Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 268:15

בתרי גופי פלגינן בחד גופא לא פלגינן

of the future.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the husband states 'I divorced my wife', whether he specifies, 'now', or not, he is believed, since he can divorce her there and then; and the woman is regarded as divorced from that day onwards. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> The question was raised: [Is a husband who] testified retrospectively<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Declaring that the divorce took place prior to the date of his statement. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> believed as regards the future?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the woman regarded as divorced from that day onwards. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> Do we divide [his] statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though he is not believed as regards the time that had passed, is his word nevertheless relied upon as regards the future? (V. previous note). ');"><sup>31</sup></span> or do we not divide it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since part of the statement (that relating to the past), is not relied upon, is the entire statement disregarded? ');"><sup>32</sup></span> — R. Mari and R. Zebid [are in dispute on the matter]. One said, 'we do divide', and the other said, 'we do not divide [it]'. Wherein [is this] different from [the law] of Raba? For Raba said: [If a husband testifies,] 'X had intimate intercourse with my wife', he and [one] other [witness] may combine to procure his death;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to kill him'. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> his death, but not her death!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a husband is not qualified to act as witness against his wife. Thus it follows that the evidence is divided; the part relating to the wife being disqualified, that relating to her seducer being accepted as valid. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> — In [the case of] two individuals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba's case dealing with [1] the wife and [2] her seducer. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> we [may] divide [a statement]; in [the case of] one individual<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Retrospectively and prospectively in the case of one woman. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> [it is possible that we may] not divide.

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. B sent A to betroth Leah as his wife on his (B's) behalf. A came to Leah's town, invited the important persons of the community, showed them proof that he acted as B's agent, and appointed witnesses, but when he came to betroth Leah as B's wife, he said: "You are hereby betrothed to me", instead of "You are hereby betrothed to B." When the witnesses objected, A said that it was a slip of the tongue, that he did not intend to betroth Leah as his wife, especially since he was married already and that he would not violate the prohibition of polygamy by Rabbenu Gershom. He, therefore, repeated the ceremony and betrothed Leah to B. Must A divorce Leah before she may marry B?
A. No, A is to be believed that he did not intend to betroth Leah as his wife, and his unintentional act is not valid.
R. Meir adds: I wrote you my opinion but I do not want you to rely on it to free Leah without a divorce until you have inquired of the Rabbis of the surrounding territory and of the Rabbis of France. If they agree with me you may accept the above decision; but if they do not agree with me, their opinion is to take precedence over mine.
SOURCES: Pr. 586, 1015; Mord. Kidd. 522, 548; Tesh. Maim. to Nashim, 3.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. B sent A to betroth Leah as his wife on his (B's) behalf. A came to Leah's town, invited the important persons of the community, showed them proof that he acted as B's agent, and appointed witnesses, but when he came to betroth Leah as B's wife, he said: "You are hereby betrothed to me", instead of "You are hereby betrothed to B." When the witnesses objected, A said that it was a slip of the tongue, that he did not intend to betroth Leah as his wife, especially since he was married already and that he would not violate the prohibition of polygamy by Rabbenu Gershom. He, therefore, repeated the ceremony and betrothed Leah to B. Must A divorce Leah before she may marry B?
A. No, A is to be believed that he did not intend to betroth Leah as his wife, and his unintentional act is not valid.
R. Meir adds: I wrote you my opinion but I do not want you to rely on it to free Leah without a divorce until you have inquired of the Rabbis of the surrounding territory and of the Rabbis of France. If they agree with me you may accept the above decision; but if they do not agree with me, their opinion is to take precedence over mine.
SOURCES: Pr. 586, 1015; Mord. Kidd. 522, 548; Tesh. Maim. to Nashim, 3.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull Chapter