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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 5, 2022 | 讜壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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 90

This is the daf for Shavout. For Shabbat’s daf, click here.

Rav Chisda brings six more attempts to prove that rabbis can override Torah law. Each time Raba rejects his claim. The first is from a law regarding truma, the second regards impure blood that was sprinkled on the altar. The third is a list of laws that the rabbis instituted a decree that prevented the fulfillment of a mitzva. These and the previous case were rejected by Raba as they are not cases where a prohibition is permitted, it just prevents the fulfillment of a mitzva. This is known as 鈥shev v鈥檃l taase鈥 鈥 sit and do nothing. If one cancels a get in a way that Rabban Gamliel prohibited, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says the get is not a valid get 鈥 thus again proving the power of the courts to override Torah law. Raba rejects this as he says in this case, the rabbis are uprooting the marriage. The last source is cases in which rabbis instituted the death penalty or lashes to someone who went against a rabbinic law. Raba rejected it as each case was a unique circumstance. The Gemara then continues to go through the list of laws (rights to various things) that are affected by the fact that the woman (whose husband went abroad and she thought he was dead and remarried…) is not considered the wife of either of the two men and explains each one and why it is that way.

讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讙讬谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 转讗 砖诪注 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 砖讬诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讜讙讙 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

It was further taught: And she eats teruma on his account. The Gemara explains: This is referring to teruma that applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. The Gemara attempts to offer a proof for this claim. Come and hear a baraita: If a non-priest ate ritually impure teruma of a priest, he must pay him with ritually pure, non-sacred produce. In a case where he paid with impure, non-sacred food, Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir that if he did so unwittingly, his payment is considered payment, but if he acted intentionally, his payment is not payment at all. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and that one his payment is a valid payment, and the food has the sanctity of teruma, although it is ritually impure, and he must also go back and pay him again with pure, non-sacred food.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讚讗讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 讜拽讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬讚讬 讚拽讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜

And we discussed this baraita with regard to the following question: Why is it that according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, when the non-priest pays the priest with ritually impure, ordinary food intentionally, his payment is not considered payment? On the contrary, the non-priest should be blessed, as he ate something of his that is not fit for him even during the priest鈥檚 days of impurity, as impure teruma must be burned, and he pays him with impure, ordinary food, which is something that is fit for him during his days of impurity. Admittedly, once he gives it to him, the produce becomes impure teruma, but at the time of his payment the food was available to be eaten.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 讚讛讜 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖讬诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讜讙讙 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

And Rava said, and some say this statement unattributed to any particular Sage: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If he ate ritually impure teruma, he pays with anything, even impure, non-sacred produce. If he ate pure teruma he pays with pure, non-sacred food, and if he paid with impure, non-sacred produce, the Sages disagreed about this case: Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If done unwittingly, his payment is payment; if intentionally, his payment is not payment. And the Rabbis say: Whether unwittingly or intentionally, his payment is payment, and he must go back and pay with pure, non-sacred produce.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讬 讚讗讬 诪拽讚砖 讘讛讜 讻讛谉 讗砖讛 转驻住讜 诇讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讜讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜拽砖专讬谞谉 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇注诇诪讗

The Gemara returns to the issue at hand, whether the court can stipulate to uproot something prohibited by Torah law. And here it is a case where by Torah law the produce he gave him is proper payment, and is fully owned by the priest, to the extent that if a priest betroths a woman with them, the betrothal with her is valid. And yet the Sages said, i.e., it is a rabbinic law, according to Sumakhos in the name of Rabbi Meir, that his payment is not payment. And this means that we permit a married woman to all men, as she is betrothed by Torah law but in practice she is treated as an unmarried woman. Evidently, a rabbinical prohibition overrides a betrothal that is effective by Torah law.

诪讗讬 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讛讚专 砖诇讜诪讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase: His payment is not payment, that Rabbi Meir said? It means that he is required to go back and pay with ritually pure, non-sacred produce. However, the food he initially gave is also consecrated. The Gemara asks: If so, the opinion of Sumakhos is the same as that of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara answers that Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: The practical difference between them is whether they decreed against an unwitting sinner due to an intentional sinner. According to Sumakhos, if he unwittingly paid with impure, non-sacred produce his payment is valid and the Sages did not penalize him with a second payment, whereas the Rabbis maintain that even if his sin was accidental he must repay the priest, as the Sages issue the decree in a case of a mistaken transgression due to the case of one who sinned intentionally.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof. With regard to blood that became ritually impure, and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, the following distinction applies: If he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗专爪讜讬讬 诪专爪讛 讚转谞讬讗 注诇 诪讛 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讚诐 讜注诇 讛讘砖专 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讘讜专 讜讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 讜拽讗 讛讚专 诪注讬讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛

And here it is a case where by Torah law the blood effects acceptance, as it is taught in a baraita: For what does the High Priest鈥檚 frontplate effect acceptance? For blood, for meat, and for fat that became impure, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether by unavoidable accident or willingly, whether in the case of an individual offering or an offering of the community. And the Sages said that if a priest sprinkled impure blood intentionally the frontplate does not effect acceptance, and its owner must bring another offering. The Gemara infers: Since he is not obligated to bring this extra offering by Torah law, in essence he subsequently brings in a non-sacred animal to the Temple courtyard.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛转讬专 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讘注诇讬诐 谞转讻驻专讜 讘讜

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said that there is no proof from here, as what is the meaning of the phrase: Does not effect acceptance, that the tanna of the baraita said? It means that it does not effect acceptance in the sense that it permits the meat of the offering to be eaten. However, the owners themselves attain atonement through it, and they do not have to bring another offering.

住讜祝 住讜祝 拽诪转注拽专讗 讗讻讬诇转 讘砖专 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜讘注诇讬诐 诪转讻驻专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Ultimately, the Torah mitzva of eating the meat of this offering is uprooted, and it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those things with which atonement was made鈥 (Exodus 29:33). This verse teaches that the priests eat the offering and the owner thereby gains atonement. He said to him: The case of sit and refrain from action [shev ve鈥檃l ta鈥檃seh] is different. In other words, the Sages can uproot a Torah mitzva by instructing one to sit and refrain from action, i.e., to remain passive and do nothing. They cannot, however, uproot a mitzva by telling him to perform an action.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讗讬 诇讗讜转讜讘讱 注专诇 讛讝讗讛

Rav 岣sda said to Rabba: I wanted to raise a difficulty against you from the halakha of an uncircumcised man. The Sages decreed that one who converts on the eve of Passover may not partake of the Paschal lamb, due to his ritual impurity. According to Beit Hillel, one who separates from the foreskin by being circumcised is ritually impure like one who separates from the grave (Pesa岣m 92a). This is the halakha despite the fact that by Torah law he is obligated to bring the offering. Rav 岣sda continued: And I also thought of asking from the case of sprinkling the waters of a purification offering for one who became ritually impure through contact with a corpse, as the Sages rendered it prohibited for one who is impure to receive the sprinkling on the eve of Passover that occurred on Shabbat, although this prevents him from partaking of the Paschal lamb.

讜讗讝诪诇 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转

And I was likewise going to raise a question from the case of a circumcision knife, which the Sages decreed may not be carried on Shabbat, despite the fact that this entails the neglect of a Torah mitzva. And I also wanted to raise a question from the case of a linen cloak, on which the Sages did not allow one to place ritual fringes made of wool. This is a decree that was issued lest he do the same with a garment worn only at night, which is exempt from fringes, and therefore this would be a mixture of wool and linen that is forbidden, although this means that he is unable to fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes.

讜讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 讜砖讜驻专

And likewise I wanted to mention a difficulty from the case of the lambs sacrificed on Shavuot. When the festival of Shavuot occurs on Shabbat, the Sages rendered it prohibited to sprinkle the blood of its sacrificial lambs if the offerings had not been slaughtered with the proper intention, despite the fact that the sprinkling itself is not prohibited by Torah law. And similarly, there is a difficulty with regard to the halakha of the shofar, which is sounded on Rosh HaShana, and yet the Sages rendered it prohibited for it to be blown on Shabbat, lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain.

讜诇讜诇讘 讛砖转讗 讚砖谞讬转 诇谉 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 诇讗 诪讬注拽专 讛讜讗 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 谞讬谞讛讜

And finally I wished to raise a difficulty from the case of a lulav, which may not be carried on the first day of Sukkot that occurred on Shabbat, for the same reason the Sages rendered it prohibited to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana that occurs on Shabbat. However, now that you have resolved for us that an action defined as a case of: Sit and refrain from action, is not considered uprooting, all these are also cases of sit and refrain from action.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诇讬讜 转砖诪注讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜诪专 诇讱 注讘讜专 注诇 讗讞转 诪讻诇 诪爪讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讻讙讜谉 讗诇讬讛讜 讘讛专 讛讻专诪诇 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 砖注讛 砖诪注 诇讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof. The verse states with regard to a true prophet: 鈥淭o him you shall listen鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:15). From here it is derived that even if the prophet says to you: Transgress one of the mitzvot of the Torah, for example, as in the case of Elijah at Mount Carmel, who brought an offering to God on that mountain during a period when it was forbidden on pain of karet to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple, with regard to everything that he permits for the requirement of the hour, you must listen to him. This indicates that a Torah mitzva can indeed be uprooted in an active manner.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讬讜 转砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讙讚专 诪讬诇转讗 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is written: 鈥淭o him you shall listen,鈥 which means that it is a positive mitzva to obey a prophet, and a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition. The Gemara asks: And let him derive from this case a principle that the Sages have the same power as a prophet. The Gemara answers: Safeguarding a matter is different. Since Elijah acted with the aim of preventing the Jewish people from worshipping idols, it was temporarily permitted for him to override a mitzva, in order to strengthen Torah observance with regard to a particular matter in which the people are lax.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讟诇讜 诪讘讜讟诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 诇讘讟诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讛讜住讬祝 注诇 转谞讗讜 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛

The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear: The Sages rendered it prohibited for a man who has sent a bill of divorce to his wife to cancel it in the presence of a court without her knowledge after he has given the bill of divorce to his messenger but before she gets the document. The prohibition was instituted to prevent a situation where the messenger, who is unaware of the cancellation, gives her the bill of divorce and she marries another man under the mistaken impression that she is divorced. If he proceeded to nullify it regardless, it is nullified; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He cannot nullify or add to its condition in a case where the bill of divorce included a stipulation. For if so, i.e., if he has the ability to cancel the bill of divorce, what good is the power of the court in their decree that one may not do so?

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讟诇 讙讟 讜诪砖讜诐 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽讗 砖专讬谞谉 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇注诇诪讗 诪讗谉 讚诪拽讚砖 讗讚注转讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪拽讚砖 讜讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara explains the proof from this source: And here it is a case where by Torah law, the bill of divorce is nullified, and yet due to the reason of: What good is the power of the court, his nullification is ineffective, which means that we permit a married woman to all men. The Gemara answers: The halakhot of marriage afford no proof, as with regard to one who betroths a woman, he betroths on the authorization of the Sages, and in this case the Sages nullified the betrothal, which they can do because their consent was required for the betrothal to be effective in the first place.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛转讬谞讞 讚拽讚讬砖 讘讻住驻讗 拽讚讬砖 讘讘讬讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This works out well in a case when he betrothed with money, as it can be explained that the Sages declared the money ownerless, thereby negating the betrothal. However, if he betrothed by means of sexual relations, what can be said? The Gemara answers: The Sages equated his relations with this woman with licentious sexual intercourse. Since in this situation as well the acquisition of betrothal is effective only by authorization of the Sages, they have the power to declare it invalid.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 砖诪注转讬 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讻讬谉 讜注讜谞砖讬谉 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇注砖讜转 住讬讬讙 诇转讜专讛 讜诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖专讻讘 注诇 住讜住 讘砖讘转 讘讬诪讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜住拽诇讜讛讜 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讻讱 讗诇讗 砖讛砖注讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讻讱

The Gemara cites yet another relevant source. Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar ben Ya鈥檃kov said: I have heard that the reason why the court may administer lashes and punish not by Torah law, i.e., in response to actions for which one is not liable to receive punishment by Torah law, is not so as to transgress matters of Torah, but to establish a safeguard for the Torah. And an example of this is an incident involving a certain person who rode on a horse on Shabbat in the days of the Greeks, an act that is prohibited by rabbinic law, and they brought him to the court and they stoned him as a desecrator of Shabbat. They did so not because he was deserving of this, as riding a horse is not punishable by stoning by Torah law, but because the hour required it, as at that time Jews were negligent with regard to Shabbat observance.

讜砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讟讬讞 讘讗砖转讜 转讞转 讛转讗谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛诇拽讜讛讜 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讻讱 讗诇讗 砖讛砖注讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讻讱 诪讬讙讚专 诪讬诇转讗 砖讗谞讬

And again, an incident occurred involving a certain person who cohabited with his own wife under a fig tree in plain view, and they brought him to the court and flogged him, not because this punishment was fitting for him, as it is not prohibited by the Torah for one to engage in relations with his wife wherever he chooses, but because the hour required it, to discourage others from engaging in licentious behavior. This shows that the court can uproot a Torah mitzva even by means of a positive action such as stoning. The Gemara answers: Safeguarding a matter is different. As stated above, the court may uproot a Torah mitzva so as to strengthen Torah observance in general, as was the case with the prophet Elijah.

讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讗诐 诇砖讗专讜 讛拽专讜讘 讗诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖讗专讜 讝讜 讗砖转讜

搂 The mishna taught: Neither this one, her first husband, nor that one, her second, may become impure for her, if they were priests. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara explains that it is written: 鈥淏ut to his relative, who is close to him, for her he may defile himself鈥 (Leviticus 21:2), and the Master said: 鈥淗is relative鈥 is his wife.

讜讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讘注诇 讘注诪讬讜 诇讛讞诇讜 讬砖 讘注诇 砖诪讬讟诪讗 讜讬砖 讘注诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗砖转讜 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗砖转讜 驻住讜诇讛

And it is further written: 鈥淗e shall not defile himself, a husband among his people, to profane himself鈥 (Leviticus 21:4). It may be inferred from this apparent contradiction between the verses that there is a husband who becomes impure for his wife, and there is a husband who does not become impure. How so? He becomes impure for his fit wife, but he does not become impure for his disqualified wife. Since in the case of the mishna, the woman in question is disqualified with regard to both men, neither of them may become impure for her.

讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 讝讻讗讬谉 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖讛 诇讘注诇讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讛讻讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讜讗讬讘讛

搂 The mishna further taught: Neither this one nor that one is entitled to her found articles. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages said that the found object of a wife belongs to her husband? So that he should not harbor enmity toward her, due to her refusal to give him the item she found. Here, however, let him harbor much enmity toward her, as the Sages want him to divorce her.

讜讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇讘注诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讻诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讝讜谞讬 诇讬转 诇讛 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛

And the mishna also taught that neither man is entitled to her earnings. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages said that a wife鈥檚 earnings belong to her husband? Because she eats his food. In this case here, since she does not have rights to his food, her earnings are not his either.

讜诇讗 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转讙谞讛 讛讻讗 转转讙谞讛 讜转转讙谞讛

And the mishna further taught that they may not nullify her vows. The Gemara similarly explains: What is the reason that the Merciful One states that a husband may nullify his wife鈥檚 vows? So that she should not have to fulfill a vow that will cause her to become repulsive to him, such as refraining from washing or from applying cosmetics. Here, let her be highly repulsive, as the Sages want their relationship to end.

讛讬转讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讜讻讜壮

搂 The mishna taught that if she was an Israelite woman, she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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: 86-92 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn when an Israelite woman can eat Teruma, which is normally only eaten by Priests. And...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 90:Extreme Measures to Protect the System

The case of a man nullifying a bill of divorce in the presence of the court, while a messenger was...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Uprooting a Torah Law – Gefet 35

https://youtu.be/xWRGwofjzs4

Yevamot 90

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 90

讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讙讬谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 转讗 砖诪注 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 砖讬诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讜讙讙 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

It was further taught: And she eats teruma on his account. The Gemara explains: This is referring to teruma that applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. The Gemara attempts to offer a proof for this claim. Come and hear a baraita: If a non-priest ate ritually impure teruma of a priest, he must pay him with ritually pure, non-sacred produce. In a case where he paid with impure, non-sacred food, Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir that if he did so unwittingly, his payment is considered payment, but if he acted intentionally, his payment is not payment at all. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and that one his payment is a valid payment, and the food has the sanctity of teruma, although it is ritually impure, and he must also go back and pay him again with pure, non-sacred food.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讚讗讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 讜拽讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬讚讬 讚拽讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜

And we discussed this baraita with regard to the following question: Why is it that according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, when the non-priest pays the priest with ritually impure, ordinary food intentionally, his payment is not considered payment? On the contrary, the non-priest should be blessed, as he ate something of his that is not fit for him even during the priest鈥檚 days of impurity, as impure teruma must be burned, and he pays him with impure, ordinary food, which is something that is fit for him during his days of impurity. Admittedly, once he gives it to him, the produce becomes impure teruma, but at the time of his payment the food was available to be eaten.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 讚讛讜 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖讬诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讜讙讙 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

And Rava said, and some say this statement unattributed to any particular Sage: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If he ate ritually impure teruma, he pays with anything, even impure, non-sacred produce. If he ate pure teruma he pays with pure, non-sacred food, and if he paid with impure, non-sacred produce, the Sages disagreed about this case: Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If done unwittingly, his payment is payment; if intentionally, his payment is not payment. And the Rabbis say: Whether unwittingly or intentionally, his payment is payment, and he must go back and pay with pure, non-sacred produce.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讬 讚讗讬 诪拽讚砖 讘讛讜 讻讛谉 讗砖讛 转驻住讜 诇讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讜讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜拽砖专讬谞谉 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇注诇诪讗

The Gemara returns to the issue at hand, whether the court can stipulate to uproot something prohibited by Torah law. And here it is a case where by Torah law the produce he gave him is proper payment, and is fully owned by the priest, to the extent that if a priest betroths a woman with them, the betrothal with her is valid. And yet the Sages said, i.e., it is a rabbinic law, according to Sumakhos in the name of Rabbi Meir, that his payment is not payment. And this means that we permit a married woman to all men, as she is betrothed by Torah law but in practice she is treated as an unmarried woman. Evidently, a rabbinical prohibition overrides a betrothal that is effective by Torah law.

诪讗讬 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讛讚专 砖诇讜诪讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase: His payment is not payment, that Rabbi Meir said? It means that he is required to go back and pay with ritually pure, non-sacred produce. However, the food he initially gave is also consecrated. The Gemara asks: If so, the opinion of Sumakhos is the same as that of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara answers that Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: The practical difference between them is whether they decreed against an unwitting sinner due to an intentional sinner. According to Sumakhos, if he unwittingly paid with impure, non-sacred produce his payment is valid and the Sages did not penalize him with a second payment, whereas the Rabbis maintain that even if his sin was accidental he must repay the priest, as the Sages issue the decree in a case of a mistaken transgression due to the case of one who sinned intentionally.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof. With regard to blood that became ritually impure, and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, the following distinction applies: If he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗专爪讜讬讬 诪专爪讛 讚转谞讬讗 注诇 诪讛 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讚诐 讜注诇 讛讘砖专 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讘讜专 讜讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 讜拽讗 讛讚专 诪注讬讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛

And here it is a case where by Torah law the blood effects acceptance, as it is taught in a baraita: For what does the High Priest鈥檚 frontplate effect acceptance? For blood, for meat, and for fat that became impure, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether by unavoidable accident or willingly, whether in the case of an individual offering or an offering of the community. And the Sages said that if a priest sprinkled impure blood intentionally the frontplate does not effect acceptance, and its owner must bring another offering. The Gemara infers: Since he is not obligated to bring this extra offering by Torah law, in essence he subsequently brings in a non-sacred animal to the Temple courtyard.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛转讬专 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讘注诇讬诐 谞转讻驻专讜 讘讜

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said that there is no proof from here, as what is the meaning of the phrase: Does not effect acceptance, that the tanna of the baraita said? It means that it does not effect acceptance in the sense that it permits the meat of the offering to be eaten. However, the owners themselves attain atonement through it, and they do not have to bring another offering.

住讜祝 住讜祝 拽诪转注拽专讗 讗讻讬诇转 讘砖专 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜讘注诇讬诐 诪转讻驻专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Ultimately, the Torah mitzva of eating the meat of this offering is uprooted, and it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those things with which atonement was made鈥 (Exodus 29:33). This verse teaches that the priests eat the offering and the owner thereby gains atonement. He said to him: The case of sit and refrain from action [shev ve鈥檃l ta鈥檃seh] is different. In other words, the Sages can uproot a Torah mitzva by instructing one to sit and refrain from action, i.e., to remain passive and do nothing. They cannot, however, uproot a mitzva by telling him to perform an action.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讗讬 诇讗讜转讜讘讱 注专诇 讛讝讗讛

Rav 岣sda said to Rabba: I wanted to raise a difficulty against you from the halakha of an uncircumcised man. The Sages decreed that one who converts on the eve of Passover may not partake of the Paschal lamb, due to his ritual impurity. According to Beit Hillel, one who separates from the foreskin by being circumcised is ritually impure like one who separates from the grave (Pesa岣m 92a). This is the halakha despite the fact that by Torah law he is obligated to bring the offering. Rav 岣sda continued: And I also thought of asking from the case of sprinkling the waters of a purification offering for one who became ritually impure through contact with a corpse, as the Sages rendered it prohibited for one who is impure to receive the sprinkling on the eve of Passover that occurred on Shabbat, although this prevents him from partaking of the Paschal lamb.

讜讗讝诪诇 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转

And I was likewise going to raise a question from the case of a circumcision knife, which the Sages decreed may not be carried on Shabbat, despite the fact that this entails the neglect of a Torah mitzva. And I also wanted to raise a question from the case of a linen cloak, on which the Sages did not allow one to place ritual fringes made of wool. This is a decree that was issued lest he do the same with a garment worn only at night, which is exempt from fringes, and therefore this would be a mixture of wool and linen that is forbidden, although this means that he is unable to fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes.

讜讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 讜砖讜驻专

And likewise I wanted to mention a difficulty from the case of the lambs sacrificed on Shavuot. When the festival of Shavuot occurs on Shabbat, the Sages rendered it prohibited to sprinkle the blood of its sacrificial lambs if the offerings had not been slaughtered with the proper intention, despite the fact that the sprinkling itself is not prohibited by Torah law. And similarly, there is a difficulty with regard to the halakha of the shofar, which is sounded on Rosh HaShana, and yet the Sages rendered it prohibited for it to be blown on Shabbat, lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain.

讜诇讜诇讘 讛砖转讗 讚砖谞讬转 诇谉 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 诇讗 诪讬注拽专 讛讜讗 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 谞讬谞讛讜

And finally I wished to raise a difficulty from the case of a lulav, which may not be carried on the first day of Sukkot that occurred on Shabbat, for the same reason the Sages rendered it prohibited to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana that occurs on Shabbat. However, now that you have resolved for us that an action defined as a case of: Sit and refrain from action, is not considered uprooting, all these are also cases of sit and refrain from action.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诇讬讜 转砖诪注讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜诪专 诇讱 注讘讜专 注诇 讗讞转 诪讻诇 诪爪讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讻讙讜谉 讗诇讬讛讜 讘讛专 讛讻专诪诇 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 砖注讛 砖诪注 诇讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof. The verse states with regard to a true prophet: 鈥淭o him you shall listen鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:15). From here it is derived that even if the prophet says to you: Transgress one of the mitzvot of the Torah, for example, as in the case of Elijah at Mount Carmel, who brought an offering to God on that mountain during a period when it was forbidden on pain of karet to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple, with regard to everything that he permits for the requirement of the hour, you must listen to him. This indicates that a Torah mitzva can indeed be uprooted in an active manner.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讬讜 转砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讙讚专 诪讬诇转讗 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is written: 鈥淭o him you shall listen,鈥 which means that it is a positive mitzva to obey a prophet, and a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition. The Gemara asks: And let him derive from this case a principle that the Sages have the same power as a prophet. The Gemara answers: Safeguarding a matter is different. Since Elijah acted with the aim of preventing the Jewish people from worshipping idols, it was temporarily permitted for him to override a mitzva, in order to strengthen Torah observance with regard to a particular matter in which the people are lax.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讟诇讜 诪讘讜讟诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 诇讘讟诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讛讜住讬祝 注诇 转谞讗讜 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛

The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear: The Sages rendered it prohibited for a man who has sent a bill of divorce to his wife to cancel it in the presence of a court without her knowledge after he has given the bill of divorce to his messenger but before she gets the document. The prohibition was instituted to prevent a situation where the messenger, who is unaware of the cancellation, gives her the bill of divorce and she marries another man under the mistaken impression that she is divorced. If he proceeded to nullify it regardless, it is nullified; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He cannot nullify or add to its condition in a case where the bill of divorce included a stipulation. For if so, i.e., if he has the ability to cancel the bill of divorce, what good is the power of the court in their decree that one may not do so?

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讟诇 讙讟 讜诪砖讜诐 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽讗 砖专讬谞谉 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇注诇诪讗 诪讗谉 讚诪拽讚砖 讗讚注转讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪拽讚砖 讜讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara explains the proof from this source: And here it is a case where by Torah law, the bill of divorce is nullified, and yet due to the reason of: What good is the power of the court, his nullification is ineffective, which means that we permit a married woman to all men. The Gemara answers: The halakhot of marriage afford no proof, as with regard to one who betroths a woman, he betroths on the authorization of the Sages, and in this case the Sages nullified the betrothal, which they can do because their consent was required for the betrothal to be effective in the first place.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛转讬谞讞 讚拽讚讬砖 讘讻住驻讗 拽讚讬砖 讘讘讬讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This works out well in a case when he betrothed with money, as it can be explained that the Sages declared the money ownerless, thereby negating the betrothal. However, if he betrothed by means of sexual relations, what can be said? The Gemara answers: The Sages equated his relations with this woman with licentious sexual intercourse. Since in this situation as well the acquisition of betrothal is effective only by authorization of the Sages, they have the power to declare it invalid.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 砖诪注转讬 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讻讬谉 讜注讜谞砖讬谉 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇注砖讜转 住讬讬讙 诇转讜专讛 讜诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖专讻讘 注诇 住讜住 讘砖讘转 讘讬诪讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜住拽诇讜讛讜 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讻讱 讗诇讗 砖讛砖注讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讻讱

The Gemara cites yet another relevant source. Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar ben Ya鈥檃kov said: I have heard that the reason why the court may administer lashes and punish not by Torah law, i.e., in response to actions for which one is not liable to receive punishment by Torah law, is not so as to transgress matters of Torah, but to establish a safeguard for the Torah. And an example of this is an incident involving a certain person who rode on a horse on Shabbat in the days of the Greeks, an act that is prohibited by rabbinic law, and they brought him to the court and they stoned him as a desecrator of Shabbat. They did so not because he was deserving of this, as riding a horse is not punishable by stoning by Torah law, but because the hour required it, as at that time Jews were negligent with regard to Shabbat observance.

讜砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讟讬讞 讘讗砖转讜 转讞转 讛转讗谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛诇拽讜讛讜 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讻讱 讗诇讗 砖讛砖注讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讻讱 诪讬讙讚专 诪讬诇转讗 砖讗谞讬

And again, an incident occurred involving a certain person who cohabited with his own wife under a fig tree in plain view, and they brought him to the court and flogged him, not because this punishment was fitting for him, as it is not prohibited by the Torah for one to engage in relations with his wife wherever he chooses, but because the hour required it, to discourage others from engaging in licentious behavior. This shows that the court can uproot a Torah mitzva even by means of a positive action such as stoning. The Gemara answers: Safeguarding a matter is different. As stated above, the court may uproot a Torah mitzva so as to strengthen Torah observance in general, as was the case with the prophet Elijah.

讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讗诐 诇砖讗专讜 讛拽专讜讘 讗诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖讗专讜 讝讜 讗砖转讜

搂 The mishna taught: Neither this one, her first husband, nor that one, her second, may become impure for her, if they were priests. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara explains that it is written: 鈥淏ut to his relative, who is close to him, for her he may defile himself鈥 (Leviticus 21:2), and the Master said: 鈥淗is relative鈥 is his wife.

讜讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讘注诇 讘注诪讬讜 诇讛讞诇讜 讬砖 讘注诇 砖诪讬讟诪讗 讜讬砖 讘注诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗砖转讜 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗砖转讜 驻住讜诇讛

And it is further written: 鈥淗e shall not defile himself, a husband among his people, to profane himself鈥 (Leviticus 21:4). It may be inferred from this apparent contradiction between the verses that there is a husband who becomes impure for his wife, and there is a husband who does not become impure. How so? He becomes impure for his fit wife, but he does not become impure for his disqualified wife. Since in the case of the mishna, the woman in question is disqualified with regard to both men, neither of them may become impure for her.

讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 讝讻讗讬谉 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖讛 诇讘注诇讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讛讻讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讜讗讬讘讛

搂 The mishna further taught: Neither this one nor that one is entitled to her found articles. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages said that the found object of a wife belongs to her husband? So that he should not harbor enmity toward her, due to her refusal to give him the item she found. Here, however, let him harbor much enmity toward her, as the Sages want him to divorce her.

讜讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇讘注诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讻诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讝讜谞讬 诇讬转 诇讛 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛

And the mishna also taught that neither man is entitled to her earnings. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages said that a wife鈥檚 earnings belong to her husband? Because she eats his food. In this case here, since she does not have rights to his food, her earnings are not his either.

讜诇讗 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转讙谞讛 讛讻讗 转转讙谞讛 讜转转讙谞讛

And the mishna further taught that they may not nullify her vows. The Gemara similarly explains: What is the reason that the Merciful One states that a husband may nullify his wife鈥檚 vows? So that she should not have to fulfill a vow that will cause her to become repulsive to him, such as refraining from washing or from applying cosmetics. Here, let her be highly repulsive, as the Sages want their relationship to end.

讛讬转讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讜讻讜壮

搂 The mishna taught that if she was an Israelite woman, she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

Scroll To Top