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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 25, 2022 | 讻状讟 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 82 – First Day of Rosh Hashana, September 26

This is the daf for the first day of Rosh Hashana. For Sunday’s daf please click here.

A case is brought in which a yabam committed to share his brother鈥檚 inheritance with his other brother but as opposed to that case in Ketubot 81, he did a kinyan to show he wanted to make sure it was effective. However, they still ruled that it was not effective as a kinyan cannot be effective when the item isn鈥檛 yours to sell. The property of his brother is not his, even once he married the yavama. Once a yabam marries his brother鈥檚 wife, she is his wife for all intents and purposes. Why was this necessary to say 鈥 for what halacha? Why does he not need to give her a ketuba, but she uses the one she has from his brother (the first marriage)? Shimon ben Shatach instituted that all the husband鈥檚 property be liened to the ketuba. What was before he instituted this and why was it a necessary takana?

讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讝讛 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讗砖专 讗砖诐 诇讜

However, this still does not prove conclusively that the baraita is corrupt, as perhaps it is the opinion of Rabbi Natan. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that in the case of one who claims one hundred dinars of another, and the other claims money of another, that one appropriates the money from this one, the last borrower, and gives it to this one, the first lender, without each party claiming the money from the one with whom he did business? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall give it to him in respect of whom he has been guilty鈥 (Numbers 5:7). The words 鈥渨hom he has been guilty鈥 are expounded to mean that the borrower pays the one who is owed by his creditor, since the borrower is a party to this case despite the fact that he never incurred direct liability to him. It is possible to explain the baraita cited by Rav Yosef based on this reasoning as well.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 转谞讗 讚诪讞诪讬专 转专讬 讞讜诪专讬 讘讻转讜讘讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讻专讘讬 谞转谉

Rather, a different justification exists for rejecting the baraita: We have not found a tanna who is stringent with these two stringencies with regard to a marriage contract. Rather, one rules either in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that movable property is mortgaged for a marriage contract, or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. No one accepts both of these stringencies, and yet this baraita can be explained only by a combination of the two opinions. It must therefore be rejected as non-authoritative.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

Rava said: If so, that is the meaning of that which I heard from Abaye, who said: This is not a mishna, and I did not know what it is. Rava initially did not understand why the teaching should be dismissed, but he subsequently realizes what Abaye was saying.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 讬讘诪讛 讘诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讘注讗 讗讞讜讛 诇诪讬驻住诇讛 讘讙讬讟讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 谞讻住讬 讗谞讗 讘谞讻住讬 驻诇讬讙谞讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转驻讬谞讗 讚注讘讚转 诇讬 讻讚注讘讬讚 驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗讛 专诪讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬转 驻诇讜讙 诇讱 诪讛砖转讗

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who had a yevama happen before him for levirate marriage in the town of Mata Me岣sya, and his brother wanted to disqualify her from him by means of a bill of divorce. The man said to his brother: What is your opinion? Why are you doing this? If you are doing this due to the property of the dead brother, I will divide the property with you. The brother said to him: I am scared that you will do to me like the swindler from Pumbedita did, in the above story, when the man from Pumbedita promised he would share the inheritance and later retracted. The man said to him: If you wish, divide it for yourself from now. I am prepared for you to take the property already, although the acquisition will take effect only after I marry the yevama.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讱 讜诪砖讜讱 驻专讛 讝讜 讜诇讗 转讛讬讛 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讱 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽谞讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚转 讘讗讙诐

Mar bar Rav Ashi said that although when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In the case of one who says to another: Go and pull this cow and it will be acquired for you only after thirty days, after thirty days he has acquired it through the act of pulling, and this is the halakha even if at the end of the thirty days the cow was standing in a meadow, i.e., a distant place that does not belong to the one acquiring the cow. This indicates that the present act of pulling is effective for later. Despite this halakha, Mar bar Rav Ashi claims that a difference exists between that case and the one currently under discussion.

讛转诐 讘讬讚讜 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜

Mar bar Rav Ashi elaborates: There, with regard to the cow, it is in the seller鈥檚 power to transfer ownership at the present time, when the instruction to pull the cow is given, and therefore he can delay the acquisition. Here, however, it is not in his power to divide up the property, as he has yet to perform levirate marriage and the brother鈥檚 property does not belong to him. Consequently, he cannot transfer its ownership at the present time.

讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诪注讻砖讬讜 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诪注讻砖讬讜

The Gemara asks: But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one is instructed to pull a cow, but the acquisition will take effect only after thirty days, he has not acquired it. This contradicts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 own ruling. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this case, when one acquires it, is referring to a situation when he says to him: Acquire it from now, so that once thirty days have passed it should belong to him retroactively, but that case, when one does not acquire it, is when he did not say to him: Acquire it from now. If the acquisition does not take effect now, it cannot take effect later.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪注讜诇讗 讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞讬诇拽 诪讛讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讞讬诇拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讘诐 诪讛讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

They inquired of Ulla: If the yavam performed levirate marriage with the woman and afterward divided the property he promised to share with his brother, what is the halakha? He replied: He has done nothing. They further asked: If he divided the property and afterward performed levirate marriage, what is the halakha? He once again responded: He has done nothing.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讛砖转讗 讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞讬诇拽 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讞讬诇拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讘诐 诪讘注讬讗 砖谞讬 诪注砖讬诐 讛讜讜

Rav Sheshet objects to this version of the discussion: Now if, when he performed levirate marriage and afterward divided the property when it was in his possession, Ulla answered that he has done nothing, then in a case where he divided it and afterward performed levirate marriage, is it necessary to inquire as to the halakha? It is obvious that such an action is of no consequence. The Gemara answers: Ulla was not asked these two questions on the same occasion. Rather, there were two incidents in which people raised these issues before Ulla, and he answered each inquiry separately.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘讬谉 讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞讬诇拽 讘讬谉 讞讬诇拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讘诐 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Reish Lakish said: Whether he performed levirate marriage and afterward divided the property, or whether he divided the property and afterward performed levirate marriage, he has done nothing. The Gemara concludes: And the practical halakha is that he has done nothing.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讬专讜转 讛诪讞讜讘专讬诐 诇拽专拽注 砖诇讜 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讗讞专讗讬谉 讜注专讘讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转谞讬 砖诇讛

搂 The mishna states: And the Rabbis say: Produce that is attached to the ground is his. The Gemara asks: Why is this so? Doesn鈥檛 all of his property serve as a guarantee and security for her marriage contract? Reish Lakish said: Emend the text and teach: Produce that is attached to the ground is hers.

讻谞住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转讜 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讜诪专 砖诪讙专砖讛 讘讙讟 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 诪讙专砖讛 讘讙讟 驻砖讬讟讗

The mishna further stated that if he married her, she is like his regular wife. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: The mishna means to say that he divorces her with a bill of divorce and that he may remarry her afterward without violating a prohibition. The Gemara asks: The halakha that he divorces her with a bill of divorce is obvious; how else can he divorce her?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜讬讘诪讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜注讚讬讬谉 讬讘讜诪讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 注诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬住讙讬 诇讛 讘讙讟 讗诇讗 讘讞诇讬爪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It is necessary to state this lest you say that since the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he will take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), and here the status of the first levirate marriage is still upon her, this would mean that it should not suffice for her to leave by a bill of divorce, but rather she can leave him only by performing 岣litza as well. The tanna therefore teaches us that 岣litza is not required, as once he has married her she is like any other woman, who can be divorced by a bill of divorce alone.

诪讞讝讬专讛 驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks with regard to the second part of the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, that he may remarry her: It is obvious that he may remarry her if the couple chooses to do so.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讜讛 讚专诪讗 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讛 注讘讚讛 讜讛砖转讗 转讬拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It is necessary lest you say that he has performed the mitzva the Merciful One placed upon him by means of levirate marriage, and now that he has divorced her she should once again stand in relation to him with the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife, which was her status before the mitzva of levirate marriage came into effect. The tanna therefore teaches us that since he performed levirate marriage with her, the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife no longer applies at all.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 讻讬讜谉 砖诇拽讞讛 谞注砖讬转 讻讗砖转讜

The Gemara asks: And say that indeed, the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife should be in force once again. The Gemara explains: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he will take her to him to be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates that once he has taken her, she has become like his regular wife in all respects.

讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖讛 讛拽谞讜 诇讜 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐

搂 The mishna taught: She has the status of his wife in all respects after levirate marriage, except that the responsibility for her marriage contract is upon the property of her first husband. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for this? It is that from Heaven they acquired a wife for him. Since he did not choose her but married her by force of a Torah commandment, he is not obligated to set aside for her a marriage contract of his own. Rather, he relies upon his brother鈥檚 marriage contract.

讜讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 讗讬转 诇讛 诪砖谞讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽诇讛 讘注讬谞讬讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛

The Gemara adds: And if she does not have anything from the first husband, e.g., if he owned no property, she nevertheless has a marriage contract from the second one, for the same reason that any wife is entitled to a marriage contract in the first place: So that she will not be demeaned in his eyes such that he will easily divorce her.

诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛专讬 讻转讜讘转讬讱 诪讗讬 讜讻谉

The mishna further stated that the yavam may not say to her: Here is your marriage contract, and similarly, a man may not make such a statement to his wife. Rather, all of his property is mortgaged for her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase: And similarly, here? The halakha in both cases appears to be identical.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讚拽谞讗讬 讜讚拽谞讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讚拽谞讗讬 讜讚拽谞讬谞讗 讗讬诪讗 住诪讻讛 讚注转讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It is necessary lest you say that this is the halakha only there, with regard to a yevama, where the yavam did not write a marriage contract for her and therefore never wrote: All property that I have bought and that I will buy is mortgaged to the marriage contract. But here, with regard to a regular wife, where he did write a marriage contract for her that included the clause: That I have bought and that I will buy, say that she relies upon that which he has set aside, and therefore there is no need for a full lien on all his property. The tanna therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

讙专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘转讛 讙专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讙专砖讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗

搂 The mishna states that if he divorced her she has only her marriage contract. There is no lien upon the property, and he may therefore sell it. The Gemara infers: If he divorced her, yes, that is the case, but if he did not divorce her, no, it is not. The tanna here teaches us indirectly that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Abba, who claims that the only way he can gain full control of all the property is by divorcing her.

讛讞讝讬专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘转讛 讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 注诇 诪谞转 讻转讜讘讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讞讝讬专讛

It was further taught in the mishna that if he remarried her, she is like all women, and she has nothing other than her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna teaching us by mentioning the possibility that he remarried her? We already learned this: With regard to one who divorces a woman and remarries her, he remarries her on the basis of her first marriage contract, and he need not write her a new one. Why is it necessary to emphasize this halakha in the case of a yevama?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗砖转讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讛讜 讻转讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讬讘诪转讜 讚诇讗 讗讬讛讜 讻转讘 诇讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讙专砖讛 讜讗讛讚专讛 讗讬诪讗 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that it is the halakha in the case of a wife, since he writes for her a marriage contract from him, and therefore when he remarries her he does so on the basis of the first marriage contract. But as for his yevama, where he did not write for her the marriage contract but it was written by his brother, in a case where he divorced her and remarried her, say that her marriage contract should be from him and he should write a new one using his own property. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not required.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讘转讜诇讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讜 诪讝拽讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讜 谞讜砖讗讬谉 谞砖讬诐 注讚 砖讘讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讜转讬拽谉 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讛

搂 The Gemara discusses the background for the rule that the husband鈥檚 property is mortgaged for the marriage contract. Rav Yehuda said: At first they would write for a virgin two hundred dinars and for a widow one hundred dinars. They would then demand that this amount be available in cash, and then the men would grow old and would not marry women, as they did not all possess such large sums of money, until Shimon ben Shata岣 came and instituted an ordinance that a man need not place the money aside in practice. Rather, all of his property is guaranteed for her marriage contract.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讘转讜诇讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讜 诪讝拽讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讜 谞讜砖讗讬谉 谞砖讬诐 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讻砖讛讜讗 讻讜注住 注诇讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛 诇讻讬 讗爪诇 讻转讜讘转讬讱

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita: At first they would write for a virgin two hundred and for a widow one hundred dinars, and they would grow old and would not marry women, since the women were concerned that their marriage contract money would be wasted or lost, and they had no guarantee that it would be collected. The Sages therefore instituted an ordinance that they should place it, the sum of the marriage contract, in her father鈥檚 house, thereby ensuring its safekeeping. And still problems arose, as when he was angry at his wife, he would say to her: Go to your marriage contract, as it was too easy for them to divorce.

讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 注砖讬专讜转 注讜砖讜转 讗讜转讛 拽诇转讜转 砖诇 讻住祝 讜砖诇 讝讛讘 注谞讬讜转 讛讬讜 注讜砖讜转 讗讜转讛 注讘讬讟 砖诇 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬诐

Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that they would place it in her father-in-law鈥檚 house, i.e., in her husband鈥檚 house. And wealthy women would craft their marriage contract money into baskets of silver and of gold, while poor ones would craft it into a large vessel for the collection of urine, as their marriage contract was large enough only for a small vessel.

讜注讚讬讬谉 讻砖讻讜注住 注诇讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛 讟诇讬 讻转讜讘转讬讱 讜爪讗讬 注讚 砖讘讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讜转讬拽谉 砖讬讛讗 讻讜转讘 诇讛 讻诇 谞讻住讬 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讛

And still, when he was angry at her he would say to her: Take your marriage contract and leave, until Shimon ben Shata岣 came and instituted an ordinance that he does not actually give her the money for her marriage contract. Rather, he should write to her: All my property is guaranteed for her marriage contract, and it is not localized to a particular place or object. Consequently, he would need to sell some of his property if he wished to divorce her, and would therefore think carefully before undertaking such a drastic course of action.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗砖讛

 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

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!

Ketubot 82 – First Day of Rosh Hashana, September 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 82 – First Day of Rosh Hashana, September 26

讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讝讛 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讗砖专 讗砖诐 诇讜

However, this still does not prove conclusively that the baraita is corrupt, as perhaps it is the opinion of Rabbi Natan. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that in the case of one who claims one hundred dinars of another, and the other claims money of another, that one appropriates the money from this one, the last borrower, and gives it to this one, the first lender, without each party claiming the money from the one with whom he did business? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall give it to him in respect of whom he has been guilty鈥 (Numbers 5:7). The words 鈥渨hom he has been guilty鈥 are expounded to mean that the borrower pays the one who is owed by his creditor, since the borrower is a party to this case despite the fact that he never incurred direct liability to him. It is possible to explain the baraita cited by Rav Yosef based on this reasoning as well.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 转谞讗 讚诪讞诪讬专 转专讬 讞讜诪专讬 讘讻转讜讘讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讻专讘讬 谞转谉

Rather, a different justification exists for rejecting the baraita: We have not found a tanna who is stringent with these two stringencies with regard to a marriage contract. Rather, one rules either in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that movable property is mortgaged for a marriage contract, or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. No one accepts both of these stringencies, and yet this baraita can be explained only by a combination of the two opinions. It must therefore be rejected as non-authoritative.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

