: May his chair be overturned, i.e., he should fall from his position of power, as he ruled for me in accordance with the different opinions of two people. Since Rabba bar Rav Huna was concerned about her curse, he overturned his chair in order to fulfill the curse literally, and then stood it up, and even so, he was not saved from the weakness that resulted from her curse.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘讬专讗讛 讗讚专讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗砖讘注讛 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诇讬转讬 拽诇讗 讜诇讬驻讜诇 讘讗讜讚谞讬 讚讘注讬谞讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗注讘讬讚 讘讛 诪注砖讛

With regard to this issue, the Gemara recounts: Rav Yehuda, the student of Shmuel, said to Rav Yirmeya Bira鈥檃: If a widow comes to collect payment of her marriage contract, administer a vow in court and administer an oath outside of court, and let the report be received in my ears that you did so, as I desire to perform an action, i.e., to enable a widow to collect payment of her marriage contract, in contrast to the statements of Rav鈥檚 students, who hold that a widow cannot collect payment of her marriage contract.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讙专讜砖讛 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the matter itself. The mishna taught that the court does not administer an oath to a widow in order to enable her to collect payment of her marriage contract. Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: They taught this only with regard to a widow; however, with regard to a divorc茅e, the court does administer an oath to her.

讜讙专讜砖讛 讚讗讚专讛 诇讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讗讬讱 驻诇讜谞讬转讗 讘转 驻诇讜谞讬 拽讘讬诇转 讙讬讟讗 诪谉 讬讚讗 讚讗讞讗 讘专 讛讬讚讬讗 讚诪转拽专讬 讗讬讛 诪专讬 讜谞讚专转 讜讗住专转 驻讬专讜转 砖讘注讜诇诐 注诇讛 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇转 诪讻转讜讘转讛 讗诇讗 讙诇讜驻拽专讗 讗讞讚 讜住驻专 转讛诇讬诐 讗讞讚 讜住驻专 讗讬讜讘 讜诪诪砖诇讜转 讘诇讜讗讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that if the court administered a vow to a divorc茅e and not an oath, then this is not sufficient to enable her to collect payment of her marriage contract? But didn鈥檛 they send from there, from Eretz Yisrael, a document that states the following: How so-and-so, the daughter of so-and-so, received a bill of divorce from the hand of A岣 bar Hidya, who is called Ayya Mari, and she took a vow and prohibited the produce of the world to herself, based on the truth of her statement that she did not receive from her marriage contract anything other than one coat [gelofkera], and one book of Psalms, and a book of Job, and a book of Proverbs, all of which were worn out.

讜砖诪谞讜诐 讘讞诪砖讛 诪谞讛 诇讻砖转讘讗 诇讬讚讻诐 讛讙讘讜讛 讗转 讛砖讗专 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讟 讬讘诪讬谉 讛讜讛

And we appraised them, and found that their value is five hundred dinars. When she comes to you with this document, collect the rest of the payment for her from her husband鈥檚 property in Babylonia. This demonstrates that it is also sufficient for a divorc茅e to take a vow. Rav Ashi said: That bill of divorce was a levirate bill of divorce that she received from the brother of her deceased husband and not a standard bill of divorce. She therefore took a vow, and not an oath, in the manner of all widows, as she was demanding payment of her marriage contract from the property of her deceased husband.

讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖转讛讗 谞讜讚专转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖诇讗 谞讬住转 讗讘诇 谞讬住转 讗讬谉 诪讚讬专讬谉 讗讜转讛

搂 The mishna taught: Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should take, for the benefit of the orphans, any vow that the orphans wished to administer to her. Rav Huna says: They taught this halakha only in a case where she did not marry again; however, if she married again, they do not administer a vow to her.

谞讬住转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讬驻专 诇讛 讘注诇 讻讬 诇讗 谞讬住转 谞诪讬 诇讻讬 诪谞住讘讗 诪讬驻专 诇讛 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讘拽讜讚诪讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is the reason that a widow who married again may not take a vow in order to collect? It is because of a concern that perhaps she is lying and is not concerned about the vow that she took, as she relies on the fact that her husband will nullify her vow. If so, when she is not married one should also be concerned that she may rely on the fact that when she will marry again, her husband will nullify her vow. The Gemara answers: The halakha is that the husband does not have the ability to nullify with regard to vows his wife took prior to their marriage.

讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗讝诇讛 诇讙讘讬 讞讻诐 讜砖专讬 诇讛 拽住讘专 爪专讬讱 诇驻专讟 讗转 讛谞讚专

The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps she in fact received payment of her marriage contract, and she relies on the fact that she will go to a halakhic authority and he will dissolve the vow for her. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna holds that one who wishes to have a vow dissolved must detail the vow before the halakhic authority who dissolves it. There is no concern that the halakhic authority, knowing that she vowed in order to collect the payment of the marriage contract, will dissolve it.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讬住转 谞讬住转 讜讚讗讬 诪讬驻专 诇讛 讘注诇 讚诪讚专讬谞谉 诇讛 讘专讘讬诐

Rav Na岣an disagreed with Rav Huna and said: Even if she married again, the orphans can have the court administer a vow to the widow. The Gemara asks: If she married, then her husband will certainly nullify this vow. The Gemara answers that we, the court, administer the vow in public, and therefore her husband cannot nullify the vow.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞讬住转 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诐 谞讚专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 谞讚专讛 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讚谞讚专讛 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: In a case where she married again, she collects payment of her marriage contract if she has taken a vow. What, is it not the case that she takes a vow now, after she has remarried? The Gemara answers: No, it is possible to explain that it is referring to when she took a vow initially, before remarrying.

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讬住转 谞讜讚专转 讜讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛

The Gemara raises another difficulty for Rav Huna: But isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: If she married again, she takes a vow and collects payment of her marriage contract. Here, it is clear that she takes the vow after remarrying. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as there is one who says: A vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification by the husband, and therefore, even if the widow takes the vow in public, her husband can nullify it. As a result, she can collect payment of her marriage contract only if she takes a vow before she remarries. And there is one who says: A vow that was taken in public does not have the possibility of nullification. Therefore, even after the widow remarries, she is still able to take a vow and collect payment, as she takes the vow in public.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 爪专讬讱 诇驻专讟 讗转 讛谞讚专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 爪专讬讱

搂 Since Rav Huna鈥檚 statement included the fact that one who requests that a halakhic authority dissolve his vow must detail the vow, the Gemara mentions that a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does one who comes to a halakhic authority and requests that he dissolve his vow need to detail the vow, or does he not need to do so? Rav Na岣an says: He does not need to detail the vow. Rav Pappa says: He needs to detail the vow.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 爪专讬讱 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讘讜专讬讛 讜讞讻诐 诪讗讬 讚砖诪注 诪讬驻专

The Gemara explains each one鈥檚 reasoning: Rav Na岣an says that he does not need to detail the vow, as if you say that he needs to do so, sometimes the person who took the vow will cut short his statement and not provide all of the details of the vow, and the halakhic authority dissolves only what he hears and does not dissolve the vow in its entirety. Nevertheless, the one who took the vow will act as though the vow has been dissolved entirely. Therefore, it is preferable that he just report that he took a vow, and the halakhic authority will dissolve it entirely, whatever it is.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 诪砖讜诐 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗

Rav Pappa says that he needs to detail the vow, because the vow might concern a matter that is prohibited, such as the case of the mishna here where it is essential that the vow not be dissolved, as the purpose of the vow is to ensure that the widow will not lie. In such a case, if the halakhic authority is not aware of the circumstances that prompted the widow to take the vow, he could mistakenly dissolve it.

转谞谉 讛谞讜砖讗 谞砖讬诐 讘注讘讬专讛 驻住讜诇 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 讛谞讗讛 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 谞讜讚专 讜注讜讘讚 讬讜专讚 讜诪讙专砖 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇驻专讟 讗转 讛谞讚专 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讞讻诐 讜砖专讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof that one must detail the vow: We learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 45b): A priest who marries women in transgression of a prohibition is disqualified from taking part in the Temple service until he takes a vow not to derive benefit from his wives, thereby requiring him to divorce them. And it is taught with regard to this: He takes a vow and immediately serves in the Temple. He then descends from the service and divorces his wives. And if you say that he does not need to detail the vow, then let us be concerned lest he go to a halakhic authority and the halakhic authority dissolve the vow for him. He would then remain married to the women who are prohibited to him, and serve in the Temple despite being disqualified from doing so.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 35

诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 讗拽讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 讙讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Due to the increased desirability that this would bring her when trying to remarry, since this would ensure she would bring assets with her into a new marriage, the Sages were lenient with her, as the Sages issued several decrees in connection with the marriage contract in order to enable women to collect more easily. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not the case.

