Yevamot 170

Chapter 170

א קנסו אותו כתובה ומפני מה אמרו שניות מדברי סופרים אין להן כתובה מפני שהוא כשר והיא כשרה וכל מקום שהוא כשר והיא כשרה קנסו אותה כתובה
1 [the Rabbis] have penalized him [by ordering him to pay her] <i>kethubah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman is already penalized by a marriage which taints both herself and her husband and which is naturally followed by an unhappy family life. In such circumstances the woman would either not consent to marriage or would be anxious to have such a union severed at the earliest possible moment. The penalty was, therefore, imposed upon the husband. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> And why was it ordained that relatives of the second grade of kinship, [who are forbidden] by the ordinances of the Rabbis, are not to receive their <i>kethubah</i>? Because the man remains fit and the woman remains fit, and wherever he as well as she remains fit [the Rabbis] have penalized her [by depriving her of her] <i>kethubah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that she might, in consequence, be deterred from contracting such a marriage or, if contracted, be anxious to have it severed. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> Rabbi said, 'The former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'those', the marriage of a widow to a High Priest and that of a divorcee or haluzah to a common priest. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> are prohibitions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'words'. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> of the Torah, and prohibitions of the Torah require no reinforcement;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there was no need to deprive the woman of her kethubah. Cf. supra n. 1. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ב רבי אומר הללו דברי תורה ודברי תורה אין צריכין חיזוק והללו דברי סופרים ודברי סופרים צריכין חיזוק דבר אחר זהו מרגילה וזו היא מרגילתו
2 while the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marriages with relatives of the second grade of kinship. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> are prohibitions of the scribes, and the prohibitions of the scribes require reinforcement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 1. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> Another reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why in the former case the man is to pay the kethubah while in the latter the woman loses her kethubah. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> is: In the former case the man induces the woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., '(in) this he leads her'. [H] denom. of [H] 'foot' (cf. Jast.). Colds. (a.l.) renders 'befleckt er sie'. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> [into the marriage];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman is reluctant to contract a marriage which taints her and her children. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ג דבר אחר מאן קתני לה איכא דאמר ר"ש בן אלעזר קתני לה ומה טעם קאמר מה טעם אמרו הוא פסול והיא פסולה קנסו אותו כתובה מפני שהוא מרגילה ומה טעם הוא כשר והיא כשרה קנסו אותה כתובה מפני שהיא מרגילתו
3 in the latter case she induces him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the marriage subjects neither the woman nor her children to any disability, it is assumed that she, as a woman, is more anxious than the man to marry. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> Who stated the 'other reason'? One opinion asserts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is (one) who said'. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> that it was R. Simeon b. Eleazar who stated it; and he gave an answer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he said'. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> [to the question] 'what is the reason'. 'What is the reason', [he said in effect,] 'why it was ordained that when the man is unfit and the woman is unfit the man is penalized by having to pay the <i>kethubah</i>? Because he induces the woman into the marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra notes 8 and 9. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> And what is the reason why when he remains fit and she remains fit she is penalized by losing her <i>kethubah</i>? Because she induces him, [into the marriage'].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 10. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ד איכא דאמר רבי קתני לה וחלוצה קא קשיא ליה והא חלוצה דרבנן ואית לה כתובה הדר אמר כיון דפסיל לה מדרבנן זהו מרגילה וזו היא מרגילתו
4 Another opinion asserts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is (one) who said'. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> that it was Rabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had previously explained that the reason why the woman was deprived of her kethubah was because prohibitions of the scribes require reinforcement. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> who stated it, because the case of the <i>haluzah</i> presented to him the following difficulty: A <i>haluzah</i>, surely, is only Rabbinically [forbidden to be married to a common priest]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 78a. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> and yet she receives her <i>kethubah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If Rabbinical prohibitions require reinforcement the haluzah should not have been entitled to her kethubah. (Cf. supra p. 576, n. 2). ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Thereupon he stated: Since the man disqualifies her by Rabbinical law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ (a) According to Rashi: from eating terumah; (b) MS.M. reads: 'he disqualifies her seed by rabbinic law'. Cf. also Me'iri]. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
ה מאי איכא בין רבי לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אמר רב חסדא ממזרת ונתינה לישראל איכא בינייהו
5 it is he, [who in the former case], induces<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 576, n. 8. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> her [into marriage]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman is reluctant to contract such a union. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> but in the latter case it is she that induces him [into marriage].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 576, n. 10. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> What practical difference is there between [the reason given by] Rabbi and [that given by] R. Simeon b. Eleazar? — R. Hisda replied: The practical difference between them is the case of a bastard or a nethinah [who was married] to an Israelite. According to him who gave the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why in the former case, supra, the woman is entitled to her kethubah. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> that [the prohibitions were] Pentateuchal, then this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the bastard or the nethinah. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
ו מ"ד דאורייתא הא נמי דאורייתא מ"ד מפני שהוא מרגילה הא היא מרגלא ליה
6 also is Pentateuchal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the woman is, therefore, entitled to her kethubah. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> but according to him who gave as the reason,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why in the former case, supra, the woman is entitled to her kethubah. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> that the man induces the woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the marriage. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> then here, it is she that induces him [into the marriage].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She, being in any case forbidden to marry an Israelite, has nothing to lose by her marriage which, under certain conditions, may even be advantageous to her, since according to R. Tarfon (cf. Kid. 69a, supra 78a), it may enable her descendants to become proper Israelites. The woman, therefore, loses her kethubah. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> According to R. Eliezer, however, who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Disagreeing with the view of R. Tarfon. (Cf. supra n. 11). ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
ז ולרבי אליעזר דאמר הרי זה עבד וממזר הא לא מרגלא ליה ולא מידי אלא אמר רב יוסף מחזיר גרושה משניסת איכא בינייהו מאן דאמר דאורייתא הא נמי דאורייתא ומאן דאמר מפני שהוא מרגילה הא היא מרגלא ליה
7 stated, 'Behold he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son of a union between a bastard and a slave. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> is both a slave and a bastard',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And can never become a legitimate Israelite. Cf. Kid. 69a. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> the woman, surely, would not induce the man at all!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should she lose her kethubah? ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — Rather, said R. Joseph, the practical difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi and R. Simeon b Eleazar. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> is the case of the man who remarried his divorced wife after she had been married.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After she had been married to another man. V. Rashi and cf. BaH a.l. Cur. edd. read, 'a divorced woman after she had been married'. ');"><sup>33</sup></span>
ח ולרבי עקיבא דאמר יש ממזר מחייבי לאוין הא לא מרגלא ליה ולא מידי אלא אמר רב פפא בעולה לכ"ג איכא בינייהו מאן דאמר דאורייתא הא נמי דאורייתא ומאן דאמר מפני שהוא מרגילה הא היא מרגלא ליה
8 According to him who gave the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 57, n. 7. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> that [the prohibitions were] Pentateuchal, then this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The remarriage of one's divorcee. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> also is Pentateuchal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is pentateuchally forbidden to marry such a woman. (V. Deut. XXIV, 4). Cf. supra p. 57, n. 9. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> but according to him who gave as the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 57, n. 7. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> that the man induces the woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the marriage. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
ט ולר' אליעזר בן יעקב דאמר יש חלל מחייבי עשה הא לא מרגלא ליה ולא מידי אלא אמר רב אשי מחזיר ספק סוטתו איכא בינייהו
9 then here, surely, she induces him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the prohibition was addressed to the man; and neither the woman nor her children are subject to any disability in consequence of such a marriage. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> But according to R. Akiba who stated that the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of a negative precept is deemed to be a bastard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 49a. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> she,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The divorced woman who has been married to another man and whose remarriage with her first husband is forbidden by a negative precept. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> surely, would not induce the man at all!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She would not be anxious to contract a union the issue from which would be bastards. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> Rather, said R. Papal the practical difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Eleazar. ');"><sup>42</sup></span>
י מ"ד דאורייתא הא נמי דאורייתא ומ"ד מפני שהוא מרגילה הא היא מרגלא ליה ולר' מתיא בן חרש דאמר אפי' הלך בעלה להשקותה ובא עליה בדרך עשאה זונה הא לא מרגלא ליה ולא מידי אלא אמר מר בר רב אשי סוטה ודאי איכא בינייהו:
10 is the case of a be'ulah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman who has lost her virginity. v. Glos. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> [who was married] to a High Priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a union is forbidden under the positive precept. A virgin&nbsp;… shall he take (Lev. XXI, 14), and not by a negative one. A negative precept derived from a positive has only the force of a positive. The offspring therefore, would be no bastard even according to R. Akiba. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> According to him who gave as the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 57, n. 7. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> that [the prohibitions were] Pentateuchal, then this case also is Pentateuchal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 11 and supra p. 57, n. 9. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> but according to him who gave as the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 57, n. 7. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
