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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 24, 2023 | 讘壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讙

  • 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.

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. 鈥淏oth 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.鈥
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 wouldn鈥檛 have the audacity to lie in front of her husband if it wasn鈥檛 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 鈥渉eaven is between you and me鈥 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 鈥渉eaven is between you and me鈥 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.

讜讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛


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.


讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬 讘专爪讜谉 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讜讗讬 讘讗讜谞住 诪讬 拽讗 诪讬转住专讗 注诇 讙讘专讗 讜讗诇讗 讘讗砖转 讻讛谉 讗讬 讘专爪讜谉 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪讬 讙专注讛 诪讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讘专爪讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讗讜谞住 讜拽转谞讬 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛


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 Rava鈥檚 question.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诪专讛 诇讘注诇讛 讙专砖转谞讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪砖谞讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讚拽转谞讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪砖拽专讛 讚讬讚注讛 讚讘注诇讛 诇讗 讬讚注 讘讛 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讙专砖转谞讬 讚讬讚注 讘讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讚讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪注讬讝讛 驻谞讬讛 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讛


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚拽转谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 诇讘讝讜讬讬 谞驻砖讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪谉 讙讘专讗 诪注讬讝讛 讜诪注讬讝讛


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.


诪转讬讘 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛砖诪讬诐 讘讬谞讬 诇讘讬谞讱 讚诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讻讬住讜驻讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚诪讛讬诪谞讗 拽住讘专 专讘讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讛 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 讗讬谉 讬讜专讛 讻讞抓 讗讬 诇讗 讗讬转讗 讻讚拽讗诪专讛 诇讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛


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.


讛砖诪讬诐 讘讬谞讬 诇讘讬谞讱 讚诪砖谞讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讬讚注讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注诇讛 讬讚注 讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗


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.


拽住讘专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 讗诪专讛 谞讛讬 讚讘讘讬讗讛 讬讚注 讘讬讜专讛 讻讞抓 诪讬 讬讚注 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪砖拽专讗


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.


讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讚转砖诪讬砖 诪讬拽讚诪讛 诪砖讬讗 讬讚讬讛 诇讙讘专讗 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讬讗 诇诪诪砖讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗 讛讜转 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 讞讚 诪谉 谞讻专讬诐


搂 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 husband鈥檚 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


讗讛诇讜讬讬 讚讛讜讜 讛讻讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗讬 讗谞转 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 诪谞讛讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讬谞讬讛 谞转谞讛 讘讗讞专 讜诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖砖讗 讘诪诇讛


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 Na岣an, 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.


讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讚讬讞讗 讚注转讛 讘讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 爪注专转谉 讘讚专讱 讗专抓 讻讬 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讛讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 讛诇讬谉 谞讻专讬诐 谞驻讟讜讬讬 讚讛讜讜 讛讻讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗讬 讗谞转 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讞讚 诪谞讛讜谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 转砖讙讬讞讜谉 讘讛 谞讜转谞转 注讬谞讬讛 讘讗讞专 讛讜讗讬


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 Na岣an said to them: Take no notice of her; she has cast her eyes upon another man, and her words are therefore unreliable.


讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讛专讝讬拽 讘讘讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谞转转讗 注诇 讗转讗 诪专讬讛 讚讘讬转讗 驻专讟讬讛 谞讜讗祝 诇讛讜爪讗 讜注专拽 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬转转讗 砖专讬讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讗专讻讜住讬 讛讜讛 诪讬专讻住


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.


讛讛讜讗 谞讜讗祝 讚注诇 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讛讬讗 讗谞转转讗 讗转讗 讙讘专讗 住诇讬拽 谞讜讗祝 讗讬转讬讘 [讘讻诇讗讬] 讘讘讗 讛讜讛 诪讞转谉 转讞诇讬 转诪谉 讜讟注诪讬谞讜谉 讞讜讬讗 讘注讗 诪专讬 讚讘讬转讗 诇诪讬讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讛讜 转讞诇讬 讘诇讗 讚注转讗 讚讗讬谞转转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 谞讜讗祝 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 诪谞讛讜谉 讚讟注诪讬谞讜谉 讞讜讬讗


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 [ta岣ei] 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 woman鈥檚 knowledge. The adulterer said to him: Do not eat from the cress, as a snake has tasted of it.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谞转转讬讛 砖专讬讗 讗诐 讗讬转讬讛 讚注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬讻讜诇 讜诇讬诪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 谞讗驻讜 讜讚诐 讘讬讚讬讛谉


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: 鈥淔or they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands鈥 (Ezekiel 23:37), indicating that adultery leads to murder.


驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬住讜专讗 注讘讚 讜讛讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬诪讜转 讘注诇 讚转讛讜讬 讗讬谞转转讬讛 注诇讜讬讛 诪讬诐 讙谞讜讘讬诐 讬诪转拽讜 讜诇讞诐 住转专讬诐 讬谞注诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is the case. What then does Rava come to teach us? The Gemara answers: Rava鈥檚 ruling is necessary, lest you say that the man did in fact commit a transgression with the other man鈥檚 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: 鈥淪tolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant鈥 (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.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讜讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 谞讚专讬诐



  • 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.