谞诪谞注讜 诪诇讛砖讘讬注讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转 砖讛驻拽讬讚 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讗爪诇 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讛谞讬讞转讜 讘讻讚 砖诇 拽诪讞 讜讗驻讗转讜 讘驻转 讜谞转谞转讜 诇注谞讬

搂 The mishna taught that the court refrained from administering an oath to her. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they refrained from administering oaths to widows? If we say that it is because of the statement of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana says, and some say that it was Rav Yehuda who says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a person during years of famine who deposited a gold dinar with a widow, and she placed the gold dinar in a jug of flour and unwittingly baked it in a loaf of bread along with the flour, and she gave the bread as charity to a poor man.

诇讬诪讬诐 讘讗 讘注诇 讛讚讬谞专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛讘讬 诇讬 讚讬谞专讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讬讛谞讛 住诐 讛诪讜转 讘讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬讛 砖诇 讗讜转讛 讗砖讛 讗诐 谞讛谞讬转讬 诪讚讬谞专讱 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讬诪讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉 注讚 砖诪转 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬讛 讜讻砖砖诪注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讚讘专 讗诪专讜 诪讛 诪讬 砖谞砖讘注 讘讗诪转 讻讱 讛谞砖讘注 注诇 砖拽专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

After a period of time, the owner of the dinar came and said to her: Give me my dinar. She said to him: May poison benefit, i.e., take effect on, one of the children of that woman, i.e., my children, if I derived any benefit from your dinar. It was said: Not even a few days passed until one of her children died, and when the Sages heard of this matter, they said: If one who takes an oath truthfully is punished in this way for sin, one who takes an oath falsely, all the more so.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬注谞砖讛 讚讗讬砖转专砖讬 诇讛 诪拽讜诐 讚讬谞专

The Gemara first clarifies the details of the incident: What is the reason that she was punished if she in fact did not derive any benefit from the dinar? The Gemara answers: Because she benefited [ishtarshi] from the place of the dinar, as the dinar took up space in the bread, enabling her to use less flour. Therefore, she did derive some small benefit from the dinar.

讜诪讗讬 诪讬 砖谞砖讘注 讘讗诪转 讻诪讬 砖谞砖讘注 讘讗诪转

The Gemara asks: If she in fact did derive benefit from the dinar, then what is meant by the statement: One who takes an oath truthfully? Wasn鈥檛 her oath actually false? The Gemara answers: It means that she was like one who took an oath truthfully, as her oath was truthful to the best of her knowledge. In any case, this woman was punished severely for a small mistake. The severity of taking a false oath, even inadvertently, is why the Sages ceased administering oaths to widows.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙专讜砖讛 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讙专讜砖讛 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

The Gemara questions if this could be the reason for the ordinance: If they refrained from administering oaths due to this reason, then why would this be limited specifically to a widow? Even a divorc茅e should not be allowed to take an oath to collect her marriage contract as well. Why then does Rabbi Zeira say that Shmuel says: They taught this only with regard to a widow; however, with regard to a divorc茅e, the court does administer an oath to her? Why would this concern not apply in the case of a divorc茅e as well?