יא <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בת ישראל מאורסת לכהן מעוברת מכהן שומרת יבם לכהן וכן בת כהן לישראל לא תאכל בתרומה בת ישראל מאורסת ללוי מעוברת מלוי שומרת יבם ללוי וכן בת לוי לישראל לא תאכל במעשר
11 that the man induces the woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the marriage. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> then here, surely, it is she that induces him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 5. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> According to R. Eliezer b. Jacob, however, who stated that the offspring of a union that is forbidden under a positive precept is deemed a halal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 600. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> she,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A be'ulah. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> surely, would not at all induce him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since such a marriage would render her child a halal. ');"><sup>49</sup></span>
יב בת לוי מאורסת לכהן מעוברת מכהן שומרת יבם לכהן וכן בת כהן ללוי לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר:
12 Rather, said R. Ashi, the practical difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Eleazar. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> is the case of the man who cohabits again with his doubtful sotah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Such a woman is pentateuchally forbidden to her husband though the offspring of the union is not regarded as a bastard. V. supra 49b. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> According to him who stated that the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 57, n. 7. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> is that [the prohibition is] Pentateuchal, then this case also is Pentateucha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 5. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> but according to him who stated that the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 57, n. 7. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
יג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ותהא זרה זרה מי לא אכלה במעשר אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל הא מני ר"מ היא דאמר מעשר ראשון אסור לזרים דתניא
13 is that the man induces the woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the marriage. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> here it is she that induces him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 5. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> And according to R. Mathia b. Heresh who stated that even a woman whose husband, while going to arrange for her drinking [of the water of bitterness]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. V, 18f. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> cohabited with her on the way, is rendered a harlot, she,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The doubtful sotah. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> surely, would not at all induce him [to such a marriage]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would render her a harlot and her children bastards. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> Rather, said Mar b. R. Ashi, the practical difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi and R. Eleazar b. Simeon. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> is the case of a confirmed sotah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is Pentateuchally forbidden to her husband though their offspring is not deemed to be a bastard. As she herself is in any case forbidden to marry a priest she has nothing to lose by cohabiting with her husband, and she would consequently persuade him to live with her again. Hence the ordinance that in such a case she loses the rights to her kethubah. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS BETROTHED TO A PRIEST, WAS PREGNANT FROM A PRIEST, OR WAS AWAITING THE DECISION OF A LEVIR WHO WAS A PRIEST; AND, SIMILARLY, THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST [WHO STOOD IN SUCH RELATIONSHIP] TO AN ISRAELITE, MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained supra 67b. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS BETROTHED TO A LEVITE, WAS PREGNANT FROM A LEVITE, OR WAS AWAITING THE DECISION OF A LEVIR WHO WAS A LEVITE; AND, SIMILARLY, THE DAUGHTER OF A LEVITE [WHO STOOD IN SUCH RELATIONSHIP] TO AN ISRAELITE MAY NOT EAT TITHE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the due of the Levites. V. Num. XVIII, 24. ');"><sup>57</sup></span> THE DAUGHTER OF A LEVITE WHO WAS BETROTHED TO A PRIEST, WAS PREGNANT FROM A PRIEST, OR WAS AWAITING THE DECISION OF A LEVIR WHO WAS A PRIEST; AND, SIMILARLY, THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST [WHO STOOD IN SUCH RELATIONSHIP TO A LEVITE, MAY EAT NEITHER <i>TERUMAH</i> NOR TITHE. GEMARA. And granted that she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter of the Israelite or the Levite who was betrothed etc. to a Levite and an Israelite respectively. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> is [no more than] an ordinary woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (masc. [H]), lit., 'a stranger', not of priestly, or levitical stock. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> is not any ordinary woman permitted to eat tithe?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course she is. Why, then, does our Mishnah forbid it? ');"><sup>60</sup></span> R. Nahman replied in the name of Samuel: This ruling represents the view of R. Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this, who is it? It is R. Meir'. ');"><sup>61</sup></span> who stated: The first tithe is forbidden to common people.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 74a. Cf. supra note 1 and p. 579, n. 7. ');"><sup>62</sup></span> For it was taught: