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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 6, 2022 | 讝壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讘

  • 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".

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Yevamot 91

Presentation in PDF format

The Mishna listed several different opinions regarding the penalties for a woman who remarried based on the testimony of one witness. Do each of them build on the one before or on the one after him? Two different approaches to this are brought. Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that in a case of two witnesses who testify he died and the court was not involved, the halacha follows the Mishna that she can stay married to the first husband. Rav Nachman is bothered by this statement as he should have stated 鈥淭he halacha is like Rabbi Shimon鈥 as he assumes the Mishna reflects that position and the rabbis disagree. Rav Sheshet questions Rav as he doesn鈥檛 think there is an argument at all regarding this issue and doesn鈥檛, therefore, understand why Rav says 鈥淭he halacha is like this.鈥 He brings a braita to support his claim that there is no debate, however, the Gemara brings four alternative readings of that braita. Ulla also raises a question on the logic behind Rav Sheshet鈥檚 position (the woman is clearly not to blame) from six different Mishnayot in which we penalize the woman. However, explanations are brought for each one, as in each source there was a reason why the woman was to blame.

 

驻砖讬讟讗 讘转 诇讜讬 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that she is disqualified, as she is a zona, a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah and with whom she cannot establish a marital bond. The Gemara answers: Since it was necessary for the tanna to mention the disqualification of a daughter of a Levite from partaking of the tithe, he added that an Israelite woman is likewise disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

讜讘转 诇讜讬 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 诪讬 诪讬驻住诇讗 讘讝谞讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜讬讛 砖谞砖讘讬转 讗讜 砖谞讘注诇讛 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诪注砖专 讜讗讜讻诇转 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 拽谞住讗

The Gemara asks: And a daughter of a Levite, is she disqualified from partaking of the tithe by licentiousness? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of a Levite woman who was captured, who may have had intercourse with one of her captors, or even in a case where a Levite woman definitely engaged in licentious sexual relations, we nevertheless give her first tithe and she may eat it? This indicates that an act of fornication does not disqualify a woman from partaking of the tithe. Rav Sheshet said: The disqualification is a penalty imposed by the Sages on this particular woman for not taking sufficient care, as she married without witness testimony as to her first husband鈥檚 death.

讘转 讻讛谉 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna further taught that the daughter of a priest in this situation is disqualified from partaking of teruma. The Gemara explains: This statement does not refer to teruma by Torah law, as it is obvious that she is prohibited to eat this produce. Rather, she is barred even from teruma that applies by rabbinic law.

讜讗讬谉 讬讜专砖讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讻讜壮 讻转讜讘讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讬讻专讬谉

And the mishna also taught: Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one inherit her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: A marriage contract, what is its purpose; why mention the inheritance of a marriage contract after the mishna has just said that she is not entitled to the payment of a marriage contract at all? The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa said: This is referring to the marriage contract payment of the male sons. One of the conditions of a marriage contract is that any male children born to this woman who inherit from their father will receive the sum of her marriage contract in addition to their share of the inheritance with their other paternal brothers.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讚讬讚讛 讚注讘讚讗 讗讬住讜专讗 拽谞住讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讝专注讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. Since she does not have a claim for the payment of her marriage contract, she is not entitled to the other conditions of a marriage contract either. The Gemara answers: It is necessary. Lest you say that with regard to the woman herself, who committed a prohibition, the Sages penalized her, but with regard to her offspring the Sages did not penalize them, as they did nothing wrong, the tanna therefore teaches us that the entire marriage contract is canceled, along with all its conditions.

讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜诇抓 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讞讜诇抓 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 诪讚专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna further taught that the brothers of this one and the brothers of that one all perform 岣litza, and they do not consummate levirate marriage. The Gemara explains: The brother of the first one performs 岣litza by Torah law, as that woman is legally the wife of the first husband and therefore requires 岣litza. But he does not consummate levirate marriage by rabbinic law, as the Sages penalized her and prohibited her from returning to the first husband. Conversely, the brother of the second one performs 岣litza by rabbinic law, so that people do not say that a childless woman can leave her yavam without 岣litza. But he does not consummate levirate marriage, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law, as her marriage to the second man was an error.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘转专讗讬 诪讜讚讜 诇拽诪讗讬 拽诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讘转专讗讬

搂 The mishna taught: Rabbi Yosei says that the obligation of her marriage contract is upon the property of her first husband. Rav Huna said: The last Sages in the mishna, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, concede to the first ones, and merely add to their statement. However, the first ones do not concede to the last Sages. In other words, the second set of Sages extend the rulings of the first Sages beyond the cases to which they specifically referred.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诪讛 讘讬讗讛 讚注讬拽专 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讗讘诇 讘讬讗讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 拽谞讬住

The Gemara clarifies this statement: Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Elazar. How so? For if with regard to sexual relations, which is the main prohibition, Rabbi Shimon did not penalize her, as he claims that the intercourse of the yavam, her first husband鈥檚 brother, acquires her and exempts her rival wife, all the more so her first husband should be entitled to her found objects and her earnings, which are merely money. And yet Rabbi Elazar does not concede to Rabbi Shimon, as he claims that in the case of her found objects and her earnings, which are only money, the Sages did not penalize her, but with regard to sexual intercourse, which is a prohibition, they did penalize her.

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛谞讬 讚讬转讘讗 转讜转讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讻转讜讘讛 讚诇诪砖拽诇 讜诪讬驻拽 拽讗讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 讻转讜讘讛 讚诇诪砖拽诇 讜诪讬驻拽 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讬住 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 讚讬转讘讗 转讜转讬讛 拽谞讬住

And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar both concede to Rabbi Yosei with regard to a marriage contract. If in the case of these matters discussed above, which are relevant when she is living under her husband鈥檚 authority and is treated as a married woman, the Sages did not penalize her, but allowed him to retain her found articles and earnings as though she were a full-fledged wife, all the more so they did not make her forfeit the marriage contract, which is designed for her to take and then leave the marriage. And by contrast, Rabbi Yosei does not concede to them. He maintains that in the case of a marriage contract, which is for her to take and leave, the Sages did not penalize her, but with regard to these other conditions, which take effect when she is still living under his authority, they did penalize her.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽诪讗讬 诪讜讚讜 诇讘转专讗讬 讘转专讗讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讜 诇拽诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻转讜讘讛 讚诪讚讬讚讬讛 诇讚讬讚讛 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讚诪讚讬讚讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛

In contrast to Rav Huna, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The first Sages concede to the last ones, but the last ones do not concede to the first Sages. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the statements of the first Sages are more inclusive, whereas the second Sages restrict and limit the previous rulings. How so? Rabbi Yosei concedes to Rabbi Elazar, as he reasons as follows: If with regard to a marriage contract, which is given from him to her, the Sages did not penalize her, as Rabbi Yosei maintains that since she did not sin willfully she is entitled to her marriage contract, all the more so they did not enforce a penalty with regard to her found objects and her earnings, which are from her to him. The Sages certainly did not cause him to forfeit something he has the right to claim from her.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讚讬讚讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讗讘诇 讻转讜讘讛 讚诪讚讬讚讬讛 诇讚讬讚讛 拽谞讬住

And Rabbi Elazar does not agree with Rabbi Yosei with regard to a marriage contract. He claims that it is concerning her found objects and her earnings, which are from her to him, that the Sages did not penalize her. However, as pertains to the marriage contract, which is from him to her, the Sages did penalize her, as a punishment.

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讛 讛谞讬 讚诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 拽谞住讬 讘讬讗讛 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 讘讬讗讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 讚诪讞讬讬诐 拽谞讬住

And Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Elazar both concede to Rabbi Shimon, for the following reason: And if with regard to these, i.e., her found objects and earnings or her marriage contract, which are given in his lifetime, the Sages did not penalize her, then with regard to the sexual relations of the yavam, which occur after the death of the husband, is it not all the more so that they should not penalize her, and she should remain permitted? And Rabbi Shimon does not concede to them, as it is only in the case of sexual relations, which occur after his death, that the Sages did not penalize her. However, with regard to these other matters, which apply during the husband鈥檚 lifetime, the Sages did penalize her by depriving her of them.

谞砖讗转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙谞讘讗 讙谞讜讘讬 诇诪讛 诇讱 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚砖诪注转讬讱 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗讝诇讛

搂 The mishna taught that if she married without the consent of the court she is permitted to return to her first husband. Rav Huna said that Rav said: This is the halakha. Rav Na岣an said to him: Why do you steal in, i.e., why do you state your opinion in a sneaky manner? If you maintain in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then you should explicitly say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as your halakha follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讗诪讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪砖诪注 讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 拽砖讬讗

And lest you say: If I were to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that would erroneously indicate that I agree with him even with regard to the first case, that of a married woman who married another on the basis of one witness. If so, you should say the following: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the last case. The Gemara comments: Indeed, the question of why Rav Huna did not state his ruling in this manner is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转转讗 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 诪讬讗谞住 讗谞住讛

Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav dozed and was falling asleep he said this halakha. In other words, Rav did not examine the matter carefully, as this ruling is unnecessary. Rav Sheshet explains: From the fact that Rav declared a ruling of halakha, it may be inferred that others disagree with this opinion. However, there is actually no dispute here, as what could she have done? It is as though he raped her. Since she received the testimony of witnesses that her husband was dead, she had no reason to refrain from remarrying. Her actions cannot be considered willing, as why should she refrain from marrying after receiving the testimony of witnesses that her husband was dead? Her lack of knowledge in this matter renders this case analogous to a rape. And as is well known, a woman who was raped is permitted to return to her husband.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讞讜抓 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖谞讬住转 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬讗 讙讬讟讗 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讙讬讟讗

And it was further taught in a baraita: Any of those with whom relations are forbidden by Torah law do not require a bill of divorce to dissolve a union, except for a married woman who remarried by permission of the court. The Gemara infers: It is only a woman who married by permission of the court who requires a bill of divorce, but if she married based on testimony of witnesses she does not require a bill of divorce.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讬 讘注讬讗 讙讟 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注砖讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讛讜专讗转谉 讻讝讚讜谉 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讻砖讙讙转 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讙讟

The Gemara further inquires: Who is the author of this baraita? If we say it is Rabbi Shimon, in his opinion does a woman who married by permission of the court require a bill of divorce from the second man? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: If the court acted merely in accordance with their own instruction when they permitted a woman to remarry and her husband later arrived, it is as though this remarriage were a willful act of a man with a woman, and she is penalized like an intentional adulteress. Conversely, if she married based on testimony of witnesses, it is considered like an unwitting act of a man with a woman. Either way, neither in this case nor in that one, i.e., whether the marriage was in accordance with a decision of the court or based on witness testimony, does she require a bill of divorce, as a woman who committed adultery, whether unwittingly or intentionally, does not require a bill of divorce from the adulterer.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

Rather, is it not the case that this baraita, which states that a woman who engaged in forbidden relations, including one who married based on witnesses, does not require a bill of divorce, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? But if so, there was no need to issue a ruling to this effect, as everyone agrees that the halakha follows the majority opinion.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜转专讬抓 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注砖讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讛讜专讗转谉 讻讻讜讜谞转 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 [讜讘注讬讗 讙讟] 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讻砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞转 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 [讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 讙讟]

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and you should answer the difficulty as follows: Rabbi Shimon says that if the court acted in accordance with their own instruction, it is as though there was the intention of a man with a woman, i.e., as though the man had relations with the woman for the purpose of marriage, and therefore she requires a bill of divorce from him. Conversely, if she married based on testimony of witnesses they considered it as though there was no intention of a man with a woman, as he had relations with her without the intention of marriage, and in that case she does not require a bill of divorce.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注砖讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讛讜专讗转谉 讻讝讚讜谉 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 讜诪讬转住专讗 注诇 讘注诇讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讻砖讙讙转 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 讜诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 注诇 讘注诇讛

Rav Ashi said that there is no difficulty here at all, as Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement should be explained differently. In fact, Rabbi Shimon taught his ruling with regard to the prohibition involved, not the issue of a bill of divorce, and this is what he said: If the court acted in accordance with their own instruction, it is as though this was a willful act of a man with a woman, and she is therefore forbidden to her husband like a woman who intentionally engaged in relations with another man. However, if she married based on testimony of witnesses, they considered it as though it was an unwitting act of a man with a woman, and she is not forbidden to her husband.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讘谉 拽转谞讬 注砖讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讛讜专讗转谉 讻讝讚讜谉 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 讜诇讗 诪转讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讻砖讙讙转 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 讜诪转讬讗 拽专讘谉

Ravina said that this baraita is taught with regard to an offering, and it should be explained as follows: If the court acted in accordance with their own instruction, it is as though this was a willful act of a man with a woman, and she therefore does not bring an offering, as an individual who followed the ruling of the court is exempt from bringing an offering (see Horayot 2a鈥揵). If she married based on testimony of witnesses, it is considered as though this was an unwitting act of a man with a woman, and therefore she brings an offering.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讞讜抓 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜砖谞讬住转 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉

And if you wish, say and refute Rav Sheshet鈥檚 difficulty in the following manner: This first baraita, which exempts forbidden women from a bill of divorce, is the opinion of the Rabbis, who prohibit a woman in this situation to her husband, even if she had married another based on witnesses. And you should answer the difficulty by reading the relevant clause of the baraita as follows: Apart from a married woman who married on the basis of witness testimony, and this includes one who married by permission of the court, as she too requires a bill of divorce.

诪转讬讘 注讜诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讜讛转谞谉 讻转讘 诇砖诐 诪诇讻讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇砖诐 诪诇讻讜转 诪讚讬 诇砖诐 诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谉 诇讘谞讬谉 讛讘讬转 诇讞讜专讘谉 讛讘讬转 讛讬讛 讘诪讝专讞 讜讻转讘 讘诪注专讘 讘诪注专讘 讜讻转讘 讘诪讝专讞

Ulla raised an objection against Rav Sheshet鈥檚 reasoning: Do we say this justification: What could she have done? Is a woman considered to have acted under duress when she had no way to avoid sin? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Gittin 79b): If a man wrote a bill of divorce and dated it according to a kingdom that is not suitable [hogenet], i.e., one that does not reign over their place of residence; or according to the kingdom of Media or according to the kingdom of Greece, which are no longer in existence; or if he dated it according to the building of the Temple or according to the destruction of the Temple; and similarly if the bill of divorce was given in the east and he wrote in it a place in the west, or in the west and he wrote a place in the east, this bill of divorce is invalid.

转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗拽专讜讬讬 诇讙讬讟讗

Consequently, if she married another man she must leave this one and that one, both the one who gave her the bill of divorce and the new husband. And all these matters mentioned in the mishna here, the penalties imposed on a married woman who remarried unlawfully, apply to her. The Gemara asks: But why? Let us say: What could she have done. She acted under duress, as she married again only because she thought the bill of divorce was valid. The Gemara answers: This woman did not act under duress, as she should have had the bill of divorce read by a scholar, who would have told her that it was invalid.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讬讘诪转讜 讜讛诇讻讛 爪专转讛 讜谞砖讗转 讜谞诪爪讗转 讝讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗诪转讜谞讬

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Come and hear a different proof. With regard to one who married his yevama, and the rival wife of the yevama went and married someone else, and this yevama was later discovered to be a sexually underdeveloped woman, which means that she was never eligible for levirate marriage and therefore her act of intercourse did not exempt her rival wife from levirate marriage, the rival wife must leave this one and that one, i.e., her husband must give her a bill of divorce and she may not marry the yavam, and all these matters apply to her. But why? Again, let us say: What could she have done. The Gemara answers: This is no proof, as she should have waited until it was clearly established that the other wife was not a sexually underdeveloped woman.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讗诪专讜 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讛诇讻讜 爪专讜转 讜谞讬砖讗讜 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗诪转讜谞讬

Abaye said: Come and hear: With regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden, with regard to whom the Sages said that they exempt their rival wives, if these rival wives went and married, and one of these forbidden women was discovered to be a sexually underdeveloped woman, which means that the obligation of levirate marriage did not apply to her at all, and it was the rival wives who should have performed levirate marriage, the rival wife must leave both this and that, and all these matters apply to her. But why? Let us say: What could she have done. The Gemara answers as before: She should have waited.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻转讘 住讜驻专 讙讟 诇讗讬砖 讜砖讜讘专 诇讗砖讛 讜讟注讛 讜谞转谉 讙讟 诇讗砖讛 讜砖讜讘专 诇讗讬砖 讜谞转谞讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 讜讝讛 诇讝讛

Rava said: Come and hear: A scribe wrote a bill of divorce for the man and a receipt for the woman, so that the man should give the bill of divorce to his wife and she should give him the receipt upon his delivery of the marriage contract. And the scribe erred and gave the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man, leaving them with the mistaken impression that he had the bill of divorce and she the receipt, and they gave each other the documents, this one to that one and that one to this one.

讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛专讬 讛讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 讛讗讬砖 讜砖讜讘专 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 讛讗砖讛 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗拽专讜讬讬 诇讙讬讟讗

And after a while it became clear that the bill of divorce is in the man鈥檚 possession and the receipt in the woman鈥檚 possession, and no act of divorce had been performed at all. If the woman had married someone else in the meantime she must leave both this one and that one, and all these matters apply to her. But why? Let us say: What could she have done. The Gemara answers: Here too, she should have had the bill of divorce read by an expert.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗拽专讜讬讬 诇讙讬讟讗

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear: If a man changed his name, or his wife鈥檚 name, or the name of his city, or the name of her city, and she remarried, she must leave both this one and that one, and all these matters apply to her. But why? Let us say: What could she have done. The Gemara answers: Once again, she should have had the bill of divorce read by a scholar.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻谞住讛 讘讙讟 拽专讞 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗拽专讜讬讬 诇讙讬讟讗

Ravina said: Come and hear: A man married a woman on the basis that she was divorced. However, she had actually received a bare bill of divorce, i.e., missing a signature. This is referring to a special type of bill of divorce, one that was folded and sewn up. It requires as many witnesses as the number of lines it contains. If a bill of divorce of this kind does not have enough witnesses, it is invalid. In the case of the baraita, if this woman married another man after receiving this bill of divorce, she must leave both this one and this one, and all these penalties apply to her. Again, the question is: What could she have done? The Gemara answers, as before: She should have had the bill of divorce read by someone who could have told her it was invalid.

专讘 驻驻讗 住讘专 诇诪讬注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讘诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞讬 诪转谞讬讬转讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa thought to take action and permit a woman to return to her husband based on the rationale: What could she have done. In a case where she had no means of clarifying the matter, he ruled that she should be considered to have acted under duress. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: But isn鈥檛 it taught repeatedly in all these mishnayot that this argument is not accepted?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗讜 砖谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗砖讬谞讜讬讬 诇讬拽讜 讜诇讬住诪讜讱 (讜驻住拽)

Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: And did we not resolve these mishnayot, by explaining that in those particular cases she did have the option of clarifying the matter? He said to him: And shall we stand and rely on answers? Admittedly, we found some way of resolving these questions, but the accumulation of difficulties indicates that the rationale: What could she have done, is unacceptable. And indeed, Rav Pappa ceased to follow his original intention and did not issue a lenient ruling.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇拽诇讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讛讬 拽诇讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 拽诇讗 讚讘转专 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬

搂 The Gemara discusses the case of the mishna from another perspective. Rav Ashi said: And we are not concerned about a rumor. In other words, if there was an unsubstantiated rumor that the husband was alive, the court takes no notice of it. The Gemara asks: Which kind of rumor does he mean? If we say that this is referring to a rumor that spread after the marriage of this woman to another man, Rav Ashi has already said this once, as Rav Ashi said:

  • 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".

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 10: Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 91: When Rape Is Not at All Rape

In the case of the woman who has remarried after the testimony that her first husband has died, but not...

Yevamot 91

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 91

驻砖讬讟讗 讘转 诇讜讬 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that she is disqualified, as she is a zona, a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah and with whom she cannot establish a marital bond. The Gemara answers: Since it was necessary for the tanna to mention the disqualification of a daughter of a Levite from partaking of the tithe, he added that an Israelite woman is likewise disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

讜讘转 诇讜讬 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 诪讬 诪讬驻住诇讗 讘讝谞讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜讬讛 砖谞砖讘讬转 讗讜 砖谞讘注诇讛 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诪注砖专 讜讗讜讻诇转 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 拽谞住讗

The Gemara asks: And a daughter of a Levite, is she disqualified from partaking of the tithe by licentiousness? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of a Levite woman who was captured, who may have had intercourse with one of her captors, or even in a case where a Levite woman definitely engaged in licentious sexual relations, we nevertheless give her first tithe and she may eat it? This indicates that an act of fornication does not disqualify a woman from partaking of the tithe. Rav Sheshet said: The disqualification is a penalty imposed by the Sages on this particular woman for not taking sufficient care, as she married without witness testimony as to her first husband鈥檚 death.

讘转 讻讛谉 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna further taught that the daughter of a priest in this situation is disqualified from partaking of teruma. The Gemara explains: This statement does not refer to teruma by Torah law, as it is obvious that she is prohibited to eat this produce. Rather, she is barred even from teruma that applies by rabbinic law.

讜讗讬谉 讬讜专砖讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讻讜壮 讻转讜讘讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讬讻专讬谉

And the mishna also taught: Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one inherit her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: A marriage contract, what is its purpose; why mention the inheritance of a marriage contract after the mishna has just said that she is not entitled to the payment of a marriage contract at all? The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa said: This is referring to the marriage contract payment of the male sons. One of the conditions of a marriage contract is that any male children born to this woman who inherit from their father will receive the sum of her marriage contract in addition to their share of the inheritance with their other paternal brothers.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讚讬讚讛 讚注讘讚讗 讗讬住讜专讗 拽谞住讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讝专注讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. Since she does not have a claim for the payment of her marriage contract, she is not entitled to the other conditions of a marriage contract either. The Gemara answers: It is necessary. Lest you say that with regard to the woman herself, who committed a prohibition, the Sages penalized her, but with regard to her offspring the Sages did not penalize them, as they did nothing wrong, the tanna therefore teaches us that the entire marriage contract is canceled, along with all its conditions.

讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜诇抓 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讞讜诇抓 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 诪讚专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna further taught that the brothers of this one and the brothers of that one all perform 岣litza, and they do not consummate levirate marriage. The Gemara explains: The brother of the first one performs 岣litza by Torah law, as that woman is legally the wife of the first husband and therefore requires 岣litza. But he does not consummate levirate marriage by rabbinic law, as the Sages penalized her and prohibited her from returning to the first husband. Conversely, the brother of the second one performs 岣litza by rabbinic law, so that people do not say that a childless woman can leave her yavam without 岣litza. But he does not consummate levirate marriage, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law, as her marriage to the second man was an error.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘转专讗讬 诪讜讚讜 诇拽诪讗讬 拽诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讘转专讗讬

搂 The mishna taught: Rabbi Yosei says that the obligation of her marriage contract is upon the property of her first husband. Rav Huna said: The last Sages in the mishna, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, concede to the first ones, and merely add to their statement. However, the first ones do not concede to the last Sages. In other words, the second set of Sages extend the rulings of the first Sages beyond the cases to which they specifically referred.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诪讛 讘讬讗讛 讚注讬拽专 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讗讘诇 讘讬讗讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 拽谞讬住

The Gemara clarifies this statement: Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Elazar. How so? For if with regard to sexual relations, which is the main prohibition, Rabbi Shimon did not penalize her, as he claims that the intercourse of the yavam, her first husband鈥檚 brother, acquires her and exempts her rival wife, all the more so her first husband should be entitled to her found objects and her earnings, which are merely money. And yet Rabbi Elazar does not concede to Rabbi Shimon, as he claims that in the case of her found objects and her earnings, which are only money, the Sages did not penalize her, but with regard to sexual intercourse, which is a prohibition, they did penalize her.

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛谞讬 讚讬转讘讗 转讜转讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讻转讜讘讛 讚诇诪砖拽诇 讜诪讬驻拽 拽讗讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 讻转讜讘讛 讚诇诪砖拽诇 讜诪讬驻拽 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讬住 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 讚讬转讘讗 转讜转讬讛 拽谞讬住

And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar both concede to Rabbi Yosei with regard to a marriage contract. If in the case of these matters discussed above, which are relevant when she is living under her husband鈥檚 authority and is treated as a married woman, the Sages did not penalize her, but allowed him to retain her found articles and earnings as though she were a full-fledged wife, all the more so they did not make her forfeit the marriage contract, which is designed for her to take and then leave the marriage. And by contrast, Rabbi Yosei does not concede to them. He maintains that in the case of a marriage contract, which is for her to take and leave, the Sages did not penalize her, but with regard to these other conditions, which take effect when she is still living under his authority, they did penalize her.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽诪讗讬 诪讜讚讜 诇讘转专讗讬 讘转专讗讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讜 诇拽诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻转讜讘讛 讚诪讚讬讚讬讛 诇讚讬讚讛 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讚诪讚讬讚讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛

In contrast to Rav Huna, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The first Sages concede to the last ones, but the last ones do not concede to the first Sages. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the statements of the first Sages are more inclusive, whereas the second Sages restrict and limit the previous rulings. How so? Rabbi Yosei concedes to Rabbi Elazar, as he reasons as follows: If with regard to a marriage contract, which is given from him to her, the Sages did not penalize her, as Rabbi Yosei maintains that since she did not sin willfully she is entitled to her marriage contract, all the more so they did not enforce a penalty with regard to her found objects and her earnings, which are from her to him. The Sages certainly did not cause him to forfeit something he has the right to claim from her.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讚讬讚讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讗讘诇 讻转讜讘讛 讚诪讚讬讚讬讛 诇讚讬讚讛 拽谞讬住

And Rabbi Elazar does not agree with Rabbi Yosei with regard to a marriage contract. He claims that it is concerning her found objects and her earnings, which are from her to him, that the Sages did not penalize her. However, as pertains to the marriage contract, which is from him to her, the Sages did penalize her, as a punishment.

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讛 讛谞讬 讚诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 拽谞住讬 讘讬讗讛 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 讘讬讗讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 讚诪讞讬讬诐 拽谞讬住

And Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Elazar both concede to Rabbi Shimon, for the following reason: And if with regard to these, i.e., her found objects and earnings or her marriage contract, which are given in his lifetime, the Sages did not penalize her, then with regard to the sexual relations of the yavam, which occur after the death of the husband, is it not all the more so that they should not penalize her, and she should remain permitted? And Rabbi Shimon does not concede to them, as it is only in the case of sexual relations, which occur after his death, that the Sages did not penalize her. However, with regard to these other matters, which apply during the husband鈥檚 lifetime, the Sages did penalize her by depriving her of them.

谞砖讗转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙谞讘讗 讙谞讜讘讬 诇诪讛 诇讱 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚砖诪注转讬讱 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗讝诇讛

搂 The mishna taught that if she married without the consent of the court she is permitted to return to her first husband. Rav Huna said that Rav said: This is the halakha. Rav Na岣an said to him: Why do you steal in, i.e., why do you state your opinion in a sneaky manner? If you maintain in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then you should explicitly say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as your halakha follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讗诪讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪砖诪注 讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 拽砖讬讗

And lest you say: If I were to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that would erroneously indicate that I agree with him even with regard to the first case, that of a married woman who married another on the basis of one witness. If so, you should say the following: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the last case. The Gemara comments: Indeed, the question of why Rav Huna did not state his ruling in this manner is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转转讗 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 诪讬讗谞住 讗谞住讛

Rav Sheshet said: I say that when Rav dozed and was falling asleep he said this halakha. In other words, Rav did not examine the matter carefully, as this ruling is unnecessary. Rav Sheshet explains: From the fact that Rav declared a ruling of halakha, it may be inferred that others disagree with this opinion. However, there is actually no dispute here, as what could she have done? It is as though he raped her. Since she received the testimony of witnesses that her husband was dead, she had no reason to refrain from remarrying. Her actions cannot be considered willing, as why should she refrain from marrying after receiving the testimony of witnesses that her husband was dead? Her lack of knowledge in this matter renders this case analogous to a rape. And as is well known, a woman who was raped is permitted to return to her husband.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讞讜抓 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖谞讬住转 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬讗 讙讬讟讗 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讙讬讟讗

And it was further taught in a baraita: Any of those with whom relations are forbidden by Torah law do not require a bill of divorce to dissolve a union, except for a married woman who remarried by permission of the court. The Gemara infers: It is only a woman who married by permission of the court who requires a bill of divorce, but if she married based on testimony of witnesses she does not require a bill of divorce.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讬 讘注讬讗 讙讟 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注砖讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讛讜专讗转谉 讻讝讚讜谉 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讻砖讙讙转 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讙讟

The Gemara further inquires: Who is the author of this baraita? If we say it is Rabbi Shimon, in his opinion does a woman who married by permission of the court require a bill of divorce from the second man? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: If the court acted merely in accordance with their own instruction when they permitted a woman to remarry and her husband later arrived, it is as though this remarriage were a willful act of a man with a woman, and she is penalized like an intentional adulteress. Conversely, if she married based on testimony of witnesses, it is considered like an unwitting act of a man with a woman. Either way, neither in this case nor in that one, i.e., whether the marriage was in accordance with a decision of the court or based on witness testimony, does she require a bill of divorce, as a woman who committed adultery, whether unwittingly or intentionally, does not require a bill of divorce from the adulterer.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

Rather, is it not the case that this baraita, which states that a woman who engaged in forbidden relations, including one who married based on witnesses, does not require a bill of divorce, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? But if so, there was no need to issue a ruling to this effect, as everyone agrees that the halakha follows the majority opinion.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜转专讬抓 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注砖讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讛讜专讗转谉 讻讻讜讜谞转 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 [讜讘注讬讗 讙讟] 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讻砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞转 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 [讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 讙讟]

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and you should answer the difficulty as follows: Rabbi Shimon says that if the court acted in accordance with their own instruction, it is as though there was the intention of a man with a woman, i.e., as though the man had relations with the woman for the purpose of marriage, and therefore she requires a bill of divorce from him. Conversely, if she married based on testimony of witnesses they considered it as though there was no intention of a man with a woman, as he had relations with her without the intention of marriage, and in that case she does not require a bill of divorce.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注砖讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讛讜专讗转谉 讻讝讚讜谉 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 讜诪讬转住专讗 注诇 讘注诇讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讻砖讙讙转 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 讜诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 注诇 讘注诇讛

Rav Ashi said that there is no difficulty here at all, as Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement should be explained differently. In fact, Rabbi Shimon taught his ruling with regard to the prohibition involved, not the issue of a bill of divorce, and this is what he said: If the court acted in accordance with their own instruction, it is as though this was a willful act of a man with a woman, and she is therefore forbidden to her husband like a woman who intentionally engaged in relations with another man. However, if she married based on testimony of witnesses, they considered it as though it was an unwitting act of a man with a woman, and she is not forbidden to her husband.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讘谉 拽转谞讬 注砖讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讛讜专讗转谉 讻讝讚讜谉 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 讜诇讗 诪转讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讻砖讙讙转 讗讬砖 讘讗砖讛 讜诪转讬讗 拽专讘谉

Ravina said that this baraita is taught with regard to an offering, and it should be explained as follows: If the court acted in accordance with their own instruction, it is as though this was a willful act of a man with a woman, and she therefore does not bring an offering, as an individual who followed the ruling of the court is exempt from bringing an offering (see Horayot 2a鈥揵). If she married based on testimony of witnesses, it is considered as though this was an unwitting act of a man with a woman, and therefore she brings an offering.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讞讜抓 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜砖谞讬住转 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉

And if you wish, say and refute Rav Sheshet鈥檚 difficulty in the following manner: This first baraita, which exempts forbidden women from a bill of divorce, is the opinion of the Rabbis, who prohibit a woman in this situation to her husband, even if she had married another based on witnesses. And you should answer the difficulty by reading the relevant clause of the baraita as follows: Apart from a married woman who married on the basis of witness testimony, and this includes one who married by permission of the court, as she too requires a bill of divorce.

诪转讬讘 注讜诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讜讛转谞谉 讻转讘 诇砖诐 诪诇讻讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇砖诐 诪诇讻讜转 诪讚讬 诇砖诐 诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谉 诇讘谞讬谉 讛讘讬转 诇讞讜专讘谉 讛讘讬转 讛讬讛 讘诪讝专讞 讜讻转讘 讘诪注专讘 讘诪注专讘 讜讻转讘 讘诪讝专讞

Ulla raised an objection against Rav Sheshet鈥檚 reasoning: Do we say this justification: What could she have done? Is a woman considered to have acted under duress when she had no way to avoid sin? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Gittin 79b): If a man wrote a bill of divorce and dated it according to a kingdom that is not suitable [hogenet], i.e., one that does not reign over their place of residence; or according to the kingdom of Media or according to the kingdom of Greece, which are no longer in existence; or if he dated it according to the building of the Temple or according to the destruction of the Temple; and similarly if the bill of divorce was given in the east and he wrote in it a place in the west, or in the west and he wrote a place in the east, this bill of divorce is invalid.

转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗拽专讜讬讬 诇讙讬讟讗

Consequently, if she married another man she must leave this one and that one, both the one who gave her the bill of divorce and the new husband. And all these matters mentioned in the mishna here, the penalties imposed on a married woman who remarried unlawfully, apply to her. The Gemara asks: But why? Let us say: What could she have done. She acted under duress, as she married again only because she thought the bill of divorce was valid. The Gemara answers: This woman did not act under duress, as she should have had the bill of divorce read by a scholar, who would have told her that it was invalid.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讬讘诪转讜 讜讛诇讻讛 爪专转讛 讜谞砖讗转 讜谞诪爪讗转 讝讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗诪转讜谞讬

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Come and hear a different proof. With regard to one who married his yevama, and the rival wife of the yevama went and married someone else, and this yevama was later discovered to be a sexually underdeveloped woman, which means that she was never eligible for levirate marriage and therefore her act of intercourse did not exempt her rival wife from levirate marriage, the rival wife must leave this one and that one, i.e., her husband must give her a bill of divorce and she may not marry the yavam, and all these matters apply to her. But why? Again, let us say: What could she have done. The Gemara answers: This is no proof, as she should have waited until it was clearly established that the other wife was not a sexually underdeveloped woman.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讗诪专讜 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讛诇讻讜 爪专讜转 讜谞讬砖讗讜 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗诪转讜谞讬

Abaye said: Come and hear: With regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden, with regard to whom the Sages said that they exempt their rival wives, if these rival wives went and married, and one of these forbidden women was discovered to be a sexually underdeveloped woman, which means that the obligation of levirate marriage did not apply to her at all, and it was the rival wives who should have performed levirate marriage, the rival wife must leave both this and that, and all these matters apply to her. But why? Let us say: What could she have done. The Gemara answers as before: She should have waited.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻转讘 住讜驻专 讙讟 诇讗讬砖 讜砖讜讘专 诇讗砖讛 讜讟注讛 讜谞转谉 讙讟 诇讗砖讛 讜砖讜讘专 诇讗讬砖 讜谞转谞讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 讜讝讛 诇讝讛

Rava said: Come and hear: A scribe wrote a bill of divorce for the man and a receipt for the woman, so that the man should give the bill of divorce to his wife and she should give him the receipt upon his delivery of the marriage contract. And the scribe erred and gave the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man, leaving them with the mistaken impression that he had the bill of divorce and she the receipt, and they gave each other the documents, this one to that one and that one to this one.

讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛专讬 讛讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 讛讗讬砖 讜砖讜讘专 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 讛讗砖讛 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗拽专讜讬讬 诇讙讬讟讗

And after a while it became clear that the bill of divorce is in the man鈥檚 possession and the receipt in the woman鈥檚 possession, and no act of divorce had been performed at all. If the woman had married someone else in the meantime she must leave both this one and that one, and all these matters apply to her. But why? Let us say: What could she have done. The Gemara answers: Here too, she should have had the bill of divorce read by an expert.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗拽专讜讬讬 诇讙讬讟讗

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear: If a man changed his name, or his wife鈥檚 name, or the name of his city, or the name of her city, and she remarried, she must leave both this one and that one, and all these matters apply to her. But why? Let us say: What could she have done. The Gemara answers: Once again, she should have had the bill of divorce read by a scholar.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻谞住讛 讘讙讟 拽专讞 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗拽专讜讬讬 诇讙讬讟讗

Ravina said: Come and hear: A man married a woman on the basis that she was divorced. However, she had actually received a bare bill of divorce, i.e., missing a signature. This is referring to a special type of bill of divorce, one that was folded and sewn up. It requires as many witnesses as the number of lines it contains. If a bill of divorce of this kind does not have enough witnesses, it is invalid. In the case of the baraita, if this woman married another man after receiving this bill of divorce, she must leave both this one and this one, and all these penalties apply to her. Again, the question is: What could she have done? The Gemara answers, as before: She should have had the bill of divorce read by someone who could have told her it was invalid.

专讘 驻驻讗 住讘专 诇诪讬注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讘诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞讬 诪转谞讬讬转讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa thought to take action and permit a woman to return to her husband based on the rationale: What could she have done. In a case where she had no means of clarifying the matter, he ruled that she should be considered to have acted under duress. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: But isn鈥檛 it taught repeatedly in all these mishnayot that this argument is not accepted?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗讜 砖谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗砖讬谞讜讬讬 诇讬拽讜 讜诇讬住诪讜讱 (讜驻住拽)

Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: And did we not resolve these mishnayot, by explaining that in those particular cases she did have the option of clarifying the matter? He said to him: And shall we stand and rely on answers? Admittedly, we found some way of resolving these questions, but the accumulation of difficulties indicates that the rationale: What could she have done, is unacceptable. And indeed, Rav Pappa ceased to follow his original intention and did not issue a lenient ruling.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇拽诇讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讛讬 拽诇讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 拽诇讗 讚讘转专 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬

搂 The Gemara discusses the case of the mishna from another perspective. Rav Ashi said: And we are not concerned about a rumor. In other words, if there was an unsubstantiated rumor that the husband was alive, the court takes no notice of it. The Gemara asks: Which kind of rumor does he mean? If we say that this is referring to a rumor that spread after the marriage of this woman to another man, Rav Ashi has already said this once, as Rav Ashi said:

Scroll To Top