Rava said: If so, that is the meaning of that which I heard from Abaye, who said: This is not a mishna, and I did not know what it is. Rava initially did not understand why the teaching should be dismissed, but he subsequently realizes what Abaye was saying.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 讬讘诪讛 讘诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讘注讗 讗讞讜讛 诇诪讬驻住诇讛 讘讙讬讟讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 谞讻住讬 讗谞讗 讘谞讻住讬 驻诇讬讙谞讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转驻讬谞讗 讚注讘讚转 诇讬 讻讚注讘讬讚 驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗讛 专诪讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬转 驻诇讜讙 诇讱 诪讛砖转讗

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who had a yevama happen before him for levirate marriage in the town of Mata Me岣sya, and his brother wanted to disqualify her from him by means of a bill of divorce. The man said to his brother: What is your opinion? Why are you doing this? If you are doing this due to the property of the dead brother, I will divide the property with you. The brother said to him: I am scared that you will do to me like the swindler from Pumbedita did, in the above story, when the man from Pumbedita promised he would share the inheritance and later retracted. The man said to him: If you wish, divide it for yourself from now. I am prepared for you to take the property already, although the acquisition will take effect only after I marry the yevama.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讱 讜诪砖讜讱 驻专讛 讝讜 讜诇讗 转讛讬讛 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讱 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽谞讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚转 讘讗讙诐

Mar bar Rav Ashi said that although when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In the case of one who says to another: Go and pull this cow and it will be acquired for you only after thirty days, after thirty days he has acquired it through the act of pulling, and this is the halakha even if at the end of the thirty days the cow was standing in a meadow, i.e., a distant place that does not belong to the one acquiring the cow. This indicates that the present act of pulling is effective for later. Despite this halakha, Mar bar Rav Ashi claims that a difference exists between that case and the one currently under discussion.

讛转诐 讘讬讚讜 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜

Mar bar Rav Ashi elaborates: There, with regard to the cow, it is in the seller鈥檚 power to transfer ownership at the present time, when the instruction to pull the cow is given, and therefore he can delay the acquisition. Here, however, it is not in his power to divide up the property, as he has yet to perform levirate marriage and the brother鈥檚 property does not belong to him. Consequently, he cannot transfer its ownership at the present time.

讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诪注讻砖讬讜 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诪注讻砖讬讜

The Gemara asks: But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one is instructed to pull a cow, but the acquisition will take effect only after thirty days, he has not acquired it. This contradicts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 own ruling. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this case, when one acquires it, is referring to a situation when he says to him: Acquire it from now, so that once thirty days have passed it should belong to him retroactively, but that case, when one does not acquire it, is when he did not say to him: Acquire it from now. If the acquisition does not take effect now, it cannot take effect later.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪注讜诇讗 讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞讬诇拽 诪讛讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讞讬诇拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讘诐 诪讛讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

They inquired of Ulla: If the yavam performed levirate marriage with the woman and afterward divided the property he promised to share with his brother, what is the halakha? He replied: He has done nothing. They further asked: If he divided the property and afterward performed levirate marriage, what is the halakha? He once again responded: He has done nothing.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讛砖转讗 讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞讬诇拽 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讞讬诇拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讘诐 诪讘注讬讗 砖谞讬 诪注砖讬诐 讛讜讜

Rav Sheshet objects to this version of the discussion: Now if, when he performed levirate marriage and afterward divided the property when it was in his possession, Ulla answered that he has done nothing, then in a case where he divided it and afterward performed levirate marriage, is it necessary to inquire as to the halakha? It is obvious that such an action is of no consequence. The Gemara answers: Ulla was not asked these two questions on the same occasion. Rather, there were two incidents in which people raised these issues before Ulla, and he answered each inquiry separately.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘讬谉 讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞讬诇拽 讘讬谉 讞讬诇拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讘诐 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Reish Lakish said: Whether he performed levirate marriage and afterward divided the property, or whether he divided the property and afterward performed levirate marriage, he has done nothing. The Gemara concludes: And the practical halakha is that he has done nothing.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讬专讜转 讛诪讞讜讘专讬诐 诇拽专拽注 砖诇讜 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讗讞专讗讬谉 讜注专讘讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转谞讬 砖诇讛

搂 The mishna states: And the Rabbis say: Produce that is attached to the ground is his. The Gemara asks: Why is this so? Doesn鈥檛 all of his property serve as a guarantee and security for her marriage contract? Reish Lakish said: Emend the text and teach: Produce that is attached to the ground is hers.

讻谞住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转讜 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讜诪专 砖诪讙专砖讛 讘讙讟 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 诪讙专砖讛 讘讙讟 驻砖讬讟讗

The mishna further stated that if he married her, she is like his regular wife. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: The mishna means to say that he divorces her with a bill of divorce and that he may remarry her afterward without violating a prohibition. The Gemara asks: The halakha that he divorces her with a bill of divorce is obvious; how else can he divorce her?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜讬讘诪讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜注讚讬讬谉 讬讘讜诪讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 注诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬住讙讬 诇讛 讘讙讟 讗诇讗 讘讞诇讬爪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It is necessary to state this lest you say that since the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he will take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), and here the status of the first levirate marriage is still upon her, this would mean that it should not suffice for her to leave by a bill of divorce, but rather she can leave him only by performing 岣litza as well. The tanna therefore teaches us that 岣litza is not required, as once he has married her she is like any other woman, who can be divorced by a bill of divorce alone.

诪讞讝讬专讛 驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks with regard to the second part of the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, that he may remarry her: It is obvious that he may remarry her if the couple chooses to do so.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讜讛 讚专诪讗 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讛 注讘讚讛 讜讛砖转讗 转讬拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It is necessary lest you say that he has performed the mitzva the Merciful One placed upon him by means of levirate marriage, and now that he has divorced her she should once again stand in relation to him with the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife, which was her status before the mitzva of levirate marriage came into effect. The tanna therefore teaches us that since he performed levirate marriage with her, the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife no longer applies at all.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 讻讬讜谉 砖诇拽讞讛 谞注砖讬转 讻讗砖转讜

The Gemara asks: And say that indeed, the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife should be in force once again. The Gemara explains: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he will take her to him to be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates that once he has taken her, she has become like his regular wife in all respects.

讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖讛 讛拽谞讜 诇讜 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐

搂 The mishna taught: She has the status of his wife in all respects after levirate marriage, except that the responsibility for her marriage contract is upon the property of her first husband. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for this? It is that from Heaven they acquired a wife for him. Since he did not choose her but married her by force of a Torah commandment, he is not obligated to set aside for her a marriage contract of his own. Rather, he relies upon his brother鈥檚 marriage contract.

讜讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 讗讬转 诇讛 诪砖谞讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽诇讛 讘注讬谞讬讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛

The Gemara adds: And if she does not have anything from the first husband, e.g., if he owned no property, she nevertheless has a marriage contract from the second one, for the same reason that any wife is entitled to a marriage contract in the first place: So that she will not be demeaned in his eyes such that he will easily divorce her.

诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛专讬 讻转讜讘转讬讱 诪讗讬 讜讻谉

The mishna further stated that the yavam may not say to her: Here is your marriage contract, and similarly, a man may not make such a statement to his wife. Rather, all of his property is mortgaged for her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase: And similarly, here? The halakha in both cases appears to be identical.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讚拽谞讗讬 讜讚拽谞讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讚拽谞讗讬 讜讚拽谞讬谞讗 讗讬诪讗 住诪讻讛 讚注转讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It is necessary lest you say that this is the halakha only there, with regard to a yevama, where the yavam did not write a marriage contract for her and therefore never wrote: All property that I have bought and that I will buy is mortgaged to the marriage contract. But here, with regard to a regular wife, where he did write a marriage contract for her that included the clause: That I have bought and that I will buy, say that she relies upon that which he has set aside, and therefore there is no need for a full lien on all his property. The tanna therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

讙专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘转讛 讙专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讙专砖讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗

搂 The mishna states that if he divorced her she has only her marriage contract. There is no lien upon the property, and he may therefore sell it. The Gemara infers: If he divorced her, yes, that is the case, but if he did not divorce her, no, it is not. The tanna here teaches us indirectly that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Abba, who claims that the only way he can gain full control of all the property is by divorcing her.