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

讜讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛


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.


讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬 讘专爪讜谉 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讜讗讬 讘讗讜谞住 诪讬 拽讗 诪讬转住专讗 注诇 讙讘专讗 讜讗诇讗 讘讗砖转 讻讛谉 讗讬 讘专爪讜谉 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪讬 讙专注讛 诪讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讘专爪讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讗讜谞住 讜拽转谞讬 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛


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 Rava鈥檚 question.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诪专讛 诇讘注诇讛 讙专砖转谞讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪砖谞讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讚拽转谞讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪砖拽专讛 讚讬讚注讛 讚讘注诇讛 诇讗 讬讚注 讘讛 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讙专砖转谞讬 讚讬讚注 讘讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讚讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪注讬讝讛 驻谞讬讛 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讛


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚拽转谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 诇讘讝讜讬讬 谞驻砖讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪谉 讙讘专讗 诪注讬讝讛 讜诪注讬讝讛


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.


诪转讬讘 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛砖诪讬诐 讘讬谞讬 诇讘讬谞讱 讚诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讻讬住讜驻讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚诪讛讬诪谞讗 拽住讘专 专讘讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讛 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 讗讬谉 讬讜专讛 讻讞抓 讗讬 诇讗 讗讬转讗 讻讚拽讗诪专讛 诇讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛


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.


讛砖诪讬诐 讘讬谞讬 诇讘讬谞讱 讚诪砖谞讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讬讚注讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注诇讛 讬讚注 讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗


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.


拽住讘专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 讗诪专讛 谞讛讬 讚讘讘讬讗讛 讬讚注 讘讬讜专讛 讻讞抓 诪讬 讬讚注 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪砖拽专讗


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.


讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讚转砖诪讬砖 诪讬拽讚诪讛 诪砖讬讗 讬讚讬讛 诇讙讘专讗 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讬讗 诇诪诪砖讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗 讛讜转 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 讞讚 诪谉 谞讻专讬诐


搂 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 husband鈥檚 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


讗讛诇讜讬讬 讚讛讜讜 讛讻讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗讬 讗谞转 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 诪谞讛讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讬谞讬讛 谞转谞讛 讘讗讞专 讜诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖砖讗 讘诪诇讛


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 Na岣an, 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.


讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讚讬讞讗 讚注转讛 讘讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 爪注专转谉 讘讚专讱 讗专抓 讻讬 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讛讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 讛诇讬谉 谞讻专讬诐 谞驻讟讜讬讬 讚讛讜讜 讛讻讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讗讬 讗谞转 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讞讚 诪谞讛讜谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 转砖讙讬讞讜谉 讘讛 谞讜转谞转 注讬谞讬讛 讘讗讞专 讛讜讗讬


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 Na岣an said to them: Take no notice of her; she has cast her eyes upon another man, and her words are therefore unreliable.


讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讛专讝讬拽 讘讘讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谞转转讗 注诇 讗转讗 诪专讬讛 讚讘讬转讗 驻专讟讬讛 谞讜讗祝 诇讛讜爪讗 讜注专拽 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬转转讗 砖专讬讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讗专讻讜住讬 讛讜讛 诪讬专讻住


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.


讛讛讜讗 谞讜讗祝 讚注诇 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讛讬讗 讗谞转转讗 讗转讗 讙讘专讗 住诇讬拽 谞讜讗祝 讗讬转讬讘 [讘讻诇讗讬] 讘讘讗 讛讜讛 诪讞转谉 转讞诇讬 转诪谉 讜讟注诪讬谞讜谉 讞讜讬讗 讘注讗 诪专讬 讚讘讬转讗 诇诪讬讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讛讜 转讞诇讬 讘诇讗 讚注转讗 讚讗讬谞转转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 谞讜讗祝 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 诪谞讛讜谉 讚讟注诪讬谞讜谉 讞讜讬讗


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 [ta岣ei] 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 woman鈥檚 knowledge. The adulterer said to him: Do not eat from the cress, as a snake has tasted of it.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谞转转讬讛 砖专讬讗 讗诐 讗讬转讬讛 讚注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬讻讜诇 讜诇讬诪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 谞讗驻讜 讜讚诐 讘讬讚讬讛谉


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: 鈥淔or they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands鈥 (Ezekiel 23:37), indicating that adultery leads to murder.


驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬住讜专讗 注讘讚 讜讛讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬诪讜转 讘注诇 讚转讛讜讬 讗讬谞转转讬讛 注诇讜讬讛 诪讬诐 讙谞讜讘讬诐 讬诪转拽讜 讜诇讞诐 住转专讬诐 讬谞注诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is the case. What then does Rava come to teach us? The Gemara answers: Rava鈥檚 ruling is necessary, lest you say that the man did in fact commit a transgression with the other man鈥檚 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: 鈥淪tolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant鈥 (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.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讜讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 谞讚专讬诐



Scroll To Top