讗诇诪谞讛 砖讗谞讬 讚讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 讟专讞讛 拽诪讬 讚讬转诪讬 讗转讬讗 诇讗讜专讜讬讬 讛讬转专讗

The Gemara answers: A widow is different, as she continues to live in the house with the orphans and performs many services for them in the running of the home. Therefore, there is a concern that due to the benefit they receive from her as a result of the efforts she exerts for the orphans, she will rationalize and permit herself to take an oath that she had not collected any of her marriage contract, when in fact she had received a part of it.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讘诇 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 诇讗 诪讙讘讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗专诪诇转讗 拽砖讬讗

Rav Yehuda said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: It is Rav and Shmuel who both say that they taught only that an oath is not administered to the widow in court, as the oath that one takes in court is a severe oath, which involves the mentioning of God鈥檚 name and the holding of a sacred object. However, outside of court, where an oath is not taken in this manner, the judges administer an oath to her. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rav does not collect payment of a marriage contract for a widow because she has not taken an oath, which indicates that he also would not administer an oath to her outside of the court. The Gemara answers: This is difficult, as it contradicts the statement of Rav Yehuda.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讘谞讛专讚注讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讘诇 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜专讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

In the city of Sura they taught the statement with regard to the opinions of Rav and Shmuel like this, as stated above. However, in the city of Neharde鈥檃 they taught the statement with regard to the opinions of Rav and Shmuel like this: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says that they taught only that an oath is not administered to the widow in court; however, outside of court the judges administer an oath to her. And Rav says: Even outside of court as well, the judges do not administer an oath to her.

专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讙讘讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗专诪诇转讗 讜诇讬讗讚专讛 讜诇讬讙讘讬讬讛 讘砖谞讬 讚专讘 拽讬诇讬 谞讚专讬

The Gemara points out that according to this version of their statements, Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav does not collect payment of a marriage contract for a widow in any case. The Gemara asks with regard to Rav鈥檚 practice: Let him administer a vow to the widow, instead of an oath, and collect the marriage contract in accordance with the mishna, which states that a widow can take a vow in place of the oath. The Gemara answers: In Rav鈥檚 time vows were treated lightly, and Rav was concerned that widows would not treat the prohibition created by the vow with appropriate severity. This would result in the orphans losing out on part of their inheritance, and the widows violating the prohibitions created by their vows.

讛讛讬讗 讚讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讛 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讱 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讙讘讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗专诪诇转讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 讚诇诪讗 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诪讬讚讬 诪讻转讜讘转讬 讞讬 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讗诐 谞讛谞讬转讬 诪讻转讜讘转讬 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讘拽讜驻爪转

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain widow who came before Rav Huna and attempted to collect payment of her marriage contract from the orphans. He said to her: What can I do for you, as Rav does not collect payment of a marriage contract for a widow. The widow said to him: Isn鈥檛 the reason that I cannot collect payment only because of a concern that perhaps I already took some payment of my marriage contract? I swear as the Lord of Hosts lives that I did not derive any benefit from my marriage contract. Rav Huna says: Even though the court does not administer an oath to a widow, Rav concedes with regard to one who leaps and takes an oath of her own initiative that her oath is accepted, and she can collect payment of her marriage contract.

讛讛讬讗 讚讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讱 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讙讘讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗专诪诇转讗 讜讗讘讗 诪专讬 诇讗 诪讙讘讬 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗专诪诇转讗

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain widow who came before Rabba bar Rav Huna to collect payment of her marriage contract. He said to her: What can I do for you, as Rav does not collect payment of a marriage contract for a widow, and my father, my master, i.e., Rav Huna, does not collect payment of a marriage contract for a widow?

讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 诪讝讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讬讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

She said to him: If I cannot collect payment of the marriage contract, then provide sustenance for me from my husband鈥檚 property, to support me until I remarry. He said to her: You also do not have any right to sustenance, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who demands payment of her marriage contract in court has no right to receive sustenance any longer. The husband committed to provide for her sustenance only as long as she does not wish to remarry. Generally, once a widow demands payment of her marriage contract, she demonstrates that she wishes now to remarry and is no longer entitled to receive sustenance from her deceased husband鈥檚 property.

讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗驻讻讜讛 诇讻讜专住讬讛 讻讘讬 转专讬 注讘讚讗 诇讬 讛驻讻讜讛 诇讻讜专住讬讛 讜转专爪讜讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗讬驻专拽 诪讞讜诇砖讗

The widow became angry and said to Rabba bar Rav Huna: May his chair be overturned, i.e., he should fall from his position of power, as he ruled for me in accordance with the different opinions of two people. Since Rabba bar Rav Huna was concerned about her curse, he overturned his chair in order to fulfill the curse literally, and then stood it up, and even so, he was not saved from the weakness that resulted from her curse.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘讬专讗讛 讗讚专讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗砖讘注讛 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诇讬转讬 拽诇讗 讜诇讬驻讜诇 讘讗讜讚谞讬 讚讘注讬谞讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗注讘讬讚 讘讛 诪注砖讛

With regard to this issue, the Gemara recounts: Rav Yehuda, the student of Shmuel, said to Rav Yirmeya Bira鈥檃: If a widow comes to collect payment of her marriage contract, administer a vow in court and administer an oath outside of court, and let the report be received in my ears that you did so, as I desire to perform an action, i.e., to enable a widow to collect payment of her marriage contract, in contrast to the statements of Rav鈥檚 students, who hold that a widow cannot collect payment of her marriage contract.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讙专讜砖讛 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the matter itself. The mishna taught that the court does not administer an oath to a widow in order to enable her to collect payment of her marriage contract. Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: They taught this only with regard to a widow; however, with regard to a divorc茅e, the court does administer an oath to her.

讜讙专讜砖讛 讚讗讚专讛 诇讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讗讬讱 驻诇讜谞讬转讗 讘转 驻诇讜谞讬 拽讘讬诇转 讙讬讟讗 诪谉 讬讚讗 讚讗讞讗 讘专 讛讬讚讬讗 讚诪转拽专讬 讗讬讛 诪专讬 讜谞讚专转 讜讗住专转 驻讬专讜转 砖讘注讜诇诐 注诇讛 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇转 诪讻转讜讘转讛 讗诇讗 讙诇讜驻拽专讗 讗讞讚 讜住驻专 转讛诇讬诐 讗讞讚 讜住驻专 讗讬讜讘 讜诪诪砖诇讜转 讘诇讜讗讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that if the court administered a vow to a divorc茅e and not an oath, then this is not sufficient to enable her to collect payment of her marriage contract? But didn鈥檛 they send from there, from Eretz Yisrael, a document that states the following: How so-and-so, the daughter of so-and-so, received a bill of divorce from the hand of A岣 bar Hidya, who is called Ayya Mari, and she took a vow and prohibited the produce of the world to herself, based on the truth of her statement that she did not receive from her marriage contract anything other than one coat [gelofkera], and one book of Psalms, and a book of Job, and a book of Proverbs, all of which were worn out.

讜砖诪谞讜诐 讘讞诪砖讛 诪谞讛 诇讻砖转讘讗 诇讬讚讻诐 讛讙讘讜讛 讗转 讛砖讗专 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讟 讬讘诪讬谉 讛讜讛

And we appraised them, and found that their value is five hundred dinars. When she comes to you with this document, collect the rest of the payment for her from her husband鈥檚 property in Babylonia. This demonstrates that it is also sufficient for a divorc茅e to take a vow. Rav Ashi said: That bill of divorce was a levirate bill of divorce that she received from the brother of her deceased husband and not a standard bill of divorce. She therefore took a vow, and not an oath, in the manner of all widows, as she was demanding payment of her marriage contract from the property of her deceased husband.

讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖转讛讗 谞讜讚专转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖诇讗 谞讬住转 讗讘诇 谞讬住转 讗讬谉 诪讚讬专讬谉 讗讜转讛

搂 The mishna taught: Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should take, for the benefit of the orphans, any vow that the orphans wished to administer to her. Rav Huna says: They taught this halakha only in a case where she did not marry again; however, if she married again, they do not administer a vow to her.

谞讬住转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讬驻专 诇讛 讘注诇 讻讬 诇讗 谞讬住转 谞诪讬 诇讻讬 诪谞住讘讗 诪讬驻专 诇讛 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讘拽讜讚诪讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is the reason that a widow who married again may not take a vow in order to collect? It is because of a concern that perhaps she is lying and is not concerned about the vow that she took, as she relies on the fact that her husband will nullify her vow. If so, when she is not married one should also be concerned that she may rely on the fact that when she will marry again, her husband will nullify her vow. The Gemara answers: The halakha is that the husband does not have the ability to nullify with regard to vows his wife took prior to their marriage.

讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗讝诇讛 诇讙讘讬 讞讻诐 讜砖专讬 诇讛 拽住讘专 爪专讬讱 诇驻专讟 讗转 讛谞讚专

The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps she in fact received payment of her marriage contract, and she relies on the fact that she will go to a halakhic authority and he will dissolve the vow for her. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna holds that one who wishes to have a vow dissolved must detail the vow before the halakhic authority who dissolves it. There is no concern that the halakhic authority, knowing that she vowed in order to collect the payment of the marriage contract, will dissolve it.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讬住转 谞讬住转 讜讚讗讬 诪讬驻专 诇讛 讘注诇 讚诪讚专讬谞谉 诇讛 讘专讘讬诐

Rav Na岣an disagreed with Rav Huna and said: Even if she married again, the orphans can have the court administer a vow to the widow. The Gemara asks: If she married, then her husband will certainly nullify this vow. The Gemara answers that we, the court, administer the vow in public, and therefore her husband cannot nullify the vow.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞讬住转 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诐 谞讚专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 谞讚专讛 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讚谞讚专讛 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: In a case where she married again, she collects payment of her marriage contract if she has taken a vow. What, is it not the case that she takes a vow now, after she has remarried? The Gemara answers: No, it is possible to explain that it is referring to when she took a vow initially, before remarrying.

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讬住转 谞讜讚专转 讜讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛

The Gemara raises another difficulty for Rav Huna: But isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: If she married again, she takes a vow and collects payment of her marriage contract. Here, it is clear that she takes the vow after remarrying. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as there is one who says: A vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification by the husband, and therefore, even if the widow takes the vow in public, her husband can nullify it. As a result, she can collect payment of her marriage contract only if she takes a vow before she remarries. And there is one who says: A vow that was taken in public does not have the possibility of nullification. Therefore, even after the widow remarries, she is still able to take a vow and collect payment, as she takes the vow in public.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 爪专讬讱 诇驻专讟 讗转 讛谞讚专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 爪专讬讱

搂 Since Rav Huna鈥檚 statement included the fact that one who requests that a halakhic authority dissolve his vow must detail the vow, the Gemara mentions that a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does one who comes to a halakhic authority and requests that he dissolve his vow need to detail the vow, or does he not need to do so? Rav Na岣an says: He does not need to detail the vow. Rav Pappa says: He needs to detail the vow.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 爪专讬讱 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讘讜专讬讛 讜讞讻诐 诪讗讬 讚砖诪注 诪讬驻专

The Gemara explains each one鈥檚 reasoning: Rav Na岣an says that he does not need to detail the vow, as if you say that he needs to do so, sometimes the person who took the vow will cut short his statement and not provide all of the details of the vow, and the halakhic authority dissolves only what he hears and does not dissolve the vow in its entirety. Nevertheless, the one who took the vow will act as though the vow has been dissolved entirely. Therefore, it is preferable that he just report that he took a vow, and the halakhic authority will dissolve it entirely, whatever it is.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 诪砖讜诐 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗

Rav Pappa says that he needs to detail the vow, because the vow might concern a matter that is prohibited, such as the case of the mishna here where it is essential that the vow not be dissolved, as the purpose of the vow is to ensure that the widow will not lie. In such a case, if the halakhic authority is not aware of the circumstances that prompted the widow to take the vow, he could mistakenly dissolve it.

转谞谉 讛谞讜砖讗 谞砖讬诐 讘注讘讬专讛 驻住讜诇 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 讛谞讗讛 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 谞讜讚专 讜注讜讘讚 讬讜专讚 讜诪讙专砖 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇驻专讟 讗转 讛谞讚专 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讞讻诐 讜砖专讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof that one must detail the vow: We learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 45b): A priest who marries women in transgression of a prohibition is disqualified from taking part in the Temple service until he takes a vow not to derive benefit from his wives, thereby requiring him to divorce them. And it is taught with regard to this: He takes a vow and immediately serves in the Temple. He then descends from the service and divorces his wives. And if you say that he does not need to detail the vow, then let us be concerned lest he go to a halakhic authority and the halakhic authority dissolve the vow for him. He would then remain married to the women who are prohibited to him, and serve in the Temple despite being disqualified from doing so.

Scroll To Top