讛讞讝讬专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘转讛 讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 注诇 诪谞转 讻转讜讘讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讞讝讬专讛

It was further taught in the mishna that if he remarried her, she is like all women, and she has nothing other than her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna teaching us by mentioning the possibility that he remarried her? We already learned this: With regard to one who divorces a woman and remarries her, he remarries her on the basis of her first marriage contract, and he need not write her a new one. Why is it necessary to emphasize this halakha in the case of a yevama?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗砖转讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讛讜 讻转讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讬讘诪转讜 讚诇讗 讗讬讛讜 讻转讘 诇讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讙专砖讛 讜讗讛讚专讛 讗讬诪讗 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that it is the halakha in the case of a wife, since he writes for her a marriage contract from him, and therefore when he remarries her he does so on the basis of the first marriage contract. But as for his yevama, where he did not write for her the marriage contract but it was written by his brother, in a case where he divorced her and remarried her, say that her marriage contract should be from him and he should write a new one using his own property. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not required.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讘转讜诇讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讜 诪讝拽讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讜 谞讜砖讗讬谉 谞砖讬诐 注讚 砖讘讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讜转讬拽谉 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讛

搂 The Gemara discusses the background for the rule that the husband鈥檚 property is mortgaged for the marriage contract. Rav Yehuda said: At first they would write for a virgin two hundred dinars and for a widow one hundred dinars. They would then demand that this amount be available in cash, and then the men would grow old and would not marry women, as they did not all possess such large sums of money, until Shimon ben Shata岣 came and instituted an ordinance that a man need not place the money aside in practice. Rather, all of his property is guaranteed for her marriage contract.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讘转讜诇讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讜 诪讝拽讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讜 谞讜砖讗讬谉 谞砖讬诐 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讻砖讛讜讗 讻讜注住 注诇讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛 诇讻讬 讗爪诇 讻转讜讘转讬讱

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita: At first they would write for a virgin two hundred and for a widow one hundred dinars, and they would grow old and would not marry women, since the women were concerned that their marriage contract money would be wasted or lost, and they had no guarantee that it would be collected. The Sages therefore instituted an ordinance that they should place it, the sum of the marriage contract, in her father鈥檚 house, thereby ensuring its safekeeping. And still problems arose, as when he was angry at his wife, he would say to her: Go to your marriage contract, as it was too easy for them to divorce.

讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 注砖讬专讜转 注讜砖讜转 讗讜转讛 拽诇转讜转 砖诇 讻住祝 讜砖诇 讝讛讘 注谞讬讜转 讛讬讜 注讜砖讜转 讗讜转讛 注讘讬讟 砖诇 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬诐

Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that they would place it in her father-in-law鈥檚 house, i.e., in her husband鈥檚 house. And wealthy women would craft their marriage contract money into baskets of silver and of gold, while poor ones would craft it into a large vessel for the collection of urine, as their marriage contract was large enough only for a small vessel.

讜注讚讬讬谉 讻砖讻讜注住 注诇讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛 讟诇讬 讻转讜讘转讬讱 讜爪讗讬 注讚 砖讘讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讜转讬拽谉 砖讬讛讗 讻讜转讘 诇讛 讻诇 谞讻住讬 讗讞专讗讬谉 诇讻转讜讘转讛

And still, when he was angry at her he would say to her: Take your marriage contract and leave, until Shimon ben Shata岣 came and instituted an ordinance that he does not actually give her the money for her marriage contract. Rather, he should write to her: All my property is guaranteed for her marriage contract, and it is not localized to a particular place or object. Consequently, he would need to sell some of his property if he wished to divorce her, and would therefore think carefully before undertaking such a drastic course of action.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗砖讛

 

Scroll To Top