Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Yevamot 48:14

רב מוקי לה למתניתין ביש לה בנים ויש לה עדים ומאי דוחקיה דרב לאוקמי למתניתין ביש לה בנים ויש לה עדים וטעמא דאיכא עדים מפקינן ואי ליכא עדים לא מפקינן לוקמה בשאין לה בנים אע"ג דליכא עדים

What, however, impels Rab to explain our Mishnah as dealing with a case where she has children and where witnesses against her are available, and to give as the reason why she is to be taken away, because witnesses are available, and [to imply that] if witnesses are not available she is not taken away; let him rather explain [our Mishnah as dealing with the case] where she has no children [and has to be taken away] even though no witnesses are available! Raba replied: Our Mishnah presented a difficulty to him. What point was there [he argued] for using the expression 'WAS TAKEN AWAY'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'they (i.e. Beth din) took her away'. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> It should have been stated 'he parted from her';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'he (i.e., the husband) brought her out'. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> but any such expression as '<i>was taken</i> away' implies 'by the Beth din' and the <i>Beth din</i> take away only where witnesses are available.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No wife may be taken away from her husband because of a mere rumour or suspicion. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> If you prefer I may say that that Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which requires a wife who had no children to leave her husband even where no witnesses are available. ');"><sup>50</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A, of priestly lineage, saw his wife L go to a secluded place with a certain young man. They stayed there only for a short time, for L's mother walked toward them with a lighted candle. On another occasion, while lying in bed late at night, A heard, on the other side of the wall, the heavy breathing of his wife and the young man as they were arduously embracing each other, which to him was clearly indicative of consummated sexual intercourse. The same incident was repeated on another night. On these occasions L was late coming to bed. Next morning, however, when A rebuked L for her lewd conduct, she protested vigorously. Nevertheless A was convinced that his wife commited adultery and was, therefore, forbidden to him. A had always loved and catered to L, but she had never returned that love, and had never submitted to him willingly.
Rabbi Hezekiah b. Jacob, to whom the question was first submitted, ruled that L be forbidden to A.
A. One judge is not at liberty to permit what another has prohibited. Were I present at the time when Rabbi Hezekiah received the query, I would have argued the case with him. A woman is not forbidden to her husband unless either: a) the husband is jealous of a certain man, and warns her against private meetings with this man, and the wife disregards this warning in the presence of witnesses; or b) they actually be found in a position indicative of fornication. But, heavy breathing itself is no indication that illicit sexual intercourse took place. Therefore, I shall wait till Rabbi Hezekiah recuperates from his illness, whereupon I shall discuss this matter with him.
SOURCES: Pr. 98; Am II, 63; Rashba I 832–3; Tesh. Maim. to Ishut, 8; Hag. Mord. Kidd. 549. Cf. Asher, Responsa 32, 11; Weil, Responsa 8; ibid. 88; Israel Bruno, Responsa 5; ibid. 7; Isserlein, Pesakim 222.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse