Bava Batra 268

ליורשו פשיטא לפטור את אשתו מן היבום אצטריכא ליה

As regards the right of heirship! Is it not obvious [that a father is believed]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, were he not his real son there was no need for the father falsely to declare him as an heir. He could have assigned the estate to him as a gift. ');">¹</span> — [The statement] was required in respect of the exemption of his wife from levirate marriage. Surely, this also has been taught [elsewhere]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 64a. ');">²</span>

הא נמי תנינא מי שאמר בשעת מיתתו יש לי בנים נאמן יש לי אחים אינו נאמן

'A person who declared at the time of his death, 'I have sons', is believed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his wife is exempt from levirate marriage. ');">³</span> [If he declared], 'I have a brother', he is not believed'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra n. 6. Why, then, should the same law be repeated in our Mishnah? ');">⁴</span>

התם דלא מוחזק לן באח הכא אף על גב דמוחזק ליה באח

— There, [the law refers to the case] where it was not known [that he had] a brother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or sons; and the question of halizah (V., Glos.) could only arise through his own statement. Hence, he is believed only in so far as he does not impair the freedom of the widow. ');">⁵</span> [but] here [it refers] even [to a case] where it is known<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is a general belief, but not reliable evidence. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מפני מה אמרו זה בני נאמן הואיל ובעל שאמר גרשתי את אשתי נאמן

that he had a brother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah teaches that, even in such a case, where owing to general belief the widow might be assumed to be subject to the laws of levirate marriage, the husband's statement that he has sons exempts her from the levirate marriage (V. infra). The second clause, according to which the statement, 'This is my brother' is not accepted, does not deal with the question of levirate, but with that of inheritance; v. Mishnah and notes a.l. ');">⁷</span> R. Joseph said in the name of Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: Why has it been stated [that if a person said], 'This is my son', he is believed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his widow is, accordingly, exempt from the Ievirate marriage. ');">⁸</span>

א"ר יוסף מריה דאברהם תלי תניא בדלא תניא

— Because a husband who said, 'I divorced my wife', is believed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If his statement, then, were not true, and motivated only by a desire to liberate his wife from the levirate marriage, or halizah, he could have stated that he divorced her, and would thus have achieved the Same object. ');">⁹</span> 'God of Abraham', exclaimed R. Joseph.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph, as a result of serious illness, forgot his studies and many of his own statements (v. Ned. 41a). He was here wondering how he could possibly have made such a statement in the name of his masters. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אי אתמר הכי איתמר א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל מפני מה אמרו זה בני נאמן הואיל ובידו לגרשה

'could he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah. ');">¹¹</span> have proved<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'suspended'. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב יוסף השתא דאמרת אמרינן הואיל בעל שאמר גרשתי את אשתי נאמן הואיל ובידו לגרשה

that which we have learnt from that which we have not learnt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of the reliability of a father's statement in respect of a son has been taught in the Mishnah, while that in respect of the divorce of a wife does not occur either in a Mishnah or a Baraitha. ');">¹³</span> If, however, that statement was made, it must have been in the following terms;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but if it were said, it was said thus'. ');">¹⁴</span>

כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן בעל שאמר גרשתי את אשתי אינו נאמן מנפח רב ששת בידיה אזל ליה הואיל דרב יוסף

Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Why has it been stated [that if a person said]. 'This is my son', he is believed? — Because it is in his power to divorce her'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he could divorce her there and then and then liberate her from the levirate marriage, and halizah, he is also believed when he states, 'this is my son'. (Cf. p. 565, n. 10). ');">¹⁵</span> 'Now that you have accepted the principle of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that you said, we say'. ');">¹⁶</span>

איני והא א"ר חייא בר אבין אמר רבי יוחנן בעל שאמר גרשתי את אשתי נאמן

Because',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Because it is in his power etc., i.e., the principle that a person is believed regarding what he said, because it is in any case in his power to achieve his object. ');">¹⁷</span> continued<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'said'. ');">¹⁸</span>

לא קשיא כאן למפרע

R. Joseph, 'a husband is believed if he stated "I divorced my wife", because it is in his power to divorce her'. When R. Isaac b. Joseph came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">¹⁹</span>

כאן להבא

he stated in the name of R. Johanan: A husband who said, 'I divorced my wife', is not believed. R. Shesheth blew upon his hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As though blowing away some imaginary fluff. ');">²⁰</span> [exclaiming]. 'R. Joseph's "because"<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supran note 1. ');">²¹</span>

איבעיא להו אמר למפרע מהו להימוניה להבא

has gone'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Johanan's view is definitely opposed to it' ');">²²</span> [But] it is not [so]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Johanan's view is not in disagreement with the principle adopted by R. Joseph. ');">²³</span>

מי פלגינן דבורא או לא פלגינן דבורא רב מארי ורב זביד חד אמר פלגינן וחד אמר לא פלגינן

For, surely, R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Johanan: A husband who stated, 'I divorced my wife', is believed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This confirms the view of R. Joseph. It reveals, however, a contradiction between the two statements if R. Johanan ');">²⁴</span> There is no difficulty: One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here', R. Isaac's report that the husband is not believed. ');">²⁵</span>

מאי שנא מדרבא דאמר רבא איש פלוני בא על אשתי הוא ואחר מצטרפין להורגו להורגו ולא להורגה

[speaks] retrospectively;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the husband states that his wife was divorced prior to the date of his statement, he is not believed since he cannot now divorce her retrospectively, and she is regarded as a married woman at least up to that date, v. infra. ');">²⁶</span> the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here', the report of R. Hiyya. ');">²⁷</span>

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. ');">²⁸</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. ');">²⁹</span> believed as regards the future?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the woman regarded as divorced from that day onwards. ');">³⁰</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). ');">³¹</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? ');">³²</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'. ');">³³</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. ');">³⁴</span> — In [the case of] two individuals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba's case dealing with [1] the wife and [2] her seducer. ');">³⁵</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. ');">³⁶</span> [it is possible that we may] not divide.