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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 24, 2023 | ื‘ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Nedarim 91 – Siyum Masechet Nedarim

  • For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here.
  • For more information about What is a Siyum, click here.
Siyum Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Sharona Shuster in memory of her father Eliyahu Chaim ben Harav Ephraim and mother-in-law Devorah bat Yisroel. โ€œBoth of whom have a legacy of Torah and Mitzvot among their children and grandchildren. And to my husband who believed in me and encouraged me to learn with Hadran. Also a mazel tov to Hadran community.โ€
Siyum Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Miriam Kerzner (sister) and her children Lana and Sheldon and Jamie and Elayne Greenstone (wife) in honor of Barry (Dov) Greenstone. “With great determination, at the age of 15 in 1957 finished Masechet Nedarim with his Rebbi, Rabbi Herzl Kaplan, z”l at the Hebrew Theological College (Skokie).”

Rav Papa said that Rava would quiz them on the following question: Does the wife of a kohen who is raped and must get divorced, receive her ketuba money or not? The answer is clear from our Mishna that she does. If a woman says in court that her husband divorced her, Rav Hamnuna says she is believed because a woman wouldnโ€™t have the audacity to lie in front of her husband if it wasnโ€™t true as he would know she is lying. Rava thinks that a woman is believed as in our Mishna, in a case where she says she is raped as it is humiliating for her to say that and therefore she would only say it if it were true. However, regarding divorce, that is not humiliating and therefore she is not believed. A question is raised against Rav from the case in our Mishna where a woman claims โ€œheaven is between you and meโ€ and was originally believed which seems to indicate she is believed even if she says something that doesn’t humiliate her, as the issue is with her husband and not her. This difficulty is resolved as the language she uses clearly indicates that she is uncomfortable talking about this and therefore it is humiliating to her. A question is raised against Rav Hamnuna from the case in our Mishna where a woman claims โ€œheaven is between you and meโ€ according to the later ruling that she is not believed. According to Rav Hamnuna, if this is something he knows about as well, how could she have the audacity to lie to him about it? To answer the question, they assume that the wife thinks that the husband may not know whether or not he is at fault. Two stories are told of women married to kohanim who claimed that they accidentally may have had relations with another man and yet Rav Nachman ruled that they are not to be believed and the husbands do not need to divorce their wives. Two stories are told of men who found another man in their house alone with their wives and based on the details of what happened when they arrived home, Rava ruled in both cases that the women could stay married to their husbands.

ื•ื’ื‘ืจื ื”ื•ื ื“ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื”ืื•ืžืจืช ื˜ืžืื” ืื ื™ ืœืš ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื”

And it is the man, her husband, whose field was flooded. In other words, like one whose field was flooded and destroyed, it is he who has suffered a natural disaster, as it is his status as a priest that forces him to divorce his wife. Therefore, she is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract. And we said to Rava, in response to his question: The answer to your question is found in the mishna, which states: A woman who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืืฉืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื™ ื‘ืจืฆื•ืŸ ื›ืœื•ื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ืื•ื ืก ืžื™ ืงื ืžื™ืชืกืจื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ืจื ื•ืืœื ื‘ืืฉืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืื™ ื‘ืจืฆื•ืŸ ื›ืœื•ื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื™ ื’ืจืขื” ืžืืฉืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืืœื ืœืื• ื‘ืื•ื ืก ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื”

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: With what are we dealing? If we say the mishna is speaking of the wife of an Israelite, consider the following: If she claims that she engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, does she have any right to receive payment of her marriage contract? And if she says it was by force, i.e., she was raped, is she thereby forbidden to the man, i.e., her husband? But rather, the mishna must be referring to the wife of a priest. Again, what are the circumstances? If she claims that she engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, does she have any right to receive payment of her marriage contract? Is her law any less stringent than that of the wife of an Israelite who willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with another man? Rather, is it not that the sexual intercourse was by force? And the tanna teaches that she has a right to receive payment of her marriage contract. This answers Ravaโ€™s question.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื’ืจืฉืชื ื™ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจืช ื˜ืžืื” ืื ื™ ืœืš ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืฉื ื” ืื—ืจื•ื ื” ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉืงืจื” ื“ื™ื“ืขื” ื“ื‘ืขืœื” ืœื ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื” ืื‘ืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื’ืจืฉืชื ื™ ื“ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื” ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ื“ื—ื–ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ืžืขื™ื–ื” ืคื ื™ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื”

ยง A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a woman said to her husband: You divorced me, what is the halakha? Is she believed or not? Rav Hamnuna said: Come and hear an answer to this question from what is stated in the mishna about a woman who says: I am defiled to you, that even according to the ultimate version of the mishna that teaches that she is not believed in her claim, it may be argued that it is only there that she is suspected of lying when she claims to have been defiled, as she knows that her husband does not know the truth about her. She is relating an incident that supposedly occurred in his absence. But concerning the claim: You divorced me, with regard to which he knows the truth about whether or not he actually divorced her, she is believed. Why? Because the court relies on the presumption that a woman is not brazen enough to lie in the presence of her husband and present a claim that he knows is patently false.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื“ืจื‘ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืฉื ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ืœื‘ื–ื•ื™ื™ ื ืคืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ื–ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืžืŸ ื’ื‘ืจื ืžืขื™ื–ื” ื•ืžืขื™ื–ื”

Rava said to him: On the contrary, even according to the initial version of the mishna that teaches that the woman is believed in her claim that she is defiled to her husband, it may be argued that it is only there that she is believed, because a woman would not demean herself by claiming she was raped if she were not telling the truth. But here, where it is sometimes hard for her under the authority of the man, i.e., her husband, she would be brazen to his face, and therefore the court does not believe her.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืœื‘ื™ื ืš ื“ืžืฉื ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ืกื•ืคื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื“ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืกื’ื™ ืœื” ื“ืœื ืืžืจื” ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืจื” ื›ื—ืฅ ืื™ ืœื ืื™ืชื ื›ื“ืงืืžืจื” ืœื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื”

Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection: Let the ruling of the initial version of the mishna, with regard to a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava, as here she suffers no embarrassment on account of her claim, and yet the tanna teaches that she is believed. The Gemara answers: Rava maintains that there, since it is not sufficient for her if she does not state in precise detail her claim that he does not shoot like an arrow, i.e., his semen is not emitted forcefully, then, were it not as she said, she would not say it. She would be too ashamed to speak of such things before the court. It is for this reason that she is believed.

ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืœื‘ื™ื ืš ื“ืžืฉื ื” ืื—ืจื•ื ื” ืชื”ื•ื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื“ื™ื“ืขื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื“ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžื ื

The Gemara further comments: Let the ruling of the ultimate version of the mishna, with regard to a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, who maintains that a woman who claims that her husband divorced her is believed. But here, as in the case of the alleged divorce, she knows and her husband also knows with regard to her whether or not she is lying, and yet the tanna of the mishna teaches that she is not believed.

ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื™ื ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจื” ื ื”ื™ ื“ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื™ื•ืจื” ื›ื—ืฅ ืžื™ ื™ื“ืข ื•ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืžืฉืงืจื

The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna maintains that here too, the woman herself says in her heart: Though he may know whether or not we engaged in sexual intercourse, does he know whether or not he shoots like an arrow? And it is due to that reason that she lies. Since the woman can make a false claim against her husband without having to fear that he will contradict her, she is not believed. A similar point cannot be made in the case of an alleged divorce, as the husband knows whether or not he divorced his wife, and therefore a woman who claims that her husband divorced her is believed.

ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ื“ื›ืœ ื™ื•ืžื ื“ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ืžื™ืงื“ืžื” ืžืฉื™ื ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœื’ื‘ืจื ื™ื•ืžื ื—ื“ ืืชื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ืœืžืžืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ื“ื ืžื™ืœืชื ืœื ื”ื•ืช ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื ื›ืจื™ื

ยง It is related that there was a certain woman, who on every day of engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband, would rise early in the morning and wash her husbandโ€™s hands. One day she brought him water to wash his hands, in response to which he said to her: This matter, i.e., sexual intercourse, did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile

ืื”ืœื•ื™ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ื”ื›ื ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืื™ ืื ืช ืœื ื“ืœืžื ืžื ื”ื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื ืชื ื” ื‘ืื—ืจ ื•ืœื™ืช ื‘ื” ืžืฉืฉื ื‘ืžืœื”

aloe merchants [ahaloyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. The case came before Rav Naแธฅman, who said: There is reason to suspect that she might have cast her eyes upon another man, and therefore there is no substance to her words. She lacks credibility and her statement is unreliable, and so she remains permitted to her husband.

ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื‘ื“ื™ื—ื ื“ืขืชื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืžืขื•ืœื ืœื ืฆืขืจืชืŸ ื‘ื“ืจืš ืืจืฅ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื”ื“ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื ื›ืจื™ื ื ืคื˜ื•ื™ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ื”ื›ื ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืื™ ืื ืช ืœื ื“ืœืžื ื—ื“ ืžื ื”ื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœื ืชืฉื’ื™ื—ื•ืŸ ื‘ื” ื ื•ืชื ืช ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ืื™

It is further related that there was a certain woman who was displeased with her man. He said to her: What is different now? What have I done to make you angry? She said to him: I am upset because you never hurt me while we were engaged in proper relations as you did just now. He said to her: This matter did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile oil merchants [naftoyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. Rav Naแธฅman said to them: Take no notice of her; she has cast her eyes upon another man, and her words are therefore unreliable.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžื”ืจื–ื™ืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ื ืชืชื ืขืœ ืืชื ืžืจื™ื” ื“ื‘ื™ืชื ืคืจื˜ื™ื” ื ื•ืืฃ ืœื”ื•ืฆื ื•ืขืจืง ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืชืชื ืฉืจื™ื ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืืจื›ื•ืกื™ ื”ื•ื” ืžื™ืจื›ืก

The Gemara relates another incident about a certain man who was secluding himself [meharzeik] in a house, he and a certain married woman. When the owner of the house entered, the adulterer burst through the wall of palm branches and fled. Rava said: The woman is permitted to her husband. The assumption is that she did not sin, for if it is so that the man had committed a transgression, he would have hidden himself in the house instead of revealing his identity by escaping in the open.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืืฃ ื“ืขืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืื ืชืชื ืืชื ื’ื‘ืจื ืกืœื™ืง ื ื•ืืฃ ืื™ืชื™ื‘ [ื‘ื›ืœืื™] ื‘ื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ืžื—ืชืŸ ืชื—ืœื™ ืชืžืŸ ื•ื˜ืขืžื™ื ื•ืŸ ื—ื•ื™ื ื‘ืขื ืžืจื™ ื“ื‘ื™ืชื ืœืžื™ื›ืœ ืžืŸ ื”ื ื”ื• ืชื—ืœื™ ื‘ืœื ื“ืขืชื ื“ืื™ื ืชืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืืฃ ืœื ืชื™ื›ื•ืœ ืžื ื”ื•ืŸ ื“ื˜ืขืžื™ื ื•ืŸ ื—ื•ื™ื

The Gemara concludes with one final incident about a certain adulterer who entered the house of a certain married woman. When the man, i.e., her husband, came home, the adulterer went and sat himself behind the door, so that the husband would not know that he was there. There was some cress [taแธฅlei] lying there in the house, and the adulterer, but not the husband, saw that a snake had come and tasted of it, perhaps thereby contaminating it with its venom. The master of the house wanted to eat from that cress, without the womanโ€™s knowledge. The adulterer said to him: Do not eat from the cress, as a snake has tasted of it.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ื ืชืชื™ื” ืฉืจื™ื ืื ืื™ืชื™ื” ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืœื™ื›ื•ืœ ื•ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื ืืคื• ื•ื“ื ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื”ืŸ

The case was brought before Rava, who said: His wife is permitted to him, for were it so that the adulterer had committed a transgression, it would have been preferable for him that the husband should eat the cress and die. This is because one who commits adultery is also suspected of bloodshed, as it is written: โ€œFor they have committed adultery and blood is on their handsโ€ (Ezekiel 23:45), indicating that adultery leads to murder.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืขื‘ื“ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืœื ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื‘ืขืœ ื“ืชื”ื•ื™ ืื™ื ืชืชื™ื” ืขืœื•ื™ื” ืžื™ื ื’ื ื•ื‘ื™ื ื™ืžืชืงื• ื•ืœื—ื ืกืชืจื™ื ื™ื ืขื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is the case. What then does Rava come to teach us? The Gemara answers: Ravaโ€™s ruling is necessary, lest you say that the man did in fact commit a transgression with the other manโ€™s wife, and the reason that he said to the husband that he should not eat and saved his life is because it is preferable for him that the husband should not die. This is in order that his wife should be to him as it says in the verse: โ€œStolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasantโ€ (Proverbs 9:17). That is to say, a person derives greater pleasure from forbidden fruit. Rava therefore teaches us that this is not a concern. Rather, the assumption is that he had not yet actually sinned and therefore acted in the proper manner.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื•ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ืกืœื™ืงื ืœื” ืžืกื›ืช ื ื“ืจื™ื

