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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 29, 2014 | 讛壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • 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 Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 25

Study Guide Yevamot 25


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪谞注诇讬诐 讛驻讜讻讬诐 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讜注专 讛讚讘专 转爪讗 诪谞注诇讬诐 讛驻讜讻讬诐 诇讬讞讝讬 讚诪讗谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 诪谞注诇讬诐 讛驻讜讻讬诐 (转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讜注专 讛讚讘专 转爪讗)

The same applies if the husband found the shoes reversed under the bed, so that the toe of the shoe faced the bed; this is a sign that a stranger came in and placed them like that. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter, she must be divorced. The Gemara questions this: Shoes turned around? Let him see whose they are and clarify who the stranger was and then find out what he was doing there. Rather, the case was that he found the place of the shoes, i.e., shoe prints, reversed under the bed and cannot recognize whose shoe prints they are. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter, she must be divorced.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘拽诇讗 讚驻住讬拽 讛讗 讘拽诇讗 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽 拽诇讗 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽 讜诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讻专讘讬 拽诇讗 讚驻住讬拽 讜讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讻专讘

The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, that they must divorce only if there were witnesses, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that they must divorce if there is a matter that is distasteful. The Gemara challenges this: One halakha is difficult, as it contradicts the other halakha. The Gemara answers: This contradiction is not difficult. This one relates to a case where the rumor ceases and the woman is sent away only if there are witnesses, but that one relates to a case where the rumor does not cease, in which case he divorces her even if there are no witnesses. The Gemara elucidates the cases: In cases of a rumor that does not cease, even if there are no witnesses the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and he divorces her. If the rumor ceases and there are witnesses, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and he divorces her because there are witnesses.

讜拽诇讗 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讚讜诪讬 讚诪转讗 讬讜诪讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 驻住拽 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬 讗讘诇 驻住拽 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬 讛讗 驻住拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 驻住拽 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 讗讘诇 驻住拽 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬讻讗 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗驻拽讜 诇讬讛 诇拽诇讗

The Gemara clarifies this: At what point is it considered to be a persistent rumor? Abaye said: My mother told me: A rumor in the city lasts a day and a half. The Gemara comments: We said that this is the length of time only if the rumor did not cease in the meantime. But if the rumor did cease in the meantime, even it was later renewed, this is considered a rumor that has ceased and is disregarded. And we said that a rumor that ceased is not considered persistent only if the reason it ceased was not due to fear of the individual about whom it is said. But if it ceased due to fear, it is only due to fear and is still considered a persistent rumor. And we said that a persistent rumor has validity only if the subject of the rumor does not have any known enemies, but if he has enemies it may be assumed that it is the enemies who put out the rumor about him.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讻谞住 诪讛讜 砖讬讜爪讬讗

We learned in a mishna there (Gittin 45b): A man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not take her back again, even if it turns out that the rumor was untrue. Likewise, if he divorced his wife due to a vow of hers that is unbearable to him he may not take her back even if she is released from that vow. Rabba bar Rav Huna sent a question to Rabba bar Rav Na岣an: Our teacher, instruct us. If one of those men listed in that mishna divorced his wife due to her bad reputation or vow and it was therefore prohibited for him to take her back, yet he nevertheless remarried her, what is the halakha? Must he divorce her?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讛谞讟注谉 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讛讜爪讬讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻谞住 讬讜爪讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讜爪讬讗讛 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讜爪讬讗讛 转谞谉

Rabba bar Rav Na岣an said to him: We already learned in the mishna (24b): With regard to one who is suspected of committing adultery with a married woman, and he, her husband, divorced her, even if he subsequently remarried her he must divorce her. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Is this comparable to the case I asked about? There, in the mishna, it says: They, the court, remove her from him, whereas here (Gittin 45b), the mishna states: He divorced her of his own accord. Perhaps if the court requires them to divorce, the halakha is different. The Gemara explains: And Rabba bar Rav Na岣an, who held that the two mishnayot were comparable, had a text of the mishna that also read: He divorced her, instead of: They remove her.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛讻讗 讘注诇 讜讛转诐 讘讜注诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讻讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讜讗诐 讻谞住 讬讜爪讬讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗诐 讻谞住 讬讜爪讬讗

Rabba bar Rav Huna asks: Still, is this comparable? Here, the question was raised in a case where the first husband remarried her, which will not strengthen the rumors of her bad reputation, but there, the mishna refers to the man with whom she committed adultery remarrying her, which strengthens those rumors. He said to him: They are certainly comparable to each other: Here, in the mishna discussing one who is suspected of committing adultery, the Sages said that he may not marry her and if he did marry her he must divorce her. So too, the Sages said in the case of one who divorced his wife due to her reputation or vow that he may not take her back, and if he does remarry her he must divorce her.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 讗诇讜诪讬 讗诇诪讬讛 诇拽诇讗 讛讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诐 讘讬讛 讘拽诇讗 讜诇讬转讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: That is not so, as there, when the man suspected of committing adultery marries the woman, he thereby strengthens the rumor of adultery. For this reason he must divorce her. Here, we say that he, the husband, established the facts of the rumor and found that it was not so and the rumor was baseless. Therefore, there is no need for him to divorce her if he remarries her. Rabba bar Rav Huna鈥檚 question remains unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪转 讛专讙转讬讜 讛专讙谞讜讛讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛专讙转讬讜 诇讗 转谞砖讗 讗砖转讜 讛专讙谞讜讛讜 转谞砖讗 讗砖转讜

MISHNA: An agent who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas and said: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as required in order to establish the bill of divorce as valid, may not marry the wife, i.e., the divorc茅e. Since the validity of the bill of divorce is based upon his testimony, marrying the divorc茅e creates the impression that he had an ulterior motive for his testimony. Similarly, a witness who testified that a certain man died, or testified: I killed him, or: We killed him, may not marry that man鈥檚 wife. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he testified: I killed him, his wife may not be married at all based on that evidence, as his testimony is unreliable, but if he said: We killed him, his wife may be married to anyone other than those witnesses.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讚注诇讬讛 拽住诪讻讬谞谉 讗讘诇 诪讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讚诇讗讜 注诇讬讛 拽住诪讻讬谞谉 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: The reason that the agent may not marry the divorc茅e applies specifically in a case where he brings the bill of divorce from a country overseas, as in this case we, the court, rely upon his testimony to validate the bill of divorce. But an agent who brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael need not make any verbal declaration, and since we, the court, do not rely upon his testimony but upon the written bill of divorce alone, he may marry his wife, i.e., the divorc茅e, since it does not arouse suspicion.

讜讛讗 诪转 讚诇讗讜 注诇讬讛 拽住诪讻讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗砖讛 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 讜拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜

The Gemara challenges this: But also in the case of a witness who said that the husband died, we, the court, do not rely solely upon his testimony. As the Master said: A woman is exacting in her investigation of the truth of the testimony that her husband died before she marries again, and it is primarily on that basis that she is permitted to remarry. Yet it is taught that he still may not marry his wife.

讛转诐 诇讬讻讗 讻转讘讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讻转讘讗 讚转谞谉 诪讛 讘讬谉 讙讟 诇诪讬转讛 砖讛讻转讘 诪讜讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: The two cases are not comparable, as there, in the case when a witness testifies that the husband has died, there is not anything written as proof, and therefore he may not marry the widow. However, here, in a case where an agent brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael, there is a written document that is valid without any testimony. As we learned in a mishna (117a): What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death? Why does the court rely upon those men who are not trusted as witnesses to the death of a husband if they act as agents to bring a bill of divorce, even from overseas, such that they must give testimony that it was written and signed in their presence? The difference is that with regard to a bill of divorce the writing proves their testimony.

诪转 讛专讙转讬讜 讛专讙谞讜讛讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 讚诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讛讗 诇讗讞专 转谞砖讗

The mishna stated that if the witness said with regard to the husband that he died, or: I killed him, or: We killed him, then he may not marry the wife of the deceased. The Gemara infers that he, the witness himself, may not marry the wife; this implies that to another she may be married on the basis of his testimony.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 驻诇讜谞讬 专讘注谞讬 诇讗讜谞住讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讞专 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛专讙讜 诇专爪讜谞讬 专砖注 讛讜讗 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讗诇 转砖转 讬讚讱 注诐 专砖注 诇讛讬讜转 注讚 讞诪住

The Gemara challenges this: Didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef say: With regard to one who testified that so-and-so sodomized me against my will, then he who testified to being the victim of the sexual assault and another bystander witness can combine as a pair of witnesses in order to put the assailant to death for homosexual intercourse. But if he testified: I was willingly sodomized by so-and-so, then he is wicked by his own admission, since he willingly transgressed. And the Torah said: 鈥淧ut not your hand with the wicked to be a corrupt witness鈥 (Exodus 23:1). If one renders himself unfit as a witness by admitting to murder, how can his testimony be accepted to permit the wife to remarry?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讚讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讛

And if you would say that testimony that a woman鈥檚 husband died is different, as the Sages ruled leniently in such matters and perhaps accepted testimony of a wicked witness in such cases, didn鈥檛 Rav Menashe say:

讙讝诇谉 讚讚讘专讬讛诐 讻砖专 诇注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讙讝诇谉 讚讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 讗砖讛 谞讬诪讗 专讘 诪谞砖讛 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Although one who is considered a robber according to the words of the Sages is unfit for other forms of testimony, he is fit as a witness for testimony that a woman鈥檚 husband died. A robber according to Torah law is unfit as a witness even for testimony that a woman鈥檚 husband has died. Should we say that what Rav Menashe said is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Yehuda said in the mishna that one who is considered absolutely wicked because he admitted that he is a murderer is unfit for testifying to the death of a husband, but one who was merely present among a gang of murderers is not.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诪谞砖讛 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讚诐 拽专讜讘 讗爪诇 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖讬诐 注爪诪讜 专砖注

The Gemara rejects this: Rav Menashe could have said to you: I am speaking even according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Although the Rabbis did not allow one who was wicked by Torah law to testify for a woman, a witness who admitted: I killed him, is nevertheless believed. And the rationale of the Rabbis here is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava disputed Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion and said: Even if one said that he was willingly sodomized by this man, he is not believed concerning his own actions, because a person is his own relative. Consequently, he may not testify about himself, just as the testimony of any relative is disqualified. And furthermore, a person does not make himself wicked. His testimony with regard to his own actions is inadmissible because he is his own relative, but his testimony is accepted both to put a sodomizer to death or to render it permitted for a woman to remarry by saying that he killed her husband.

诇讬诪讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜砖讗谞讬 注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讚讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讜专讘 诪谞砖讛 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: Shall we say according to this explanation that the opinion that Rav Yosef spoke is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara rejects this: Rav Yosef could have said to you: I am speaking even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, as in my opinion, testimony enabling a woman to remarry is different in that the Rabbis ruled more leniently and they even accept testimony from a completely wicked individual. However, Rav Menashe, who renders unfit one who is wicked by Torah law from testimony enabling a woman to remarry, spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who differentiates even in such testimony between one who is considered wicked according to Torah law and one who is considered wicked by rabbinic law.

讛专讙转讬讜 讻讜壮 讛专讙谞讜讛讜 转谞砖讗 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛专讙转讬讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛专讙谞讜讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讛讬讬转讬 注诐 讛讜专讙讬讜

In the mishna it is taught that the court accepts testimony from one who said: I killed him, or: We killed him, while Rabbi Yehuda differentiates between one who said: I killed him, whose testimony is not accepted, and one who said: We killed him, whose testimony is accepted and the woman may be married to others. The Gemara asks: What is different between: I killed him, and: We killed him? Isn鈥檛 he a murderer by his own admission as well when he testifies: We killed him? Rav Yehuda said: Do not understand that by saying: We killed him, he included himself among the murderers. Rather, it is referring to a case where he said: I was with his murderers, but he was not an active participant to the murder.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘诇住讟讬诐 讗讞讚 砖讬爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 讘诪讙讬讝转 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讗诪专讜 诇讛 诇讗砖转 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讻讛谉 讗谞讬 讛专讙转讬 讗转 讘注诇讛 讘讻谞讬住转讬 诇诇讜讚 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘讻谞讬住转讜 诇诇讜讚 讜讛砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讘讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讛讬讬转讬 注诐 讛讜专讙讬讜

And it is taught in a baraita that this is the basis for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 distinction: They told Rabbi Yehuda: There was an incident involving an armed bandit [listim] who was taken out to be executed in the passage [megizat] of Cappadocia, and he said to those present: Go and tell the wife of Shimon the Priest that I killed her husband as I entered Lod. And some say that he said: As he entered Lod. And they married off his wife on the basis of this testimony. This implies that the court accepts testimony from the murderer himself. Rabbi Yehuda said to them: You derive proof from there? The case was that he said: I was with his murderers, but not that he himself murdered the woman鈥檚 husband.

讜讛讗 诇住讟讬诐 拽转谞讬 砖谞转驻住 注诇 讬讚讬 诇住讟讬讜转 讜讛讗 讬爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 拽转谞讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讬诐 讚诇讗 讚讬讬拽讬 讜拽讟诇讬

The Gemara challenges: How could Rabbi Yehuda understand the incident in such a way? But it is taught in the baraita that the witness himself was an armed bandit. The Gemara answers: He was captured for a charge of armed banditry. The Gemara asks: But it is taught that he was taken out to be executed, implying that he was found guilty of murder. The Gemara answers: That was a gentile court, and they execute without being precise. One who is among a gang of bandits is executed by a gentile court regardless of whether or not he himself was a murderer. This baraita therefore provides evidence that Rabbi Yehuda admits the testimony of such a witness only if he says: I was with his murderers.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讻诐 砖讗住专 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讘谞讚专 注诇 讘注诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 诪讬讗谞讛 讗讜 砖讞诇爪讛 讘驻谞讬讜 讬砖讗谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉

MISHNA: A Sage who refused to release a woman from a vow that rendered the wife forbidden to her husband by that vow, resulting in her being divorced from her husband, may not marry her, so as to avoid suspicion that he rendered her forbidden to her husband in order to marry her himself. However, a judge before whom a woman performed refusal when she was a minor, declaring that she did not desire the husband chosen for her by her family, or before whom she performed 岣litza, may marry her because he was only one member of the court, thereby alleviating suspicion.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讛转讬专讛 讬砖讗谞讛 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞讚 讞讚 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪转讬专 讜讛讗诪专 (专讘 讗诪专) 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 转谞讗 讛转专转 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛

GEMARA: The mishna taught that a Sage who rendered a woman forbidden to her husband may not then marry her. The Gemara deduces from here: This implies that if he rendered her permitted to her husband and she was later widowed or divorced, then he may marry her. The Gemara clarifies this: With what are we dealing? If we say that he was a single judge and not part of a court, can a single judge dissolve vows? But didn鈥檛 Rav say that Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav Amram said: It is taught in a baraita: Dissolution of vows requires a court of three judges?

讜讗诇讗 讘转诇转讗 诪讬 讞砖讬讚讬 讜讛转谞谉 诪讬讗谞讛 讗讜 砖讞诇爪讛 讘驻谞讬讜 讬砖讗谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rather, could it be a case of three judges rather than one? In such a case, would they be suspect of distorting judgment? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: If she performed refusal or performed 岣litza before him, he may marry her because he functioned as a member of a court of three? This teaches that there is no suspicion of a judge in a court of three.

诇注讜诇诐 讘讞讚 讜讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, you should explain that this case is that of a single judge, and it is as Rav 岣sda said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Vows may be dissolved even by a single expert, and a three-member court is not always necessary. Here too, it is referring to a single expert refusing to nullify her vow.

诪讬讗谞讛 讗讜 砖讞诇爪讛 讜讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讗 讘转专讬 诇讗

It is taught in the mishna that if a woman performed refusal or performed 岣litza before a judge, he may still marry her, as he was part of a court. The Gemara deduces from here: The reason is specifically that he functioned on the court as one of three judges. The Gemara deduces: Then, if there were only two judges, he would not be permitted to marry her.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 注讚讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬诐 注诇 砖讚讛 诪拽讞 讜注诇 讙讟 讗砖讛 诇讗 讞砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讚讘专 讝讛 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬讗讜谉 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讬讗讜谉 讘砖诇砖讛

If so, in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a baraita: If witnesses signed on the document of sale of a field or on a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce, the Sages were not concerned about this matter if one of the witnesses subsequently purchased the field or married the divorc茅e. Since there are two witnesses, there is no suspicion that they collaborated for the benefit of one of them. The Gemara answers: If there were two judges there would also be no concern; however, this mishna itself comes to teach us that a refusal must be performed before a full court, to exclude the opinion of the one who said that refusal may be performed before two. This teaches us that refusal must be performed before three judges.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻谞住 诪讛讜 砖讬讜爪讬讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讻谞住 诪讜爪讬讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻谞住 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 转谞讬 诇讛讜 专讘 讝讜讟讬 讚讘讬 专讘 驻驻讬 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讻谞住 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to one who was prohibited from marrying a certain woman: If he nevertheless married her despite the prohibition, what is the halakha with regard to whether he must divorce her? Rav Kahana said: If he married her, he must divorce her. Rav Ashi said: If he married her, he need not divorce her. Rav Zuti from the school of Rav Pappi taught the Sages a baraita in accordance with the statement of the one who said that if he married her, he need not divorce her.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讙诪专讗 讗讜 住讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛谞讟注谉 诪砖驻讞讛 讜谞砖转讞专专讛 诪讙讜讬讛 讜谞转讙讬讬专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讜讗诐 讻谞住 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗 讗诇诪讗

The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: With regard to the halakha that you said, that if he married her he need not divorce her, was it based upon tradition or is it your own conclusion? He said to them: It is the mishna. I reached this conclusion from the wording of the mishna, which taught that one suspected by others of engaging in sexual relations with a Canaanite maidservant and she was subsequently set free, or with a gentile woman and she subsequently converted may not marry that woman. But if he did marry her, they, the judges of the court, do not remove her from him. Apparently,

  • 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 Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 23-29 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week the Gemara will introduce us to numerous cases with numerous brothers who marry numerous sisters and then some...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Principles of Uncertainty – Gefet 31

https://youtu.be/lON7WSBZAHM The mishna on daf 24b discusses a situation where there is a suspicion that a man had forbidden relations...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 25: Permitting and Forbidding

The daf discusses a few different scenarios where a woman is released from her marriage but someone involved with the...
cap landscape Rumeysaraz

Cappadocia Capers

An old Jewish saying states 讛讻诇 转诇讜讬 讘诪讝诇 讗驻讬诇讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讘讛讬讻诇 鈥 everything needs luck, even a Torah scroll....

Yevamot 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 25

诪谞注诇讬诐 讛驻讜讻讬诐 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讜注专 讛讚讘专 转爪讗 诪谞注诇讬诐 讛驻讜讻讬诐 诇讬讞讝讬 讚诪讗谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 诪谞注诇讬诐 讛驻讜讻讬诐 (转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讜注专 讛讚讘专 转爪讗)

The same applies if the husband found the shoes reversed under the bed, so that the toe of the shoe faced the bed; this is a sign that a stranger came in and placed them like that. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter, she must be divorced. The Gemara questions this: Shoes turned around? Let him see whose they are and clarify who the stranger was and then find out what he was doing there. Rather, the case was that he found the place of the shoes, i.e., shoe prints, reversed under the bed and cannot recognize whose shoe prints they are. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter, she must be divorced.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘拽诇讗 讚驻住讬拽 讛讗 讘拽诇讗 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽 拽诇讗 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽 讜诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讻专讘讬 拽诇讗 讚驻住讬拽 讜讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讻专讘

The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, that they must divorce only if there were witnesses, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that they must divorce if there is a matter that is distasteful. The Gemara challenges this: One halakha is difficult, as it contradicts the other halakha. The Gemara answers: This contradiction is not difficult. This one relates to a case where the rumor ceases and the woman is sent away only if there are witnesses, but that one relates to a case where the rumor does not cease, in which case he divorces her even if there are no witnesses. The Gemara elucidates the cases: In cases of a rumor that does not cease, even if there are no witnesses the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and he divorces her. If the rumor ceases and there are witnesses, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and he divorces her because there are witnesses.

讜拽诇讗 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讚讜诪讬 讚诪转讗 讬讜诪讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 驻住拽 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬 讗讘诇 驻住拽 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬 讛讗 驻住拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 驻住拽 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 讗讘诇 驻住拽 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬讻讗 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗驻拽讜 诇讬讛 诇拽诇讗

The Gemara clarifies this: At what point is it considered to be a persistent rumor? Abaye said: My mother told me: A rumor in the city lasts a day and a half. The Gemara comments: We said that this is the length of time only if the rumor did not cease in the meantime. But if the rumor did cease in the meantime, even it was later renewed, this is considered a rumor that has ceased and is disregarded. And we said that a rumor that ceased is not considered persistent only if the reason it ceased was not due to fear of the individual about whom it is said. But if it ceased due to fear, it is only due to fear and is still considered a persistent rumor. And we said that a persistent rumor has validity only if the subject of the rumor does not have any known enemies, but if he has enemies it may be assumed that it is the enemies who put out the rumor about him.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讻谞住 诪讛讜 砖讬讜爪讬讗

We learned in a mishna there (Gittin 45b): A man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not take her back again, even if it turns out that the rumor was untrue. Likewise, if he divorced his wife due to a vow of hers that is unbearable to him he may not take her back even if she is released from that vow. Rabba bar Rav Huna sent a question to Rabba bar Rav Na岣an: Our teacher, instruct us. If one of those men listed in that mishna divorced his wife due to her bad reputation or vow and it was therefore prohibited for him to take her back, yet he nevertheless remarried her, what is the halakha? Must he divorce her?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讛谞讟注谉 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讛讜爪讬讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻谞住 讬讜爪讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讜爪讬讗讛 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讜爪讬讗讛 转谞谉

Rabba bar Rav Na岣an said to him: We already learned in the mishna (24b): With regard to one who is suspected of committing adultery with a married woman, and he, her husband, divorced her, even if he subsequently remarried her he must divorce her. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Is this comparable to the case I asked about? There, in the mishna, it says: They, the court, remove her from him, whereas here (Gittin 45b), the mishna states: He divorced her of his own accord. Perhaps if the court requires them to divorce, the halakha is different. The Gemara explains: And Rabba bar Rav Na岣an, who held that the two mishnayot were comparable, had a text of the mishna that also read: He divorced her, instead of: They remove her.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛讻讗 讘注诇 讜讛转诐 讘讜注诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讻讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讜讗诐 讻谞住 讬讜爪讬讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗诐 讻谞住 讬讜爪讬讗

Rabba bar Rav Huna asks: Still, is this comparable? Here, the question was raised in a case where the first husband remarried her, which will not strengthen the rumors of her bad reputation, but there, the mishna refers to the man with whom she committed adultery remarrying her, which strengthens those rumors. He said to him: They are certainly comparable to each other: Here, in the mishna discussing one who is suspected of committing adultery, the Sages said that he may not marry her and if he did marry her he must divorce her. So too, the Sages said in the case of one who divorced his wife due to her reputation or vow that he may not take her back, and if he does remarry her he must divorce her.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 讗诇讜诪讬 讗诇诪讬讛 诇拽诇讗 讛讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诐 讘讬讛 讘拽诇讗 讜诇讬转讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: That is not so, as there, when the man suspected of committing adultery marries the woman, he thereby strengthens the rumor of adultery. For this reason he must divorce her. Here, we say that he, the husband, established the facts of the rumor and found that it was not so and the rumor was baseless. Therefore, there is no need for him to divorce her if he remarries her. Rabba bar Rav Huna鈥檚 question remains unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪转 讛专讙转讬讜 讛专讙谞讜讛讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛专讙转讬讜 诇讗 转谞砖讗 讗砖转讜 讛专讙谞讜讛讜 转谞砖讗 讗砖转讜

MISHNA: An agent who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas and said: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as required in order to establish the bill of divorce as valid, may not marry the wife, i.e., the divorc茅e. Since the validity of the bill of divorce is based upon his testimony, marrying the divorc茅e creates the impression that he had an ulterior motive for his testimony. Similarly, a witness who testified that a certain man died, or testified: I killed him, or: We killed him, may not marry that man鈥檚 wife. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he testified: I killed him, his wife may not be married at all based on that evidence, as his testimony is unreliable, but if he said: We killed him, his wife may be married to anyone other than those witnesses.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讚注诇讬讛 拽住诪讻讬谞谉 讗讘诇 诪讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讚诇讗讜 注诇讬讛 拽住诪讻讬谞谉 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: The reason that the agent may not marry the divorc茅e applies specifically in a case where he brings the bill of divorce from a country overseas, as in this case we, the court, rely upon his testimony to validate the bill of divorce. But an agent who brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael need not make any verbal declaration, and since we, the court, do not rely upon his testimony but upon the written bill of divorce alone, he may marry his wife, i.e., the divorc茅e, since it does not arouse suspicion.

讜讛讗 诪转 讚诇讗讜 注诇讬讛 拽住诪讻讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗砖讛 讚讬讬拽讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 讜拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜

The Gemara challenges this: But also in the case of a witness who said that the husband died, we, the court, do not rely solely upon his testimony. As the Master said: A woman is exacting in her investigation of the truth of the testimony that her husband died before she marries again, and it is primarily on that basis that she is permitted to remarry. Yet it is taught that he still may not marry his wife.

讛转诐 诇讬讻讗 讻转讘讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讻转讘讗 讚转谞谉 诪讛 讘讬谉 讙讟 诇诪讬转讛 砖讛讻转讘 诪讜讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: The two cases are not comparable, as there, in the case when a witness testifies that the husband has died, there is not anything written as proof, and therefore he may not marry the widow. However, here, in a case where an agent brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael, there is a written document that is valid without any testimony. As we learned in a mishna (117a): What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death? Why does the court rely upon those men who are not trusted as witnesses to the death of a husband if they act as agents to bring a bill of divorce, even from overseas, such that they must give testimony that it was written and signed in their presence? The difference is that with regard to a bill of divorce the writing proves their testimony.

诪转 讛专讙转讬讜 讛专讙谞讜讛讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 讚诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讛讗 诇讗讞专 转谞砖讗

The mishna stated that if the witness said with regard to the husband that he died, or: I killed him, or: We killed him, then he may not marry the wife of the deceased. The Gemara infers that he, the witness himself, may not marry the wife; this implies that to another she may be married on the basis of his testimony.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 驻诇讜谞讬 专讘注谞讬 诇讗讜谞住讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讞专 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛专讙讜 诇专爪讜谞讬 专砖注 讛讜讗 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讗诇 转砖转 讬讚讱 注诐 专砖注 诇讛讬讜转 注讚 讞诪住

The Gemara challenges this: Didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef say: With regard to one who testified that so-and-so sodomized me against my will, then he who testified to being the victim of the sexual assault and another bystander witness can combine as a pair of witnesses in order to put the assailant to death for homosexual intercourse. But if he testified: I was willingly sodomized by so-and-so, then he is wicked by his own admission, since he willingly transgressed. And the Torah said: 鈥淧ut not your hand with the wicked to be a corrupt witness鈥 (Exodus 23:1). If one renders himself unfit as a witness by admitting to murder, how can his testimony be accepted to permit the wife to remarry?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讚讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讛

And if you would say that testimony that a woman鈥檚 husband died is different, as the Sages ruled leniently in such matters and perhaps accepted testimony of a wicked witness in such cases, didn鈥檛 Rav Menashe say:

讙讝诇谉 讚讚讘专讬讛诐 讻砖专 诇注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讙讝诇谉 讚讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 讗砖讛 谞讬诪讗 专讘 诪谞砖讛 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Although one who is considered a robber according to the words of the Sages is unfit for other forms of testimony, he is fit as a witness for testimony that a woman鈥檚 husband died. A robber according to Torah law is unfit as a witness even for testimony that a woman鈥檚 husband has died. Should we say that what Rav Menashe said is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Yehuda said in the mishna that one who is considered absolutely wicked because he admitted that he is a murderer is unfit for testifying to the death of a husband, but one who was merely present among a gang of murderers is not.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诪谞砖讛 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讚诐 拽专讜讘 讗爪诇 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖讬诐 注爪诪讜 专砖注

The Gemara rejects this: Rav Menashe could have said to you: I am speaking even according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Although the Rabbis did not allow one who was wicked by Torah law to testify for a woman, a witness who admitted: I killed him, is nevertheless believed. And the rationale of the Rabbis here is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava disputed Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion and said: Even if one said that he was willingly sodomized by this man, he is not believed concerning his own actions, because a person is his own relative. Consequently, he may not testify about himself, just as the testimony of any relative is disqualified. And furthermore, a person does not make himself wicked. His testimony with regard to his own actions is inadmissible because he is his own relative, but his testimony is accepted both to put a sodomizer to death or to render it permitted for a woman to remarry by saying that he killed her husband.

诇讬诪讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜砖讗谞讬 注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讚讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讜专讘 诪谞砖讛 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: Shall we say according to this explanation that the opinion that Rav Yosef spoke is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara rejects this: Rav Yosef could have said to you: I am speaking even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, as in my opinion, testimony enabling a woman to remarry is different in that the Rabbis ruled more leniently and they even accept testimony from a completely wicked individual. However, Rav Menashe, who renders unfit one who is wicked by Torah law from testimony enabling a woman to remarry, spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who differentiates even in such testimony between one who is considered wicked according to Torah law and one who is considered wicked by rabbinic law.

讛专讙转讬讜 讻讜壮 讛专讙谞讜讛讜 转谞砖讗 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛专讙转讬讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛专讙谞讜讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讛讬讬转讬 注诐 讛讜专讙讬讜

In the mishna it is taught that the court accepts testimony from one who said: I killed him, or: We killed him, while Rabbi Yehuda differentiates between one who said: I killed him, whose testimony is not accepted, and one who said: We killed him, whose testimony is accepted and the woman may be married to others. The Gemara asks: What is different between: I killed him, and: We killed him? Isn鈥檛 he a murderer by his own admission as well when he testifies: We killed him? Rav Yehuda said: Do not understand that by saying: We killed him, he included himself among the murderers. Rather, it is referring to a case where he said: I was with his murderers, but he was not an active participant to the murder.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘诇住讟讬诐 讗讞讚 砖讬爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 讘诪讙讬讝转 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讗诪专讜 诇讛 诇讗砖转 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讻讛谉 讗谞讬 讛专讙转讬 讗转 讘注诇讛 讘讻谞讬住转讬 诇诇讜讚 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘讻谞讬住转讜 诇诇讜讚 讜讛砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讘讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讛讬讬转讬 注诐 讛讜专讙讬讜

And it is taught in a baraita that this is the basis for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 distinction: They told Rabbi Yehuda: There was an incident involving an armed bandit [listim] who was taken out to be executed in the passage [megizat] of Cappadocia, and he said to those present: Go and tell the wife of Shimon the Priest that I killed her husband as I entered Lod. And some say that he said: As he entered Lod. And they married off his wife on the basis of this testimony. This implies that the court accepts testimony from the murderer himself. Rabbi Yehuda said to them: You derive proof from there? The case was that he said: I was with his murderers, but not that he himself murdered the woman鈥檚 husband.

讜讛讗 诇住讟讬诐 拽转谞讬 砖谞转驻住 注诇 讬讚讬 诇住讟讬讜转 讜讛讗 讬爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 拽转谞讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讬诐 讚诇讗 讚讬讬拽讬 讜拽讟诇讬

The Gemara challenges: How could Rabbi Yehuda understand the incident in such a way? But it is taught in the baraita that the witness himself was an armed bandit. The Gemara answers: He was captured for a charge of armed banditry. The Gemara asks: But it is taught that he was taken out to be executed, implying that he was found guilty of murder. The Gemara answers: That was a gentile court, and they execute without being precise. One who is among a gang of bandits is executed by a gentile court regardless of whether or not he himself was a murderer. This baraita therefore provides evidence that Rabbi Yehuda admits the testimony of such a witness only if he says: I was with his murderers.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讻诐 砖讗住专 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讘谞讚专 注诇 讘注诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 诪讬讗谞讛 讗讜 砖讞诇爪讛 讘驻谞讬讜 讬砖讗谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉

MISHNA: A Sage who refused to release a woman from a vow that rendered the wife forbidden to her husband by that vow, resulting in her being divorced from her husband, may not marry her, so as to avoid suspicion that he rendered her forbidden to her husband in order to marry her himself. However, a judge before whom a woman performed refusal when she was a minor, declaring that she did not desire the husband chosen for her by her family, or before whom she performed 岣litza, may marry her because he was only one member of the court, thereby alleviating suspicion.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讛转讬专讛 讬砖讗谞讛 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞讚 讞讚 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪转讬专 讜讛讗诪专 (专讘 讗诪专) 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 转谞讗 讛转专转 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛

GEMARA: The mishna taught that a Sage who rendered a woman forbidden to her husband may not then marry her. The Gemara deduces from here: This implies that if he rendered her permitted to her husband and she was later widowed or divorced, then he may marry her. The Gemara clarifies this: With what are we dealing? If we say that he was a single judge and not part of a court, can a single judge dissolve vows? But didn鈥檛 Rav say that Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav Amram said: It is taught in a baraita: Dissolution of vows requires a court of three judges?

讜讗诇讗 讘转诇转讗 诪讬 讞砖讬讚讬 讜讛转谞谉 诪讬讗谞讛 讗讜 砖讞诇爪讛 讘驻谞讬讜 讬砖讗谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rather, could it be a case of three judges rather than one? In such a case, would they be suspect of distorting judgment? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: If she performed refusal or performed 岣litza before him, he may marry her because he functioned as a member of a court of three? This teaches that there is no suspicion of a judge in a court of three.

诇注讜诇诐 讘讞讚 讜讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, you should explain that this case is that of a single judge, and it is as Rav 岣sda said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Vows may be dissolved even by a single expert, and a three-member court is not always necessary. Here too, it is referring to a single expert refusing to nullify her vow.

诪讬讗谞讛 讗讜 砖讞诇爪讛 讜讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讗 讘转专讬 诇讗

It is taught in the mishna that if a woman performed refusal or performed 岣litza before a judge, he may still marry her, as he was part of a court. The Gemara deduces from here: The reason is specifically that he functioned on the court as one of three judges. The Gemara deduces: Then, if there were only two judges, he would not be permitted to marry her.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 注讚讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬诐 注诇 砖讚讛 诪拽讞 讜注诇 讙讟 讗砖讛 诇讗 讞砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讚讘专 讝讛 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬讗讜谉 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讬讗讜谉 讘砖诇砖讛

If so, in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a baraita: If witnesses signed on the document of sale of a field or on a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce, the Sages were not concerned about this matter if one of the witnesses subsequently purchased the field or married the divorc茅e. Since there are two witnesses, there is no suspicion that they collaborated for the benefit of one of them. The Gemara answers: If there were two judges there would also be no concern; however, this mishna itself comes to teach us that a refusal must be performed before a full court, to exclude the opinion of the one who said that refusal may be performed before two. This teaches us that refusal must be performed before three judges.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻谞住 诪讛讜 砖讬讜爪讬讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讻谞住 诪讜爪讬讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻谞住 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 转谞讬 诇讛讜 专讘 讝讜讟讬 讚讘讬 专讘 驻驻讬 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讻谞住 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to one who was prohibited from marrying a certain woman: If he nevertheless married her despite the prohibition, what is the halakha with regard to whether he must divorce her? Rav Kahana said: If he married her, he must divorce her. Rav Ashi said: If he married her, he need not divorce her. Rav Zuti from the school of Rav Pappi taught the Sages a baraita in accordance with the statement of the one who said that if he married her, he need not divorce her.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讙诪专讗 讗讜 住讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛谞讟注谉 诪砖驻讞讛 讜谞砖转讞专专讛 诪讙讜讬讛 讜谞转讙讬讬专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讜讗诐 讻谞住 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗 讗诇诪讗

The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: With regard to the halakha that you said, that if he married her he need not divorce her, was it based upon tradition or is it your own conclusion? He said to them: It is the mishna. I reached this conclusion from the wording of the mishna, which taught that one suspected by others of engaging in sexual relations with a Canaanite maidservant and she was subsequently set free, or with a gentile woman and she subsequently converted may not marry that woman. But if he did marry her, they, the judges of the court, do not remove her from him. Apparently,

Scroll To Top