 

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

nedarim Rabbanit Dr. Adina Sternberg

Making Vows and Making Changes: From Biblical Vows to Modern Halacha

From Hadran's Siyum Masechet Nedarim https://youtu.be/PyCWRXJ4ImE
nedarim watch Adv. Michal Cotler-Wunsh

Do Words Matter: Words Enabling the Mutation of Antisemitism

From Hadran's Siyum Masechet Nedarim Adv. Michal Cotler-Wunsh- senior research fellow, public speaker, policy and strategy advisor and served in...
nedarim watch

Siyum Masechet Nedarim by Hadran

The Program: The Last Daf: Nedarim 91 with Rabbanit Michelle Farber Do Words Matter: Words Enabling the Mutation of Antisemitism...
on second thought thumbnail

The Father, the Husband and a Woman’s Vows – On Second Thought 3

Breaking a woman's vow: when? and why? On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlEg_uw6Ex8  

Nedarim 91 – Siyum Masechet Nedarim

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 91 – Siyum Masechet Nedarim

ื•ื’ื‘ืจื ื”ื•ื ื“ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื”ืื•ืžืจืช ื˜ืžืื” ืื ื™ ืœืš ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื”

And it is the man, her husband, whose field was flooded. In other words, like one whose field was flooded and destroyed, it is he who has suffered a natural disaster, as it is his status as a priest that forces him to divorce his wife. Therefore, she is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract. And we said to Rava, in response to his question: The answer to your question is found in the mishna, which states: A woman who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืืฉืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื™ ื‘ืจืฆื•ืŸ ื›ืœื•ื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ืื•ื ืก ืžื™ ืงื ืžื™ืชืกืจื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ืจื ื•ืืœื ื‘ืืฉืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืื™ ื‘ืจืฆื•ืŸ ื›ืœื•ื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื™ ื’ืจืขื” ืžืืฉืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืืœื ืœืื• ื‘ืื•ื ืก ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื”

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: With what are we dealing? If we say the mishna is speaking of the wife of an Israelite, consider the following: If she claims that she engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, does she have any right to receive payment of her marriage contract? And if she says it was by force, i.e., she was raped, is she thereby forbidden to the man, i.e., her husband? But rather, the mishna must be referring to the wife of a priest. Again, what are the circumstances? If she claims that she engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, does she have any right to receive payment of her marriage contract? Is her law any less stringent than that of the wife of an Israelite who willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with another man? Rather, is it not that the sexual intercourse was by force? And the tanna teaches that she has a right to receive payment of her marriage contract. This answers Ravaโ€™s question.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื’ืจืฉืชื ื™ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจืช ื˜ืžืื” ืื ื™ ืœืš ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืฉื ื” ืื—ืจื•ื ื” ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉืงืจื” ื“ื™ื“ืขื” ื“ื‘ืขืœื” ืœื ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื” ืื‘ืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื’ืจืฉืชื ื™ ื“ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื” ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ื“ื—ื–ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ืžืขื™ื–ื” ืคื ื™ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื”

ยง A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a woman said to her husband: You divorced me, what is the halakha? Is she believed or not? Rav Hamnuna said: Come and hear an answer to this question from what is stated in the mishna about a woman who says: I am defiled to you, that even according to the ultimate version of the mishna that teaches that she is not believed in her claim, it may be argued that it is only there that she is suspected of lying when she claims to have been defiled, as she knows that her husband does not know the truth about her. She is relating an incident that supposedly occurred in his absence. But concerning the claim: You divorced me, with regard to which he knows the truth about whether or not he actually divorced her, she is believed. Why? Because the court relies on the presumption that a woman is not brazen enough to lie in the presence of her husband and present a claim that he knows is patently false.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื“ืจื‘ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืฉื ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ืœื‘ื–ื•ื™ื™ ื ืคืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ื–ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืžืŸ ื’ื‘ืจื ืžืขื™ื–ื” ื•ืžืขื™ื–ื”

Rava said to him: On the contrary, even according to the initial version of the mishna that teaches that the woman is believed in her claim that she is defiled to her husband, it may be argued that it is only there that she is believed, because a woman would not demean herself by claiming she was raped if she were not telling the truth. But here, where it is sometimes hard for her under the authority of the man, i.e., her husband, she would be brazen to his face, and therefore the court does not believe her.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืœื‘ื™ื ืš ื“ืžืฉื ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ืกื•ืคื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื“ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืกื’ื™ ืœื” ื“ืœื ืืžืจื” ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืจื” ื›ื—ืฅ ืื™ ืœื ืื™ืชื ื›ื“ืงืืžืจื” ืœื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื”

Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection: Let the ruling of the initial version of the mishna, with regard to a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava, as here she suffers no embarrassment on account of her claim, and yet the tanna teaches that she is believed. The Gemara answers: Rava maintains that there, since it is not sufficient for her if she does not state in precise detail her claim that he does not shoot like an arrow, i.e., his semen is not emitted forcefully, then, were it not as she said, she would not say it. She would be too ashamed to speak of such things before the court. It is for this reason that she is believed.

ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืœื‘ื™ื ืš ื“ืžืฉื ื” ืื—ืจื•ื ื” ืชื”ื•ื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื“ื™ื“ืขื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื“ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžื ื

The Gemara further comments: Let the ruling of the ultimate version of the mishna, with regard to a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, who maintains that a woman who claims that her husband divorced her is believed. But here, as in the case of the alleged divorce, she knows and her husband also knows with regard to her whether or not she is lying, and yet the tanna of the mishna teaches that she is not believed.

ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื™ื ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจื” ื ื”ื™ ื“ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื™ื•ืจื” ื›ื—ืฅ ืžื™ ื™ื“ืข ื•ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืžืฉืงืจื

The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna maintains that here too, the woman herself says in her heart: Though he may know whether or not we engaged in sexual intercourse, does he know whether or not he shoots like an arrow? And it is due to that reason that she lies. Since the woman can make a false claim against her husband without having to fear that he will contradict her, she is not believed. A similar point cannot be made in the case of an alleged divorce, as the husband knows whether or not he divorced his wife, and therefore a woman who claims that her husband divorced her is believed.

ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ื“ื›ืœ ื™ื•ืžื ื“ืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ืžื™ืงื“ืžื” ืžืฉื™ื ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœื’ื‘ืจื ื™ื•ืžื ื—ื“ ืืชื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ืœืžืžืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ื“ื ืžื™ืœืชื ืœื ื”ื•ืช ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื ื›ืจื™ื

ยง It is related that there was a certain woman, who on every day of engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband, would rise early in the morning and wash her husbandโ€™s hands. One day she brought him water to wash his hands, in response to which he said to her: This matter, i.e., sexual intercourse, did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile

ืื”ืœื•ื™ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ื”ื›ื ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืื™ ืื ืช ืœื ื“ืœืžื ืžื ื”ื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื ืชื ื” ื‘ืื—ืจ ื•ืœื™ืช ื‘ื” ืžืฉืฉื ื‘ืžืœื”

aloe merchants [ahaloyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. The case came before Rav Naแธฅman, who said: There is reason to suspect that she might have cast her eyes upon another man, and therefore there is no substance to her words. She lacks credibility and her statement is unreliable, and so she remains permitted to her husband.

ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื‘ื“ื™ื—ื ื“ืขืชื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืžืขื•ืœื ืœื ืฆืขืจืชืŸ ื‘ื“ืจืš ืืจืฅ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื”ื“ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื ื›ืจื™ื ื ืคื˜ื•ื™ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ื”ื›ื ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืื™ ืื ืช ืœื ื“ืœืžื ื—ื“ ืžื ื”ื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœื ืชืฉื’ื™ื—ื•ืŸ ื‘ื” ื ื•ืชื ืช ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ืื™

It is further related that there was a certain woman who was displeased with her man. He said to her: What is different now? What have I done to make you angry? She said to him: I am upset because you never hurt me while we were engaged in proper relations as you did just now. He said to her: This matter did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile oil merchants [naftoyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. Rav Naแธฅman said to them: Take no notice of her; she has cast her eyes upon another man, and her words are therefore unreliable.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžื”ืจื–ื™ืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ื ืชืชื ืขืœ ืืชื ืžืจื™ื” ื“ื‘ื™ืชื ืคืจื˜ื™ื” ื ื•ืืฃ ืœื”ื•ืฆื ื•ืขืจืง ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืชืชื ืฉืจื™ื ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืืจื›ื•ืกื™ ื”ื•ื” ืžื™ืจื›ืก

The Gemara relates another incident about a certain man who was secluding himself [meharzeik] in a house, he and a certain married woman. When the owner of the house entered, the adulterer burst through the wall of palm branches and fled. Rava said: The woman is permitted to her husband. The assumption is that she did not sin, for if it is so that the man had committed a transgression, he would have hidden himself in the house instead of revealing his identity by escaping in the open.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืืฃ ื“ืขืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืื ืชืชื ืืชื ื’ื‘ืจื ืกืœื™ืง ื ื•ืืฃ ืื™ืชื™ื‘ [ื‘ื›ืœืื™] ื‘ื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ืžื—ืชืŸ ืชื—ืœื™ ืชืžืŸ ื•ื˜ืขืžื™ื ื•ืŸ ื—ื•ื™ื ื‘ืขื ืžืจื™ ื“ื‘ื™ืชื ืœืžื™ื›ืœ ืžืŸ ื”ื ื”ื• ืชื—ืœื™ ื‘ืœื ื“ืขืชื ื“ืื™ื ืชืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืืฃ ืœื ืชื™ื›ื•ืœ ืžื ื”ื•ืŸ ื“ื˜ืขืžื™ื ื•ืŸ ื—ื•ื™ื

The Gemara concludes with one final incident about a certain adulterer who entered the house of a certain married woman. When the man, i.e., her husband, came home, the adulterer went and sat himself behind the door, so that the husband would not know that he was there. There was some cress [taแธฅlei] lying there in the house, and the adulterer, but not the husband, saw that a snake had come and tasted of it, perhaps thereby contaminating it with its venom. The master of the house wanted to eat from that cress, without the womanโ€™s knowledge. The adulterer said to him: Do not eat from the cress, as a snake has tasted of it.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ื ืชืชื™ื” ืฉืจื™ื ืื ืื™ืชื™ื” ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืœื™ื›ื•ืœ ื•ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื ืืคื• ื•ื“ื ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื”ืŸ

The case was brought before Rava, who said: His wife is permitted to him, for were it so that the adulterer had committed a transgression, it would have been preferable for him that the husband should eat the cress and die. This is because one who commits adultery is also suspected of bloodshed, as it is written: โ€œFor they have committed adultery and blood is on their handsโ€ (Ezekiel 23:45), indicating that adultery leads to murder.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืขื‘ื“ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืœื ืœื™ืžื•ืช ื‘ืขืœ ื“ืชื”ื•ื™ ืื™ื ืชืชื™ื” ืขืœื•ื™ื” ืžื™ื ื’ื ื•ื‘ื™ื ื™ืžืชืงื• ื•ืœื—ื ืกืชืจื™ื ื™ื ืขื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is the case. What then does Rava come to teach us? The Gemara answers: Ravaโ€™s ruling is necessary, lest you say that the man did in fact commit a transgression with the other manโ€™s wife, and the reason that he said to the husband that he should not eat and saved his life is because it is preferable for him that the husband should not die. This is in order that his wife should be to him as it says in the verse: โ€œStolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasantโ€ (Proverbs 9:17). That is to say, a person derives greater pleasure from forbidden fruit. Rava therefore teaches us that this is not a concern. Rather, the assumption is that he had not yet actually sinned and therefore acted in the proper manner.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื•ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ืกืœื™ืงื ืœื” ืžืกื›ืช ื ื“ืจื™ื

 

Scroll To Top